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
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
