Different Satanic organisations. | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » General » General Discussion
Merc Feb 16 '17

In this day and age of fairly easy self publishing, the internet and how it's not too difficult to create your own website if you know how, and even more easily to create a Facebook group, there seems to be countless Satanic Organisations. Off the top of my head, I can think ok:

The Church of Satan (Obviously)

The First Satanic Church

The Satanic Temple

The Temple of Set

The Cathedral of Satan

The Cathedral of the Black Goat

Ordo Templi Orientis

Order of Nine Angels

The Temple of the Black Light

There's quite a few others that I've seen or heard about while clicking around on the internet and Facebook that I can't remember the names of. I would imagine there's also countless others that I've never seen or heard about.
How does everyone feel about this? Do you think it's a good thing, a bad thing, or are you completely indifferent? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. 

The Forum post is edited by Merc Feb 16 '17
Merc Feb 16 '17
Personally, I feel it is a bad thing. It seems to just muddy the waters and devalue Satanism as a whole. 

I could quite easily decide that, after reading The Satanic Bible, I agree with 95% of it. However, rather than just admitting that while I agree with Satanism for the most part, but am not really a Satanist, I could quite easily create my own organisation and give it a similar sounding name to CoS, "The Satanic Order," or something similar and claim to be the High Priest. My version of Satanism is almost exactly like LaVayan Satanism, but with a few minor tweeks to fit my personal views on certain topics. I then create a Facebook page and/or a website where I publish my own essays and things. Which basically reflect LaVey, but not 100% identical.

If I was to do that, would I be a legitimate Satanist? Or would I just be someone who agrees with LaVey for the most part, but not entirely and wanted for whatever reason to still identify as a Satanist, despite not fully agreeing with it? 

Merc Feb 17 '17
I see your point, but it doesn't address my question.

As for Satanism being a free thinking religion, to what extent does do you feel that means you can change things and still keep calling Satanism?

Merc Feb 18 '17
I don't mean to sound rude or blunt, but your post didn't address my question because I asked a specific question and your post didn't answer it. 

I also asked to what extent you felt that one can change things to suit their personal agenda and continue to identify as a Satanist?

Merc Feb 18 '17
I do agree that Satanists are born and not made, which was something that Anton LaVey was very adamant about also. However, when he said that, I believe he was referring to people reading The Satanic Bible and realising that that's how they already think and feel etc and then realise that they have always been a Satanist. Rather, than reading it and deciding to convert to Satanism and changing how they think or feel in order to be in line with his philosophy.

My point that all these multiple Satanic organisations with varying degree of similarities and differences between with LaVey and The Satanic Bible seem to just pale imitations with certain points changed to suit the founder's own agenda.  

Merc Feb 18 '17
That's an interesting opinion.

Does anyone else have anything to say on the subject?

Troll Member
Troll Jun 13 '18

Groups are just like crutches. They help initially for people to get momentum and become established in their re-embedment as part of the Great Martyrdom Cult. After that they are more predatory upon individuals.


> If I was to do {publish, etc....}, would I be a legitimate Satanist? ....

All Satanists who are not stupidly self-destructive and operating against their own values are worthwhile, and therefore legitimate.

> ...to what extent do you feel that means you can change things

> and still keep calling Satanism?

To the extent that it serves me, and, for my own purposes (ones which i find are legitimate), as long as it keys to particular elements of the subversion ideologies taught by Christians and Muslims, re-embedding them into something that serves me and those i care about.

> ...identify as a Satanist?

There is no central Satanic authority. Do as you please. Ignore all others.

Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism

The Forum post is edited by Troll Jun 13 '18
AK Jul 1 '18
Let's take a look at the "Satanic" organizations listed in the OP. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty hard-pressed to think of a single thing all of them would agree upon aside from that all the others listed are hilariously misguided and not "troo" forms of Satanism. (barring, of course entries like OTO who really shouldn't be on that list to begin with

I don't see this as a problem. It's more of a feature:

"A devil who had unity would be a God." 

If ever such a unity were to occur, it would have the effect of relegating "Satanism" to just another Christian offshoot and rendering those who oppose this god the new heretics and satanists.

The Forum post is edited by AK Jul 1 '18
AK Jul 1 '18
These Satanic organizations don't want to be linked with one another. If ever they change their mind on that issue, it would be a matter for them and not random people on a social network to hash-out. 

From a philosophical perspective, it's not an easy sell to proffer up Satan as a the impetus driving unification regarding any human endeavor. You can expect a ton of push-back on that front alone. It's just more thematically consistent to cast him as a catalyst for disruption. Iconoclastic. 

Now, if you're talking myth making - plenty of people have done it with varying amounts of success, though only within their own spheres. For instance, I can create a myth insisting that Mohamed was actually Maitreya thus unifying Islam and Buddhism. I might even get a small set of whackados to buy into my crazy notion that Islam is the true Dharma, but it won't do much to actually unify the two. I just would have succeeded only in creating yet another bizarre organization to add to a list of other bizarre organisations who want nothing to do with any of what I'm about. 

Now, when you say "Christians really did a number on us over the centuries". Which Christians are you talking about? Catholics? Protestants? Eastern Orthodox? Anabaptists? The Amish??? And which us are you referring to? I've only been alive 38 years or so. I have yet to face the inquisitors. Was it their giving Satan a bad reputation? If that's the case, it's sort of like being angry at JK Rowling for making Voldemort out to be the bad guy and accusing her of lying about his true character. No one held a gun to anyone's head forcing them to use "Satanist" as a descriptor. If ever a number was done on anyone, it was of our doing to ourselves and of our own free will for however misguidedly optimistic. 

If you're talking about what Christianity did to our "ancestors" (if you're one of those people) - one would have to go back about 50(!) generations to reach the era of Constantine when paganism was outlawed in the Roman empire. So 50 generations of one's ancestors were either too incapable or too indifferent to go about exacting their revenge, yet somehow this is going to be the one to do it? That's funny, because from where I stand that's like still being upset over the sinking of the Lusitania - and that was much, much, much more recent. 

Lastly, most "Satanists" tend to agree that its promotion of selfishness and ego is starkly at odds with the level of self-sacrifice and martyrdom required of those desiring to form a church in the traditional sense. The impetus toward forming a church as such makes one a Satanist in name only. It is no different than someone who calls themselves a Nazi, while supporting racial equality and cultural plurality. 

The Forum post is edited by AK Jul 1 '18
AK Jul 4 '18

Sure, but you're referring to things that took place before the generation of which I am a member. In order to get the buy-in from me, you're going to have to cite specific examples taking place in the US currently where these faiths are actively setting out to damage those who don't affiliate with them. Otherwise we're basically no different than black people rioting and protesting against "the man" simply because the United States, once upon a time, allowed for and prospered on the back of chatle slavery despite the obvious fact that none of the people protesting were ever personally effected by that. They never picked cotton and I never owned slaves. 

Similarly, neither you nor I have ever been subject to inquisition, so on my list of things-to-stand-against organized religion ranks very, very, very low. Besides, the fact that you and I can even have this conversation with impunity is evidence enough that the threat of organized religion is anything but. While I agree with you that the drug war is utterly ridiculous, that's an issue in and of itself that stands totally apart from any religious implications. You can't have it both ways: decrying organized religion's involvement with government on the one hand, while appealing to the religious merits of drug use as reasons for its legalization on the other.

Even when we get to matters of legislation and what not, the reality implicit to Satanism is essentially that man is his own god and sole arbiter of the thou shalts and shalt nots. A Satanist isn't going to wait on a writ or decree from a higher authority, be it God or government, to commit an act or partake of a substance. Such permissions were never required, much less asked for.

Now, if I were genuinely interested in cooperating to make the world a better place or what have you, the very first thing I would do is drop the label Satanist entirely from my cause, and for obvious reasons. It's a no-brainer. If I want to market a soft drink to the public, I'm not going advertise it as "urine and vomit flavor" - especially when it actually tastes like cherries and sunshine. Similarly if I want to get people to support a cause I care about, because I'm not autistic and can actually see things from other people's perspective, I'm going to do everything I can to make it palatable and easy to affiliate with. Satan just isn't one of those things. It's good at grabbing headlines, but aside from that it attracts either people with serious mental issues, angsty teenagers, liberals who like the color black, iconoclasts who want to watch the world burn, the occasional acerbic and misanthropic intellectual, or occultists who just don't know any better. It's a very niche market - one that appeals to possibly 10s of thousands world-wide at best. It's not going over-turn centuries old idealogies with billions-with-a-B adherants.  That's not its function, anyhow.

With regard to circumsiscion, that also ranks very, very, very low on the things I actually care about. The fate of other people's penises just doesn't show up on my radar. 

When I first showed up as Satanic? Lol. You're talking almost as if it was like coming-out of the closet or something. I never had this sort of negative experience. I've always been something of a mercurial kid with strange ideas and no real issue vocalizing them. It was always at least somewhat "suspected". My character preceded the open affiliation or philosophical resonance. I could not possibly care less about the social credit of other quote-unquote Satanists. For 1) Any Satanist worth their salt would not need my help or approval, and 2) if a person is so terribly concerned with their social credit to begin with then I would ask them to question what real value there is for them in adopting an inherently loaded label such as "Satanist". A rose by any other name, and really, no one held a gun to any one's head forcing them to openly declare themselves a Satanist. If there is push-back, they really only have themselves to blame for it. 

The few people that participate here can have nuanced opinions regarding all things "Satan" "Satanic" "Satanism" til the cows come home, but if you think that honestly has any bearing on what nearly everyone actually thinks these words mean, that's nothing short of myopic. These words have meanings, like every other word in the English language, and what's right there looking back at you when you look them up in the dictionary is what you can expect nearly everyone to go-on so yeah, there might be some push-back. You can't just run around calling yourself a Nazi based upon some small intellectual minority's re-interpretation of the word and expect nothing to come of it.  

"Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself" 

or, as I like to say "Most 'Satanists' aren't" - and that works both ways.

The Forum post is edited by AK Jul 4 '18
AK Jul 4 '18
What in the name of poor reading comprehension lead you to infer I was proferring anything for you to buy-into, consider you a Nazi, and that I thought anyone needed my approval? 

Satan, Satanism, and Satanic are words and these words, like Nazi, in the mind of the general public, don't mean anything *good*. The general public is not at fault taking these labels at face value. If anyone is given a hard time about adopting any such label, its their own damn fault and I do not feel one shred of pity for them about it. Some people who choose to wear kick-me signs will get kicked. It's not really a feature of the universe worth correcting on behalf of other fellow kick-me sign wearers.

The Forum post is edited by AK Jul 4 '18
AK Jul 9 '18

Quote from DirtBadIt's refreshing to find another voice online who speaks their mind.
Likewise. That's the standard I attempt to cultivate here by trolling away the obvious flakes while offering vigorous (and at times incendiary) counter-points to just about any sacred cow. 

After all, while there are many reasons for associating one's world-view with the Satan, the drive to slaughter sacred cows is a near-universal impetus behind the adoption the mantle - probably the only universal aspect "we" can all agree on. What I lament is that once this label has been acknowledged, many then turn their attention to the nurturing and defending new sacred cows deemed far too sacrosanct to scrutinize, much less dismember. This is a grave error. 

Having questioned and successfully transcended the pervasive and common morality of the masses by rejecting the spiritual ethos from which it is derived, it never occurred to me to come full-stop and accept an alternate morality from without in its place - i.e. a Satanic purpose / cause / agenda / value-system. It was never about the rejection of a status quo morality per se, but rather a total rejection of any and all of that which by its very nature would coerce my solitary values and objectives even slightly. 

Among these solitary values and objectives of mine, acceptance has never been at the forefront for me personally. Additionally, that others are accepted simply because they use a name I resonate with to describe their world view is not only not a value of mine at all, but also pretty asinine in my opinion. This notion of universal acceptance of "Satanism": it's just another sacred cow. Who says Satanists should be accepted? that acceptance should be a value of theirs? It's certainly not one of mine. It doesn't' even seem congruent with the basic premise.

Quote from DirtBadMy complaint is for the rest of the USA to let go of Christ and accept Satan, considering the national policy and general way of life in this evil, accursed land. Religious freedom in the name of Satan.

Isn't that what every evangelical Christian is doing only in reverse? What of the Jews? What of the Muslims? Or Buddhists for that matter? It hardly makes sense to assume they're clutching at Christ, and I know exactly what Satan means to them. I cannot possibly get my head far enough up my own ass to see any possibility of them coming to accept it.

Here's an analogy: I already have the right to run up and down my neighborhood addressing everyone I see as nigger - especially the niggers. Nigger nigger nigger. I can already do this. What I can't do is insist that every nigger I call a nigger accept that I use this word with open arms, and what I won't do is make it an objective of mine to see to it that they do simply to protect others who would love only to use the word without accepting any of the repercussions that come with it. It is the repercussions that come with uttering it which gives it its power. To nullify these repercussions is to castrate the word and the principle behind its utterance itself. 

The exact same principle applies with Satanism. 

Moreover, I am in favor of the very degeneracy, divisiveness  and deviance Satan symbolizes. I do not disagree with Christianity's valuation of what he represents. Say what you will about them, they're not wrong about their own theology. Satan represents everything they say it does. If it didn't, then I wouldn't use that word.

The Forum post is edited by AK Jul 9 '18
Merc Jul 10 '18
Okay, some interesting replies here, but gone a bit off topic towards the end. 

For example, if I was to read The Satanic Bible and other works by LaVey and Gilmore etc and agree 100% with all of it except one minor point. Say for example, the rule that says "Never harm non-human animals unless you're attacked or for your food." I'm a vegetarian and I decide that you should never harm animals unless you're attacked, but for your food isn't sufficient justification for harming an animal. 

However, I still want to call myself a Satanist, despite disagreeing with this one fairly small thing. So I start my own Satanic organisation and call it "The Satanic Order" and appoint myself the high priest. Completely separate from The Church of Satan and other existing organisations.

In this scenario am I:

1) A perfectly legitimate Satanic High Priest

2) A regular LaVeyan CoS Satanist with too much of an ego

3) A deluded egomaniac who's not a Satanist at all

4) Something else entirely? 

Not interested in hearing what people think of LaVey and/or Gilmore at this stage, just curious what people think of that particular scenario.

AK Jul 10 '18
The Church of Satan's stance is that a Satanist is someone who agrees with the Satanic Bible 100%. This is, of course, according to the Church of Satan. How much weight that actually carries varies from person to person. 

Regardless, your given scenario does not present any incongruity what so ever. To be blunt, it's not even a very interesting one. "Never harm non-human animals unless you're attacked or for your food" just isn't that hard to parse. It states simply that the only conditions in which a person would be justified in harming a non-human animal is if they are attacked or for food. The emphasis is on the not harming of non-human animals except under two notable extenuating circumstances. Your own personal principles just so happen to preclude one of those exceptions from ever being applicable; which is all the better as far as the main thrust of not harming non-human animals is concerned. 

As far as forming a whole new order based upon this manufactured non-point of contention goes, the internet is a big place. Far more absurd things have been attempted by far more delusional nut-cases. I'd count you as one among the countless of such types. Hypothetically speaking, of course. If the thrust of your particular brand of Satanism were to explicitly insist that all Satanists must be vegetarians - that if you aren't a vegetarian you're not a Satanist - then you'd get additional fruit-loop cred.  

The Forum post is edited by AK Jul 10 '18
Merc Jul 10 '18
Yes, I understand what that rule means and that it's easy to parse and to fit it around one's personal values. 

I used it simply as an example of changing something very minor within the CoS and copying everything else exactly and using that minor change to merit starting my own organisation and in order to give myself a title or a position of authority within that organisation. Also in order to pose the question that if someone was to do that, would it make them one of the four things mentioned in my previous post. 

AK Jul 10 '18
The organisations mentioned in the OP have more than just minor differences between each other. The differences are significant. 

An example of an organization that has only minor differences between it and the C/S is the FCoS, and its whole business model revolved around debunking Anton LaVey. What that makes the FCoS' founder, you ask? It made him just another transparent and mock-able kook with a website. 


The Forum post is edited by AK Jul 10 '18
Merc Jul 10 '18
Which leads to me to follow up question, how different is it acceptable to make your organisation and still justifiably refer to it as Satanism? Just curious about people's personal opinions. 

Just to be clear, in case I wasn't before, I'm not actually planning on starting my own organisation with any degree of similarity or difference from the CoS. I was just curious because there's so many organisations around about and I wondered what others thought about this and that it may start an interesting debate. 

AK Jul 10 '18
For the same reasons there's ~30,000 branches of Christianity. Symbols, by definition, are polymorphic. A symbol that isn't polymorphic is just a sign. 

It doesn't phase me all that much that there numerous disparate satanic organisations out there. Things that phase me are:

1) when the deviation between one and the other are minor-to-non-existent.

2) the reasoning behind using the word Satan at all is not well-defined or comprehensible. i.e. "Satan represents compassion" = lolwut?

3) the claim that there is only one "true" Satanism. As stated before, Satan is a symbol, and symbols that do not allow for a multitude of interpretations are not symbols. 

4) the use of the word Satanism where Devil-worship or reverence is just plain more appropriate. 

4a) Use of the word Satanism or Devil-worship as a self-descriptor to describe what amounts to a reverence for foreign or arcane deities. i.e. Followers of Enki and such. Enki is its own thing - closer to a Neptune than anything else. 

Most importantly what really irks me is the notion that Satanism as a principle can be used unironically to join people together. This amounts to attempting to bottle the fabled alkahest. As such, a satanic organisation that revolves solely on the generation and propagation of disruptive and divisive ideas and thought-forms to provoke unaffiliated individuals to action is the only instance in which a satanic organisation per se would be thematically consistent in my book. 

The Forum post is edited by AK Jul 10 '18
Merc Jul 10 '18
Seems as though we are more or less in agreement on this matter then. 
Anna Jul 10 '18
If you ever establish your own order and call yourself a high priest or whatever, you will be a leader of an organization you yourself created, nothing more, nothing less. Whether this is legitimate is a matter of an individual and subjective interpretation.

If you want to affiliate yourself with an existing organization of your choice, go for it. There is nothing inherently wrong with joining a group as long as you have a healthy distance to it. All organizations, rituals and titles are in themselves meaningless but they sometimes might serve as tools for self-development. Or they can make you blind. It depends. Nothing is more eye opening than disillusionment. It can serve you well in the long run.
Pages: 1 2 »

Like and Share

Certain features and pages can only be viewed by registered users.

Join Now


This site is largely funded by donations. You can show your support by donating. Thanks. Every dollar helps.