Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 51
“Modem Primitives” issue of Research LaVey elaborates on his view that those he deems
“stupid” should be “put to the flamethrower, regardless of race.” “Satan knows we sure
need a good thinning-out process,” LaVey fulminates. “Every time there‟s a disaster... I
start tallying things up and wondering not that it was such a tragedy, but wondering only,
“So few? Is that all?”39
3. The total number of Satanists, people who are recognized by one of the Satanic
churches as being a member is most likely to be between 10,000 and 100,000 in the
U.S.40
This example of CSER‟s scientific precision, with its 90% margin of error, is used to defend
the notion that Satanism is a well-established alternative religion. From where, however, do
they derive these figures, and how are they documented? Just what constitutes a
“recognized Satanic church?” Are they limiting this to the Church of Satan and Temple of
Set and claiming these groups can boast a combined membership in the tens of thousands?
Or are they including neo-Nazi, Church of Satan-affiliated groups such as the Abraxas
Foundation and the Werewolf Order? Furthermore, cults are notorious for inflating estimates
of their membership for publicity purposes, and Aquino claims in his book The Church of
Satan that LaVey did so regularly. Yet, while the report‟s authors blithely attack the
opponents of Satanism for inflating their figures on sacrifice, breeders, and occult-related
crime in general, they accept these grandiose figures without comment.
In short, CSER‟s attempt to define Satanism fails because it too neatly circumscribes the
issue and applies only to a very few selected cases. A proper definition must incorporate the
essentials of a given concept. For example, the essential defining factor of Christianity is the
belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ. It is not equated with the peculiar tenets of any given
Christian sect. There is absolutely no justification for claiming that the assertions of Anton
LaVey or Michael Aquino constitute the definition of “Satanism” or are valid for anything
outside of their respective sects. They are certainly not grounds for discarding 2,000 years
of common usage. CSER‟s re-defining of the ten-n crates a floating straw man and a red
herring.
Error Number Three: The Empirical Evidence
Working off this “definition,” the report claims that there are no substantiated cases of
Satanism-inspired murder. Here they are in disagreement with, to give just one example,
the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which in August 1986 upheld the conviction of self-
proclaimed Satanist Scott Waterhouse for the strangulation murder of 12-year-old Gycelle
Cote. The appeal had centered on the prosecution‟s disclosure of Waterhouse‟s satanic
beliefs. In the course of the trial, the state introduced into evidence portions of Anton
LaVey‟s The Satanic Bible. In a tape-recorded conversation played at the trial, Waterhouse
stated that Satanism represents the darker side of humanity and urges indulgence of man‟s
carnal needs rather than abstinence, which certainly sounds like an accurate presentation of
key features of LaVey‟s philosophy. The appeals court concluded that:
As to identity, the evidence described above demonstrates that as a believer
in Satanism, defendant could view commission of the heinous crime involved
in this case as a means of achieving “physical, mental or emotional
gratification.” Similarly, he could believe that a demonstration of strength by
total domination of a weaker person would bring “reverence among men” at
the expense of one who, being weak, deserved his fate. It was for the jury to
decide whether such motivations were actually at work in this case, but the
evidence of satanic beliefs is certainly probative of motive and, therefore, of
the identity of the perpetrator ...On the issue of intent ...the consistency
between the circumstances of the crime and Satanism‟s emphasis on sex
[Waterhouse had masturbated over the body], destruction and denigration of

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 52
weakness, makes it more likely that if defendant killed the victim, he did so
intentionally rather than by accident, i.e., though recklessness or criminal
negligence.41
It appears that the state of Maine, at least, is prepared to take LaVey at his word. So should
we all. For, as William of Ockham believed, one such incident provides a fact from which
parallels may be deduced. It is logical, in Ockham‟s terms, to conclude that additional
violent incidents accompanied by The Satanic Bible were influenced by LaVey‟s message. It
is also worth noting that this decision was handed down before Satanism became a widely
covered topic in the media.
On the other hand, Michael Aquino stated on the Geraldo Rivera Show that the Satanic Bible
is mere “polemics” and is not to be taken literally. If this is the case, it raises a number of
questions in regard to CSER‟s report. The Church of Satan is presented as the exemplar of
“recognized satanic churches.” If this “church‟s” scripture is exposed as nothing but
“polemics,” what does that say about the legitimacy and sincerity of the “church” and the
intellectual status and sense of responsibility of Anton LaVey? To be fair, however, we must
note that LaVey may not be entirely to blame for the contents of the Satanic Bible.
According to his former acolyte, Michael Aquino, LaVey lifted an entire section of the book
from a previous work:
The Satanic Bible consists of two comparatively distinct sections of writings:
those articulating the social philosophy of Satanism (the Book of Satan and
the Book of Lucifer) and those giving instructions for the practice of Satanic
magic (the Book of Belial and the Book of Leviathan) ...The Book of Satan is
represented as a diatribe by Anton on behalf of the Devil. Not until 1987 was
it discovered that he was not its true author at all. It is in fact authored by a
New Zealander by the name of Arthur Desmond, who wrote it under the pen
name of “Ragnar Redbeard” in 1896. (Although Anton includes the name of
Redbeard in his roster of names to whom the Satanic Bible is dedicated, he
does not explain that dedication, nor credit Redbeard in any way as the true
author of the contents of the Book of Satan.) The plagiarisms that constitute
the Book of Satan are to be found through Redbeard‟s book Might is Right.42
In regard to the issue of “rebellious” youth who are supposedly using Satanism as an
“excuse” to do things they would do anyway -a favorite CSER catchphrase -some
observations on the phenomenon of the “thrill high” are pertinent. Rob Tucker, director of
the Toronto-based Council on Mind Abuse, reports that some participants experience
euphoria during certain satanic ceremonies, and this “high” is often linked to destructive
acts against others. Tucker notes that the youths apparently “learn” this kind of pleasure
some report experiencing it as a powerful urge to harm, and say they can achieve it by
systematically torturing and killing animals. (This “power rush” is celebrated throughout
“dark metal” music.) These “thrill kids” are characterized by pleasure, lack of remorse, and
lack of guilt.43
Heavy Metal
But the authors of the CSER report see no such dangers deriving from the effects of heavy
metal music. While acknowledging heavy metal‟s “wild and rebellious” lyrics, “shocking
symbolism,” “ritual costumes,” and “concert theatrics,” the report denies that a specifically
satanic message could be conveyed by such a “hodgepodge of symbols culled from various
subcultures.”
The symbols am not presented in a coherent or effective way for conveying a
particular message, either in the lyrics, album covers, posters or stage acts.
Rather, the symbols seem intended more to shock than to convert, or to give