>
>Of course there's those nasty juvinile delinquents, looking for
>justification to be nasty, that also claim to be Satanists. But the
>'real' Satanists label them 'devil worshippers'. (Satanists don't
>worship.)
>
>I found that a lot of Satanic literature reflected Darwinian thinking.
>That was what mainly attracted me to the belief system.
>
True, most Satanic literature runs damn near plagiarism. LaVey,
created the Church of Satan as a pure monetary venture, he only wanted the
$100 from every member and revenue from his book sales. The books
themselves, mainly the "Satanic Bible" is an amalgamation of philosophy
stemming mainly from Darwin, Jung and Nietzsche. In my opinion the latter
writers are the only ones worth reading. The SB is a lazy mans guide to
alternate philosophy, a philosophy without structure and hardly worth
justification.
The strong shall survive theme is what many fascist groups use to
justify their existence, and it was such Darwinian/Nietzscheian thinking
that launched the Hitler's "Final Solution." In my opinion LaVey's system is
an over simplified and incomplete philosophy. This is not to say that all
"satanists" follow LaVey's thinking, there are other Satanic authors,and
societies some with actual original/worthwhile ideas, like the ToS, and the
Church of the Process.
*Create*Destroy*Enjoy*
PHYCONUT