Tag Archives: book review

Review: The Satanic Bible

It finally happened. 

I finally read LaVey’s Satanic Bible. 

And, huh boy, do I have feelings and reactions. What a weird fucking book. 

First off, to answer the inevitable question: As a non-LaVeyan Satanist, do I have to read this? No, you don’t have to, but you probably should. It’s the single most influential text on modern Satanism, after all. 

Is it a good book? For my money, no. But it’s not without its pluses. 

First, the positives. LaVey was very sexually open-minded for the 1960′s. His attitudes towards kink and homosexuality were far ahead of his time, at least for a heterosexual male. (His attitudes towards women? Eh, not so much.) 

Also, I find some of his ideas on magic very useful. They aren’t particularly original, but he streamlines them and lays them out in a fresh, clear way. The Book of Belial contains a tidy and lucid approach to ritual magic that honestly looks like it could be quite effective. It’s simple. It’s elegant. I like it. I’ll probably try it. 

I like, and use, his idea of one’s own birthday as the most important Satanic high holy day. 

As for the negatives? A lot of it has been articulated before, but dragging LaVey never gets old, so here we go again. 

For those who don’t know, the beginning of The Satanic Bible is absolutely plagiarized from an odd text called Might Makes Right which has been described as everything from “egoist anarchist” to “fascist” and “white supremacist.” The end of The Satanic Bible is just a dubious re-writing of John Dee’s Enochian Keys. Both of these segments were tacked on to make page count to satisfy LaVey’s publisher because he didn’t have enough original content.  

As for that original content, it’s… not all that original. Much have been made of how LaVey’s philosophy is mostly Ayn Rand with some devil horns stuck on, and that’s largely true. 

His scholarship is super dubious– he treats accusations of Satanism from the renaissance witch craze and the “affair of the poisons” in the court of Louis XIV as if they were indisputable fact. Of the witch craze, he states, without evidence, that all the “real” witches were “sleeping with the inquisitors.” Which, ya know– sexual seduction is most of how LaVey defines witchcraft, so the statement makes sense in a tautological way. Based on how he redefines words to suit his own purposes, it’s hard to argue with him. 

On that note, yes, he is in fact sexist as shit. (And if The Satanic Bible doesn’t convince you of that, read a few pages of The Satanic Witch.)

He indulges in some weird soft-polytheism, and just straight-up sticks a lot of deities onto the list of “The Infernal Names” who have no place being there. (Thoth? KALI? Really?!)

The point at which I lost patience, however, was when I came to the Enochian keys. LaVey has rewritten the English translations– “corrected” them, he claims– to make them Satanic. For those who don’t know, the Enochian keys were allegedly channeled, from angels, by John Dee and Edward Kelly. Since they are absolutely and obviously referring to the wrathful God of Christianity, just changing the name “God” to “Satan” makes little sense. In my opinion, they don’t reflect Satanic values at all. 

Without evidence, LaVey also claims that the “angels” of John Dee were actually “angles.” Nine angels/angles, corresponding to nine eons, are mentioned. Now I think I know where a certain neo-fascist Satanic group got its name. Ugh.

It was at the 18th key that I lost my shit. 

In his introduction to his version of the keys, LaVey speaks of replacing “arbitrary numbers” with blasphemous phrases– aka, he hates numerology, is lazy, and feels that channeled numbers have no significance and can be ignored or turned into whatever the fuck random words he thinks they should be instead. 

Here’s what happens when he does this. I’ve bolded the important parts. 

John Dee’s original translation of the 18th key (in archaic English):

O thow mighty Light and burning flame of cumfort which openest the glory of God to the center of the erth, in whome the Secrets of Truth 6332 haue their abiding, which is called in thy kingdome Ioye and not to be measured: be thow a wyndow of cumfort vnto me. Moue and shew your selues: open the Mysteries of your Creation: be frendely vnto me: for I am the servant of the same your God, the true wurshipper of the Highest.

And here’s LaVey:

O thou mighty light and burning flame of comfort!, that unveilest the glory of Satan to the center of the Earth; in whom the great secrets of truth have their abiding; that is called in thy kingdom: “strength through joy”, and is not to be measured. Be thou a window of comfort unto me. Move therefore, and appear! Open the mysteries of your creation! Be friendly unto me, for I am the same!, the true worshipper of the highest and ineffable King of Hell!

OH COOL, JUST STICK A RANDOM NAZI SLOGAN IN THERE WHY DON’T YOU, YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE.  

Not that this was a total surprise. Earlier in The Satanic Bible, LaVey says this:

From every set of principles (be it religious, political or philosophical), some good can be extracted. Amidst the madness of the Hitlerian concept, one point stands out as a shining example of this – “strength through joy!”

So, look. He’s not a total fascist. He’s a libertarian who likes to flirt with fascist imagery to be “edgy.” Which is better, I guess. But still not good. 

To conclude this review, I’d like to state that I do not dismiss LaVey or LaVeyanism entirely. He and his church have been very influential. In some ways, he was a fairly groovy guy, for 1969. He certainly brought Satanism out of the closet, and for that I thank him. 

And, despite all its flaws, I would reluctantly include The Satanic Bible on any Satanism 101 list. I don’t think it should necessarily be the first thing you read, unless atheistic Satanism is what’s calling to you, but we all have to read it eventually. Love LaVey or hate him, as Satanists we all have to exist in relation to him. I would never call this book our true “Bible” (and I don’t think we should have one) but it’s important to know what’s in it. 

Devil Worship in France

I’m currently reading “Devil Worship in France” by Arthur Edward Waite (yep, the tarot guy). It’s a lot of fun. It isn’t about actual Satanism, it’s an extended snarky takedown of Taxil’s hoax (basically a 19th century Satanic panic). However, it’s absolutely worth the read. I never suspected Waite would be such a sassy bitch.

Also, it’s the oldest text I’ve ever seen to make a distinction between Luciferianism and Satanism, so that’s cool (even though I no longer make that distinction for myself).

Review: “Pacts with the Devil” by S. Jason Black and Christopher S. Hyatt

My reactions to this book were extremely mixed. I’m glad I read it, but I have no idea how to review it.

This a book by two authors who sometimes seem to be contradicting each other. It’s also a book that’s trying to be too many things at once. To review it fairly, I’d pretty much have to treat the various sections as separate works. Unfortunately I don’t have that kind of time. Sorry.

I’ll start with what I liked. I enjoyed a lot of the philosophical content in this book. Some of it was extremely validating—stuff I’ve been thinking for awhile but hadn’t seen anyone else say in print. So, that was cool. I also appreciated reading some of the personal experiences with evocation and pact making.

That said, I found some of the scholarship really sketchy. There’s some iffy soft polytheism, and some misinformation about witch hunts. Those are two of my least favorite things. Some of the social commentary content was just plain douchey— for instance, a random tangent bashing affirmative consent.

There was also some stuff about Voodoo, which seemed… pretty bad and racist. I don’t know enough about Voodoo to judge just how egregious it was, but it seemed pretty far off to me.

All the usual Western Esoteric Edgy Bro vices are on display here: soft polytheism, appropriation, spotty research and a weird right-libertarian streak.

The final section of the book contains adaptations of three classic grimoires, geared towards making them more user-friendly. I guess I see what they were trying to do there, but it still seemed a bit pointless. And it was odd to read the previous hundreds of pages critiquing Christianity, and then just be handed some hastily adapted rituals which still heavily depend on using Yahweh’s sacred names to compel and torture demons.

There was also an appendix which was just an excerpt from Crowley. Both authors are Thelemites and in the OTO, so, fair. But the Crowley bit was a completely different approach to evocation compared to the grimoires, and it felt pretty far out of left field. I could’ve used some more commentary on how the authors thought these different approaches could be synthesized or applied in different situations. If you aren’t going to give more context and commentary why include someone else’s work in your book at all?

This is a book that didn’t really feel like a book. It felt like a lot of random things thrown together. It’s not a complete waste of time, but it’s a frustrating and weird experience.

Based on what I’ve said so far you’d think I hated it. But there were actually segments I really loved. There were also a few parts I really hated, and a lot of “meh” and “wtf” in between. I’d give this a confused three stars out of five.

Review: “The Synagogue of Satan” by Stanislaw Przybyszewski

This book was a frustrating experience. 

It started out full of promise, with passages of breathtaking beauty that seemed to capture the essence of Lucifer in a way that few texts can. 

Then a bit of confusing Nietzsche fanboyism crept in. Then came boatloads of soft polytheism. 

Then it moved into a retelling of the history of the Church that was flawed, biased and inaccurate on a Margaret Murray level. 

Finally, it ended on a note of sour nihilism. 

The portrayal of a beautiful, brilliant Satan in the beginning was degraded and twisted by the end. The one who had promised infinite gnosis and liberation was ultimately shown as offering only idiotic escapism and joyless intoxication. 

It was weird. It felt like the author started out with one idea of Satan and ended with another. It felt like a book that didn’t know what it wanted to be, devoid of consistent opinions, values or theology. The Promethean Lightbringer turns bitter and becomes the cruel, petty enemy of God and Christianity, even tormenting his own devotees to alleviate his frustration. In that sense, this ended up being a very Christian book– the character arc of Satan mirrored that in Paradise Lost. 

I have never read something that started out so moving and promising and ended so mediocre and empty. It reads exactly like what Christians think the experience of Satanism is– promises and dreams that crumble away to nothingness and pain. 

Can’t recommend, although I’ve posted some of the better passages from early on as quotes on this blog. 

That said, it’s interesting to read such a blatantly Satanic and little-known book from the 19th century. (And despite the problematic-sounding title, it contains very little antisemitism.)

More Mini Book Reviews

Compendium Maleficarum

This 17th-century witch-hunting manual is absolutely essential for understanding European views of Satanic witchcraft. It is also super entertaining, being full of wild anecdotes and fun bits of folklore about witchcraft, demons and the Devil. Best of all, I ended up finding it super useful and inspirational to my practice. It contains a black baptism ritual (which I adapted for my own use), and lots of spell casting ideas. I would put it in a “top five” list of books every theistic Satanist should read. (I have the Montague Summers edition, so that’s fun as well.)

The Marriage of Heaven and Hell by William Blake

This is a quick and mostly excellent read. I might not put it in a top five list of Satanic reads, but definitely top ten. It’s trippy, poetic and philosophical. In terms of style it reminded me of Thus Spoke Zarathustra more than anything else. It’s more of an inspirational text than an informational one but I found it to be VERY pro-Satanic and uplifting. And it took me all of twenty minutes to read.

Là-Bas by Joris-Karl Huysmans

A novel. This is a good read and it sheds a lot of light on how Satanism has been conceptualized. That said, I wouldn’t call it pro-Satanic. Satanism is basically portrayed as menacing and evil, yet attractive if you are a super alienated skeptic who longs for spiritual experience (I can’t really argue with that last part). It’s also a very gruesome text, and focuses on the alleged pedophiliac murders of Gilles de Rais. So, that’s what you’re in for, and it’s fucking explicit about it too, especially for being published in 1891. A lot of what it references is pretty well-researched based on what was available at the time. If you are interested in Satanism in literature and feel like reading a creepy, moody, 19th century French novel, then check it out. If you are easily upset by graphic child abuse content or by horrendous stereotypes about Satanism… skip it.

Review- “Lucifer: Princeps” by Peter Grey

I have not been overly impressed by excerpts of Peter Grey’s work in the past, so I approached “Lucifer: Princeps” reluctantly and with trepidation. I was pleasantly surprised.

Grey’s florid writing style* takes some getting used to, and may induce an occasional eye-roll. However, this book is an insightful and well-researched look at the origins of the Lucifer legend. It’s similar content-wise to some other surveys of the Devil in scripture, apocrypha and early theology. What sets it apart from works like those of Jeffrey Burton Russell is an occultist slant, and a positive perspective towards Lucifer. The information is familiar, but the analysis is pro-Luciferian, and that is refreshing. 

Grey had some interesting insights I had not encountered elsewhere, and as an occultist took care to include a few tidbits that secular scholars probably don’t find relevant. For example, Grey’s recounting of a legend wherein fallen angels transform themselves into precious gems furnishes magical associations folks like us can work with, but it’s not the type of content academics concerned with religious history find interesting. 

Grey’s take on Isaiah 14:12 is the best I have read so far, and on its own made the book worth the read. Analyses of this passage that argue that Helel ben Sahar is “just” a human king ignore the tradition of divine/deified kingship in the ancient world. Grey doesn’t make that mistake, and his arguments open up a fresh origin story for Lucifer, not as a fallen angel but as an ascended mortal. 

Grey’s faults include his purple prose and some underlying antisemitic tendencies (of the “I think this is OK because I hate all organized religion” type). You’ll definitely encounter a bit of Christian-bashing in here, too. None of it was super egregious, just typical edgelord occultist-bro nonsense. Those tendencies are part of what turned me off from his other works, but they are muted here by an attempt at serious occult scholarship which mostly succeeds. 

I recommend it as I read it: reluctantly and with trepidation, but at the same time compulsively. There is very little content about Lucifer out there which even comes near this level of research. “Lucifer: Princeps” may shine mostly due to lack of competition, but in the almost starless night of current Satanic scholarship, it still shines. 

*This review is written under the influence of Grey’s prose style. I just finished the goddamn book and seem to currently be incapable of writing like a human being who is not a pretentious prick. If you find my phrasing annoying in this post then you have a good idea of what you are in for with “Lucifer: Princeps.” 

Mini book review: “A History of Witchcraft: Sorcerers, Heretics and Pagans” by Jeffrey Burton Russell

Jeffrey Burton Russell has sure written a lot about witchcraft and also about the history of the Devil– so I suppose he can be forgiven for citing his own other books in the bibliography.

This slim, elaborately illustrated volume is clearly meant to be one of his more “consumable” books, aimed at the lay person. I suspect it is meant almost as a condensation of his longer, more academic works. 

A lot of the scholarship seems pretty solid, but he makes some assertions that I would love to see citations for (for example, that British “cunning folk” regularly collaborated with witchfinders and bear some responsibility for the executions of witches!). 

The section on “modern witchcraft” is fairly dated, and deals mostly with Wicca in the ‘70s. 

Overall, however, this is a good read. I appreciated Russell’s genuinely agnostic take– it is rare to find a scholar who is not into witchcraft himself who is so sympathetic to the practice of witchcraft. I also deeply appreciated his survey of striking similarities between witch lore the world over, and his admission that the reasons for these similarities remain largely unknown. 

Quick Book Reviews

I have been doing a LOT of reading. Unfortunately I am not too pleased with most of it.

  • The Book of the Law by Aleister Crowley- OK, well, been there, read that, guess I had to at some point. That sure was a book, and also a thing that exists, and you can read it with your eyeballs if you feel like it. 
  • Witchcraft and the Gay Counterculture by Arthur Evans- I really wanted to like it, but it made me shriek with uncontrollable rage. If you like soft polytheism and historical inaccuracies, you’ll love this. 
  • I, Lucifer by some dude straight up named Corvis Nocturnum– Don’t buy this, please don’t. There are pretty pictures but it’s the most poorly written thing I have encountered this side of “The Eye of Argon.” I don’t think there was an editor. It is possible there wasn’t even a second draft. There may not have even been spellcheck.

Some better reads:

  • The Devil’s Bride by Martin Ebon- a neat little book about exorcism from a psychological stand point– particularly about demonic possession and exorcism as a cathartic ritual which leads to emotional healing. Reads as fairly skeptical but is surprisingly open-minded about ESP and psychokinesis. But not demons. OK! We all have our biases, I guess. Anyway, it’s a fun read, but by no means essential.
  • A Dictionary of Angels Including the Fallen Angels by Gustav Davidson- What it says on the tin. Shouldn’t be your only source but if you happen to find yourself wondering who the fuck Cabiel is this probably beats Wikipedia for a first stop. Nicely cited and will lead you straight to better sources.