Nietzsche, Redbeard, and the Satanic Bible

[Entil'Zha]

A lot of people praise Lavey for his work on the creation of The Satanic Bible. For the most part though didn’t he take 90% of the belief structure for it from Nietzsche, and Ragnar Redbeards work (IE: The Might is Right by Ragnar Redbeard, and most of Nietzsche’s philosophical works)? Then as a topper fluffed it up with theatrical ritual in order to garner more attention to his work. In turn bringing more money to him.

I’ve read all of his books, and I see very little merit to the religious aspects of his work personally (and I got the feeling reading it that neither did he. It seemed like he was effectively telling the reader to read between the lines, and not pay attention to the parading sycophancies of ritual). I personally have always found going to the very source of most of his inspiration (IE: Nietzsche’s work.) to be much more pure and thought provoking. Though I can’t say this about Redbeards work since I found his book to be little more then a justification for ignorance and violence.

 

[Hairetikos]

Reverend Paradise wrote a Satanic FAQ. One of the topics touched on is: "Anton LaVey is merely ripping off other philosophers."

Here's what he has to say about that:

Extremely limited (and limiting) thinking, indeed. When LaVey refers to an idea, concept, or quote derived or taken from someone else, he often cites the author, either in the paragraph or in the indices of his books. If anything LaVey writes seems or is similar to past concepts, oftentimes, it is augmented with modern circumstances, his own thoughts, and is analogous to our philosophy. Seeing that Satanism is a work in progress, something like science meets philosophy, we are fully justified in choosing the concepts of old, working with them in our context and taking them into the future. (If we didn't, who else would?) Same thing scientists, doctors, psychologists, and many other professionals do. Nothing would get done if individuals merely went along with established thought and never added to it. It's evolution, pure and simple.

Here's a link to the FAQ, if you'd like to see the source.

Also, I agree that this is indeed how evolution occurs. The ideas of the past are always being updated and revised to fit a certain perspective or philosophy. If LaVey didn't do it, somebody else would have.

 

[Entil'Zha]

Though I do agree with you on the evolution of idea's being positive. I don’t see much of that in Laveys work. The concepts he set forward were for the most part old ideas given a modern perspective. Had it been evolutionary it would have pushed beyond Nietzsche, and Redbeards philosophies. For the most part however what he did was write out less detailed view points of their work. Summarizing, and writing in his own words the concepts set forward by Nietzsche, and Redbeard. The wording is different many times throughout his work, but the substance has little to no distinct change. I will give him credit for giving them credit for the ideas he cited in and of themselves. His own thoughts however are just relating their works to the world he saw in the late 20th century (wording wise).

That only real distinct change I can see is relating their philosophies to ritualism to give ritual greater meaning. Which as I stated previously he himself seemed to deny in his work.

So as I see it, if your reading it for the religious/ritual aspect then your going to get what you want from it. From a philosophical aspect (which I think is the heart of any belief structure) however going to the source will give most a greater understanding of the concepts set forward in The Satanic Bible.

 

[painted wolf]

LaVey was a very clever man. He basicly admitted that he wrote the book to make money as much as he did to spread the ideas in it.
He also chose the name 'satanic bible' because he knew that it was a garenteed success... And he REALY wanted to **** people off...

but hey if it gets people to read and start to learn about the ideas then it did what he wanted it to do. 8)

wa:-do