I have failed to find your question for the unusual answer you seek.

The inspiration taken from Ayn Rand comes from her excelent book Atlas Shrugged, specially passages from John Galt's speech.

In fact, if you study it carefully you will find that even though the book has been printed in 1957 and The Satanic Bible in 1969, it could have been the other way around. Like others have pointed, the passages from Galt's speech are more a companion to the actual Nine Satanic Statements than an inspiration.

I don't consider it degrading in any way. Satanism is the religion of Man, and a book like The Satanic Bible could have never been printed without outside inspirations. It's a book about the primitive human nature, its feelings and needs. It is more than common that you would find a lot of books printed before The SB that focus on similar subjects.

It has always been the wish of Man to be free from the castrating moral of Christianity. Satanism isn't the Anti-Christianity. Satanism is the opposite of Christianity, thus the meaning of the word "Satan".
Just because you don't do it the same way, doesn't mean you should deny it or be anti it.

Apart from D. Lavey's books I can point you other books of Satanic interest like Might is Right from Ragnar Redbeard; Thus Spoke Zarathustra from Friedrich Nietzsche; In Defense of Elitism from William Henry III. These are my personal favorites.

Where did you get this term from? There are no other types of Satanism.

Your sources on this would happen to be claiming that they themselves are "Theistic Satanists", would they?

There is no such thing as "Theistic" or "Traditional" Satanism. That term sprung up after the emergence of the Church of Satan amongst those who wanted to practice Satanism but couldn't wrap their heads around the fact that it's not about worshiping the Devil.

There's also no such thing as "LaVeyan" Satanism.

Satanism has no denominations. When someone claims that it does, you can be sure that it's because there's something in The Satanic Bible that they don't agree with. Typically they like all the talk about "individuality" and think that gives them free reign to pick and choose what they want from the rest of the book.

Once you start to remove pieces of The Satanic Bible (or any other bit of Satanic dogma) you're left with something that is not Satanism. At best it is nothing more than a cheap imitation.

As for your question about Ayn Rand's influence on Anton LaVey's work, it is true that Anton LaVey drew some inspiration from Objectivism. What did you expect? Religions and philosophies are not the product of direct revelation, they are the distillation of their founders' knowledge and experience.

For further reading on the similarities and differences between Satanism and Objectivism, look here.

Where did Ayn Rand talk about "Satanism" or "occult sciences" at all?

Answer: She didn't.

Where were there any actual explicit Satanists BEFORE the Church of Satan?

Answer: There were none.

1. Check the copyright dates.

2. Stop filling your mind with bullshit.

Or don't.

If you can't then go away.

What would impel you to assert anything unfounded in proof or logic?

Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Yes. A very good book. My favorite one actually.

Satanism is Satanism there is no denomination. You are either a Satanist or you are not. You cannot say there are two types and the reason you cannot is because saying so would be lying.


HAIL SATAN

You didn't "speak" a question.

What's your question?

Yes, I do:

1) ALL religions have their share of influences. Even if we go along with the claims of some who say their dogma comes directly from the words and biography of one single prophet (let alone go along with the claim that such figures were real historic people in the first place), you can still see how they were influenced from other religions. For example, there are good reasons why Islam has emphasis on concepts that had already showed up on Christianity and Judaism, and good reasons why Buddhism has borrowed a number of concepts from Hinduism. And there are good reasons why none of these religions share much in common with religions from completely different geographical regions.

2) Satanism is no exception to this. LaVey had his share of influences, which he openly acknowledged. Just read "The Secret Life of a Satanist" or watch the biographical documentary "Speak of the Devil". Hell, just look how big the bibliography to "The Satanic Witch" is. Even aside from all that, anybody with a good knowledge of religions and philosophies, and who doesn't let self-righteousness bias his or her judgment, can see how Satanism was influenced by Rand, Nietzsche, Mark Twain, Machiavelli, etc. If having influnces means you're a "rip-off" (which I think you were secretly implying by putting the word "influence" in quotes), then every religion, philosophy, or musical act for that matter is a rip-off.

3) There is no such thing as "Traditional Satanism". Before the founding of the Church of Satan in 1966, there was no organized religion called "Satanism". Granted you had the occasional crazy devil worshipper, numerous occultists, and the occasional group of aristocrats who liked to indulge in Saturday night "Black Masses" for lewd entertainment. But again, no group that identified as "Satanists", and none had an applicable philosophy. Anybody else who claimed to do work with "Satan" were basing their theology completely off of scare stories from the Catholic Church, and later on bad horror B-movies. They were bored people who took up devilish aesthetics and trappings for the sake of attention or entertainment.

Therefore there is no need for terms like "LaVeyian Satanism" and "Traditional Satanism". We have dibs on the name "Satanism". These other terms do nothing but further confuse the issue, cloud history, and give false credibility to devil worshippers.

Ayn Rand was a militant Atheist. She despised all religions, and probably disliked Satanism as well. Hell, she probably would have laughed at the idea of practicing Lesser and Greater magic in order to empower the self on a small or large scale. This is not to say that I dislike her writings. In fact, I have read and enjoyed almost all of her novels and essays.

LaVeyan Satanism?.....What is that?

I'm aware that the whole "reason" or so-called "Philosophy" behind "Theistic Satanism" is quite ridiculous, as in my mind, they don't deserve the right to call themselves "free-thinkers" as all they're doing is following the same herd of sheep.

I don't have any sources. This is just my own curiosity. I'm not accusing LaVey of being anything he wasn't, nor am I implying that Ayn Rand talked about Satanism. However, her views regarding traditional society, are pretty much named "Occult" in today's world. Thus, that's probably the main reason it sparked my interest. In my personal opinion, Theistic Satanism shouldn't exist. It's just a bunch of besmirching bored teenagers, looking for something to get back at mummy and daddy because they were grounded (or something) thus, they look for something rebellious. With the reputation "Satan" carries around itself, it's the perfect rebellion for a teenager looking for something different, yet they still manage to become confused and end up leaving the whole thing. Occasionally they wake up to themselves, and other times, they don't.

No one puts anything into my head. I'm one of those..."If I don't see it, I don't believe it" thus, if I have no proof or logic behind my own theory, I obviously wouldn't go around throwing accusations at something where I need not subject myself, nor do I have any substantial evidence to back myself up. Thus, in the end, I simply contradict everything I say. That is why I asked. I would just prefer to hear it from people who know, instead of getting false information from someone who likes to think they know. But thanks all for responding, and I'll read up on that CoS page after I pick my daughter up.

Regards,
Nathan

P.S I still have more to say, but I will have to wait.

Please reply to the PM I sent to you.

Thank you.

Then why give it any credibility by calling it "Theistic Satanism"? Call devil worship what it is: devil worship. We've got dibs on the name "Satanism", because there was no actual, codified religion before 1966 that could be called "Satanism". So there is no need to describe "different forms of Satanism".

It's not like Christianity, where you have two sects who follow the same book and the same deity structure but just have differences over tradition, study vs. practice, which parts of the Bible to emphasize over the others, etc. Devil worshippers and Satanists have core dogmas that are completely contradictory to each other, and completely different written sources for their doctrines (The Satanic Bible vs. ideas randomly selected from church propaganda, fictional stories, tacky horror movies, etc.). They can hardly be called different sects of the same religion. Here's an essay I wrote on the subject.

I haven't received a PM.

I sent another one.

Thanks.

The first is a devil worshipper, and not a Satanist. The second is a Satanist, and not an idiot.



No it doesn't.

http://www.satannet.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showthreaded&Number=78163&page=1#Post78163

Thank you.

In addition to Magister Nemo's recommendation, read THIS and THIS as well.

I am honored you would choose one of my writings to support this issue.

Thank you.

You are welcome.

I have greatly benefited from your wisdom many times.

It is an honor to read such wisdom.

It is even more of an honor to share it.

How, exactly, could one possibly do that? If they view and worship Satan as an athropomorphic deity, then such actions go directly against what's stated in The Satanic Bible. The dogma presented in the book goes directly against the idea of worshipping an externalized deity.

And if they're flipping right to the back of the book to perform the basic Satanic Ritual or one of the conjurations as if Satan was real, then they're ignoring the entire Book of Belial and are taking things completely out of context.



Oh no they're not! Do you even know what the word "dogma" means?

And as far as ritual goes, even if you look at old versions of the alleged "Black Mass" upon which the Satanic Le Messe Noir is based upon, or the various general "circle" rituals that inspired the standard 13-step Satanic ritual, you'll see that key parts were changed so as to make it compatible with Satanism's (dare I use the following word) dogma. There are no notions of bowing-down or self-sacrifice in the rituals found in LaVey's books.



That hardly means that the book was written for such people too.

Satan is real...a real bumper sticker, a real figure-head, a real symbol of pride (and other lovely "sins" ) AND really great in bed. Satan is as real as liberty, freedom and all forms of power. Satan is "real" just like Peter-Pan, Darth Vader and and all the other fictional idols I have on my chest.

If you want to call Satan a demon, god or deity...be my guest. I think you will be able to hear the roaring laughter from the army of REAL GODS on this earth.

I love the way you express yourself!



Well said!

If someone believes in the Christian Devil then they are a Christian. Christians are not Satanists.

To believe in something like that, without evidence, is to commit the sin of Self-Deceit. This is most certainly not Satanic.

It is possible for one to be a Satanist and believe in the Devil, if one were to be in an environment where the evidence for a Devil outweighed that againt it, but I do not know of such a place.

Yes, there is something you can do about it. Read Magister Nemo's post below titled Read & Understand ...and understand!

You can parse words, slice and dice all you want. It still doesn't add up, and doesn't amount to anything. It is an argument for the sake of hearing an argument... Read and understand!

http://www.satannet.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showthreaded&Number=78163&page=1#Post78163

You are taking things out of context.

If I did that with your posts here I could demonstrate that you think you think you have a barbed tail and horns.

If you have another agenda you might as well spit it out and get it over with.

If not, then read and understand.

There is zero confusion on this issue.

And yet, you argue that someone who believes in an actual devil and uses parts of the Satanic Bible is a Satanist. Hmmm....

I will join Magister Nemo in asking what is your real motive for this. We have seen far too much of this arguing minutae that accomplishes nothing on this board.

Only for those who will take things out of context.

However this is not one of "the finer points of Satanism".

This is one of the most obvious and repeated fundamentals of Satanism.

Practice and Belief are two seperate things, you do not practice a belief.

If one were to believe what is written in the Bible, they would be a Christian, regardless of whether they followed the rules it sets out or not!

If they were to not follow the rules they would be a poor Christian, but still a Christian.

In your introduction you wrote:



I finally noticed your last words "core philosophy".

Perhaps it is time for you to spell out what elements of Satanism you do not consider part of "it's core philosophy".

That may clear things up here.

No one needs to practice Greater Magic to subscribe to Satanism any more than any one needs to wear a Baphomet or black.

However this seems to not be the issue here.

There are four books in The Satanic Bible. I do not recall reading anywhere that one of these is considered "core" and the others are somehow lesser.

How did you come to assume that?

What if, instead, each is required and in the order given to build a full understanding of what Satanism is?

Just a suggestion.

I will be the judge if I need to be suspicious. If you can't handle the heat in the kitchen, you are welcome to step out.

As I stated, we have seen plenty of this before. Its been hashed and rehashed, over and over. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck......If you can't understand that, it falls on you.

I did not say you could excise anything from this religion.

I said you did not have to personally use Greater Magic.

I did not say you could deny Greater Magic is a part of Satanism for those who do wish to employ it.

Whether you can accept Greater Magic is real or useful in your own opinion is your problem.

"Squibs" and "Muggles" are welcome here too.

That Greater Magic remains a part of this religion as a more sophisticated tool along with all the other tools that comprise Satanism is a fact.

If that tool is not one you wish to employ that is just fine.

However it is part of the toolkit, like it or not.

But they will never be as ELITE as US!!! Mohahhahaha!

Hah…ahm… yeah..

Always looking for a loophole.

If you deny greater magic you reject Satanism.



Respect it? Do you acknowledge it as part of Satanism?



Without ceremony and dogma it's just a philosophy.

"Here you will find truth-and fantasy. Each is necessary for the other to exist; but each must be recognized for what it is"- Anton Lavey; Preface to the Satanic Bible