Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 58
at the twilight of the gods” armed with a Thirteen-Year Plan” aimed at nothing less than the
triumph of the “Demonic Revolution” by the year 2002.
The growing fusion of some neo-Nazis and Satanists strikes another blow at the image of
the benevolent Satanist. Indeed, fascination with Nazi occultism is a common feature of the
“recognized Satanic churches,” such as Michael Aquino‟s Temple of Set, described in the
CSER report as being “focused on a disciplined approach to magic as a means for
succeeding in life.”68 In a recent exchange with some wary neo-pagans over the Magicknet
computer network, Aquino chides those whose “cozy little house of black and white
morality” prevents them from appreciating the “good and praiseworthy parts of Nazi
ideology.”69 Discussion of such a topic, Aquino sniffs,
“presumes a definition of “goodness” on which we all agree. I doubt that if
you and Heinrich Himmler were discussing morals over coffee, you would be
able to get very far, because what he would perceive as moral behavior would
be quite alien to your notions on the subject. As one indoctrinated by the
social morality of the political and social groups who defeated the Nazis in the
1940s, you assume that your standards are the standards -that, like the
Judaeo-Christian “God,” you know “good” and “evil” because you have the
exclusive prerogative to define them. [And how blasphemous it was when
Set/”Satan” (or in the aforementioned illustration, Himmler) assumed this
same prerogative, much less offered it to humanity! Assuredly deserving of
condemnation and punishment!] In perhaps another 100 years, the profane
world will be ready to consider objectively whether there is anything “good or
praiseworthy” about Nazism ...”70
In the meantime, Aquino suggests, “those who want to see reassuringly 100% evil comic-
book Nazis should go to Indiana Jones movies.”71
Or maybe just rent a video of the Nuremberg trials. Assuming, of course, that one is not too
distressed at all the condemnation and punishment heaped upon those poor, misunderstood
Nazis who had “offered” their peculiar conception of moral behavior to the world.
CSER’s Appendices
It is important to note that the CSER report is accompanied by three appendices, two of
which are the product of law enforcement officials. Dissecting each of these appendices is
beyond this essay‟s purpose. Each, it may be said, uses the same arguments, and much of
the evidence, found in the report itself by contributing to this awesome apologia these
officers, Robert Hicks, a Criminal Justice Analyst in Richmond, and Kenneth V. Lanning of
the F.B.I. Academy in Quantico, VA, underscore the success Satanism has already achieved.
To extend its influence, Satanism need not destroy its logical opponents. It need only
disarm them.
Lanning‟s and Hicks‟ views have been widely disseminated among police officers, several of
whom have expressed to us general agreement with their misconceptions. Although these
comments do not represent a consensus, we have heard other remarks which reflect new
doubts about Satanism‟s importance. In a sense, this may be a healthy development,
because skepticism is a necessary analytic component when addressing such issues,
particularly for those who exercise a potentially punitive authority. Hicks and Lanning do
not, however, merely reflect the CSER report‟s flaws. Where they offer views from their
special realm of law enforcement they are, quite simply, wrong. Hicks extends the report‟s
ad hominem approach to the level of a universal norm. He declares that, “whether or not
people can get criminal ideas from belief systems ...has little to do with the belief system
but rather with a person‟s own psychological make-up.”72 That this statement defies the
root of our nation‟s legal system -recognition of the fact that ideas have consequences -is

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 59
disturbing enough. But Hicks also proceeds to defy one of the principal tenets of legal
investigation when he adds, “It is not a law enforcement responsibility to guess at what
might prompt a citizen to commit a crime.”73 Hicks intends this observation to be a
cautionary note against public surveillance of general behavior, but it is insufficient for the
legitimate practice of investigating criminal patterns. A serial killer operates from a mental
construct. The police are obliged to assess that construct. Charles Manson‟s Family
committed murders after the police investigation had begun. If Vincent Bugliosi had
accepted Hicks‟ views, he never would have “guessed” at what prompted these crimes.
Hicks‟ use of the argumentum ad hominem distorts his view of law enforcement. He claims
that Anton LaVey‟s and Aleister Crowley‟s published works are attacked by anti-cult
investigators because these works are accessible. The truth is, as was cited in the Scott
Waterhouse judicial opinion, these works are cited because they repeatedly show up in the
personal belongings of such violent criminals. They are attacked because they are influential
-not only among teenage “dabblers,” but in the occult subculture as a whole. A valid
application of Ockham‟s Razor demands the conclusion that the ideas the books espouse are
at least causal factors in the crimes committed by students of each book‟s content
Additional evidence of Hicks‟ attempt to disarm anti-satanic criticism surfaces when he
states that, “What [Aleister] Crowley said was not meant to be taken literally, but
figuratively.”74 Aleister Crowley was a notorious black magician who was deported from
Mussolini‟s Italy after the occult practices at his Abbey of Thelema produced some very bad
press. Several of his disciples died or went mad in the course of their involvement with him.
But, of course, Hicks assures us, this was merely the result of “figurative”
misunderstandings. Hicks‟ most egregiously biased distortion, however, and the one which
clearly marks his work as satanic apologetics, is his remark about the mass murderers John
Wayne Gacy and Henry Lee Lucas. He claims that, “These men, social isolates and
psychopaths, invented or borrowed satanic trappings to justify their crimes.”75 His
implication is that the satanic trappings played no causal role in the murders. Hicks does not
appear to realize that he is implying the validity of one of our concerns. That is, that the
authorization for violence contained in the “satanic trappings” is itself a contributing factor
to the violence, and it is for this reason that “satanic trappings” are a valid subject of police
investigations.
A concession to Hicks may be made in regard to his comments about the copy-cat
phenomenon and, to some extent, to the role of what he calls “urban myths.” There is no
question that the whole issue of Satanism is volatile and rife with ambiguities. It certainly
requires a sound verification of fact and sound reasoning in investigation. But why does
Hicks fail in this regard? Why does he embellish his valid objections so that they are
reduced to straw men? Why does he deny the validity of what his targets are saying -that
their interest is in preventing and solving crimes?
Kenneth Lanning‟s appendix is more crucial than Hicks‟ if only because of Lanning‟s visibility
as an F.B.I. spokesman. The appendix originally appeared in the professional journal, The
Police Chief, in October 1989. It has, in other words, had a wide influence. This is
unfortunate because it also repeats the report‟s methodology and conclusions. Lanning‟s key
point is expressed in a way that extends the CSER argument that nothing criminal can be
demonstrated to be the effect of a satanic -or, generally speaking, of any -belief system.
He makes the point that what is called an M.O., a method of operation, is a set of actions
performed “by an offender because it works.”76 He separates this from a sexual ritual by
saying that it fulfills a need. Carrying on with his argument, he says, “Deviant acts, such as
urinating on, defecating on, or even eviscerating a victim, are far more likely to be the
result of sexual ritualism than religious or “satanic” ritualism.”77 He does acknowledge that
religious themes can overlap sexually motivated compulsions, but he fails to see how such
themes can be imposed or that the discernment of such impositions is a critical and valid act