Posted on 06/07/2015 5:38:13 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
Over the past few years, Anton LaVey and his book The Satanic Bible has grown increasingly popular, selling thousands of new copies. His impact has been especially pronounced in our nation’s capital. One U.S. senator has publicly confessed to being a fan of the The Satanic Bible while another calls it his “foundation book.” On the other side of Congress, a representative speaks highly of LaVey and recommends that his staffers read the book.
A leading radio host called LaVey “brilliant” and quotations from the The Satanic Bible can be glimpsed on placards at political rallies. More recently, a respected theologian dared to criticize the founder of the Church of Satan in the pages of a religious and cultural journal and was roundly criticized by dozens of fellow Christians.
Surprisingly little concern, much less outrage, has erupted over this phenomenon. Shouldn’t we be appalled by the ascendancy of this evangelist of anti-Christian philosophy? Shouldn’t we all”especially we Christians”be mobilizing to counter the malevolent force of this man on our culture and politics?
As you’ve probably guessed by this point, I’m not really talking about LaVey but about his mentor, Ayn Rand. The ascendency of LaVey and his embrace by “conservative” leaders would indeed cause paroxysms of indignation. Yet, while the two figures’ philosophies are nearly identical, Rand appears to have received a pass. Why is that?
Perhaps most are unaware of the connection, though LaVey wasn’t shy about admitting his debt to his inspiration. “I give people Ayn Rand with trappings,” he once told the Washington Post . On another occasion he acknowledged that his brand of Satanism was “just Ayn Rand’s philosophy with ceremony and ritual added.” Indeed, the influence is so apparent that LaVey has been accused of plagiarizing part of his “Nine Satanic Statements” from the John Galt speech in Rand’s Atlas Shrugged .
Devotees of Rand may object to my outlining the association between the two. They will say I am proposing “guilt by association,” a form of the ad hominem fallacy . But I am not attacking Rand for the overlap of her views with LaVey’s; I am saying that, at their core, they are the same philosophy . LaVey was able to recognize what many conservatives fail to see: Rand’s doctrines are satanic.
I realize that even to invoke that infernal word conjures images of black masses, human sacrifices, and record needles broken trying to play “Stairway to Heaven” backwards. But satanism is more banal and more attractive than the parody created by LeVay. Real satanism has been around since the beginning of history, selling an appealing message: Your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God.
You can replace the pentagrams of LeVayian Satanism with the dollar sign of the Objectivists without changing much of the substance separating the two. The ideas are largely the same, though the movements’ aesthetics are different. One appeals to, we might say, the Young Libertarians, and the other attracts the Future Wiccans of America.
What is harder to understand is why both ideologies appeal to Christians and conservatives. My guess is that these groups are committing what I’d call the fallacy of personal compatibility. This fallacy occurs when a person thinks that because one subscribes to both “Belief X” and “Belief Y,” the two beliefs must therefore be compatible. For example, a person may claim that “life has meaning” and that “everything that exists is made of matter” even though the two claims are not compatible (unless “meaning” is made of matter). This take on the fallacy has long been committed by atheists. Now it appears to be growing in popularity among conservatives and Christians as well.
But to be a follower of both Rand and Christ is not possible. The original Objectivist was a type of self-professed anti-Christ who hated Christianity and the self-sacrificial love of its founder. She recognized that those Christians who claimed to share her views didn’t seem to understand what she was saying.
Many conservatives admire Rand because she was anti-collectivist. But that is like admiring Stalin because he opposed Nazism. Stalin was against the Nazis because he wanted to make the world safe for Communism. Likewise, Rand stands against collectivism because she wants the freedom to abolish Judeo-Christian morality. Conservative Christians who embrace her as the “enemy-of-my-enemy” seem to forget that she considered us the enemy.
Even if this were not the case, though, what would warrant the current influence of her thought within the conservative movement? Rand was a third-rate writer who was too arrogant to recognize her own ignorance (she believed she was the third greatest philosopher in history, behind only Aristotle and Aquinas). She misunderstood almost every concept she engaged with”from capitalism to freedom”and wrote nothing that had not been treated before by better thinkers. We don’t need her any more than we need LeVay.
Few conservatives will fall completely under Rand’s diabolic sway. But we are sustaining a climate in which not a few gullible souls believe she is worth taking seriously. Are we willing to be held responsible for pushing them to adopt an anti-Christian worldview? If so, perhaps instead of recommending Atlas Shrugged , we should simply hand out copies of The Satanic Bible . If they’re going to align with a satanic cult, they might as well join the one that has the better holidays.
To my memory, no such things were expressed.
May I gently submit that your memory is incorrect. The book Atlas Shrugged contains an epic speech by the protagonist, John Galt. I guarantee you, what he says in this speech goes well beyond the relationship of the people to their government, and is I further submit as incompatible with the Founders' views of Creator-endowed rights as it is with the divine and sacrificial love taught as the centerpiece of Biblical Christianity:
Rationality is the recognition of the fact that existence exists, that nothing can alter the truth and nothing can take precedence over that act of perceiving it, which is thinking—that the mind is one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide of action—that reason is an absolute that permits no compromise—that a concession to the irrational invalidates one’s consciousness and turns it from the task of perceiving to the task of faking reality—that the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind—that the acceptance of a mystical invention is a wish for the annihilation of existence and, properly, annihilates one’s consciousness.You can see here Rand is going for more than rational economics or freedom. She is laying out an all-encompassing philosophy that attempts to give a completely atheistic foundation to the twin goods of economic prosperity and personal liberty. My criminal law professor used to have a saying, you buy the bit you buy the bridle. That is, if you buy into the premise, you are going to get the consequences of the premise.
Available here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/rationality.html
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man.
Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives. Available here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/original_sin.html
Good. This is why I could not stay in the libertarian tent. They outwardly talk a ‘christian’ world-view, but they are not Christian in actuality. They talk conservative to please the conservatives, but often oppose christian values when it is time to vote. They vote way too often with the planks of the CPUSA, and as I began to ask questions, I saw that they are actually not conservative at all. I wish real conservatives could see this and stop listening the the rhetoric.
I realize that few republicans are really conservative, either, and I have actually written several letters to Reince Priebus, complaining about the fact that so many “republicans” do not even attempt to hold to the party’s stand on issues...even small government. That is the only issue I have in common with libertarians, really. Any Christians who vote libertarian need to really read up on the party’s ideology. And, not just listen to the politicos. You are not going to get the truth b/c they want your vote...are willing to reframe any speech to get the listeners to vote for them.
What should be the fundamental difference between a Libertarian and and Anarchist?....if you don't know the answer you don't know what a Libertarian is
...is the Declaration of Independence and anarchist document ? ..Read it and look..what is the one characteristic that stands out?...
...
“For example, a person may claim that “life has meaning” and that “everything that exists is made of matter” even though the two claims are not compatible (unless “meaning” is made of matter). This take on the fallacy has long been committed by atheists. Now it appears to be growing in popularity among conservatives and Christians as well.”
Meaning is information and information is generally stored in and therefore at some level made of matter.
I clicked on this thread, read it, and knew there would be flood of libertarians coming, all of them in denial. Sure enough, they are here in force.
Thanks for the article. I’ve often wondered, with most libertarians so anti-Christian, many of them atheists, if there wasn’t a connection somewhere between Ayn Rand, their idol, and the anti-Christian atheist types.
Atheist anti-Christian Ayn Rand - Anton Levey and the Satanists - atheist anti-Christian libertarians. There you have it.
I’ve got about as much use for libertarians as I have for the devil. I’ll NEVER vote for one of ‘em.
There is a difference between the capital” L” Libertarian and the lower case “l” libertarian.
Personally, libertarians have many good ideas that should be adopted that would strengthen the economy, reduce the reach of an oppressive government, and promote freedom ( including** religious** freedom). No true libertarian, either godless or God-centered in their religious worldview, would support fining a photographer or baker or closing down a pizza shop because they refused to service a gay wedding.
The capiltal “L” Libertarians are spoilers and cranks. If they were truly serious about the issues that they say they support they would form a club and model themselves on the National Rife Association.
One more thing:
Glenn Beck is often libertarian on many issues and he is not an atheist.
Beck is Mormon... in lock step with libertarians. Visiting the Salt Lake City area, I was amazed how many Mormons were enthralled with Ayn Rand. Having read this lead article, it makes sense now.
Beck is a polytheist, he believes that there are countless gods, and that he will become one in time, if he follows the religion of Mormonism.
And there is no difference between libertarians, regardless of what size letter you put in front of it, that is why there is no libertarian war among themselves.
Agreed.
Thank you.
Christians and conservatives disapprove of that view.
My guess is that your post was in approval?
No, hell no.
Thanks for asking though.
I couldn't get more than 1/4 way through the book because it was tedious and odious.
But I'm a big believer in personal liberty and have always been fascinated with the authors purported prescience.
She certainly did foresee our times.
That is a strange post, I don’t know what you just said, or what you mean by personal liberty, to some idiots and to libertarians, it means homosexual marriage and them serving in the military and adopting, and abortion, and so on.
I noticed that Wikipedia indicated among his influences were: John Milton, Mark Twain and Jack London
Will you condemn them with the same broad brush that you smear Ayn Rand? You are laughable, just a laughable fool. Ayn Rand opposed anything she regarded as mysticism or supernaturalism.
Your so called "Father of Modern Satanism", as such, could not be much of a follower if he founded a spiritualist religion.
" In truth, Satanism is likely more sympathetic to Christianity than Rand’s Objectivism, though neither jive with the teachings of Christ.""It’s a running joke that the first thing a Pagan will say when asked to explain their religion is “We’re not Satanists” and perhaps we should toss in “We’re not Objectivists either!” Every Pagan religion I know of is antithetical to Objectivist and Satanist philosophy. We have taboos regarding hospitality, a strong belief in a deeply personal connection to Divine Forces, and we don’t believe a person’s worth is measured by their bank account or material possessions or their productivity. Many of us believe in tribal societal structures, which may include shared possessions and shared responsibility for children, the elderly and the sick."
You know nothing!
Read my profile: I haven't given dues to, or been to a meeting of, the Libertarian Party since just after 9/11 when I saw the schism building between those in the Libertarian Party that saw attacks by Islam as initiation of force (thus requiring a principled libertarian response), and those that thought the use of force by Islam was retaliation for transgressions by the the US (Paulists, etc.). I will not support those LP pacifists ever again.
There are all sorts of schisms within the all encompassing Libertarians. If you may recall, every ballot in a libertarian election must the choice, NOTA, none of the above. Does that sound like there is never a war among libertarians? There are all sorts of factionalized camps with intransigence as the greatest watchword they hold.
LOL, I didn’t say that you can’t be mad at them, I just said that there is no libertarian war between themselves.
Of course some individuals can disagree among themselves, that is why the libertarians backed off the child porn issue, because they felt that it was too early to push it, but there is no big war about the major positions of libertarians.
I guess you didn't understand what I wrote. I was at our monthly Libertarian Party meeting just after 9/11. Half of the people there took the position that attacks on America by Islam was initiation of force which required a principled libertarian response and the other half thought the use of force by Islam was valid retaliation for transgressions by the the America against Islam. There was heated discussion which unusual for our libertarian meetings.
Afterward, I watched the libertarian writings about 9/11 and realize this disparate view was widespread. I finally came to understand that the Libertarian Party was formed from an equal amount of disgruntled Republicans and Democrats that seemed to agree on many different issues but in actuality position statements had been skillfully crafted to create an intentional ambiguity to allow a tenuous consensus. The whole Libertarian Party leadership is incessantly jockeying for turf. This is from 1998 but may give an indication of the ongoing wars within the LP.
The final proof is that the LP has only had one, well now two, libertarians elected at the federal level and they were elected as Republicans.
You are correct that libertarianism is half conservative, and half radical leftist, and it is anti-God, and anti-American.
The problem is that it’s left wing parts, make economic conservatism, impossible, yu can’t have social liberalism and open borders, and limited, small government.
I’m glad that 9/11 had an effect on you 14 years ago, and made you see them in a new light.
The author of the article addressed your objection here:
"But I am not attacking Rand for the overlap of her views with LaVey’s; I am saying that, at their core, they are the same philosophy ."It's not that Objectivism and Laveyan satanism share inconsequential commonalities. It's point is that they are essentially the same ideology. Rand teaches that greed and selfishness are good and altruism is evil. Satanism teaches the same.
You have a fundamental error
She does not teach that greed is good, but that it is a motivator for succes
She also does not teach altruism is evil- in fact I think she applauds it, as long as it is your own choice
Ayn Rand was not an atheist (somoene correct me if I am wrong)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.