Jump to content

Talk:Anton LaVey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Practised Cannibalism

This is of public interest, therefore I recommend including it into the article: In LeVay's last wife's book ('The Secret Life of a Satanis, authorized Biografphy') , it's stated that: 'One seminar on "Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice" covered the subject in more than just words. Students were invited to partake of a cooked thigh of a young white woman.The leg had been biopsied and provided by a Berkeley physician who attended Anton's lectures regularly. Diane basted the main course of puaka balava, "long pig", in Triple Sec, fruit juices and Grenadine. She served it with fried bananas and yams, just as the Fiji Islanders did, adding Tonka bean wine and caterpillars to round out the meal. The meat was described as tasting somewhere between pork and lamb, with a consistency rather fibrous like pork chops, but sweeter, and not quite as tender or salty as lamb. The diners exhibited little squeamishness except when it came to eating the caterpillars. But the LaVey's three-year old daughter, Zeena, finished them with enthusiasm'.

Source: https://books.google.de/books?id=sEIxCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=lavey+cannibalism+human+sacrifice+seminar&source=bl&ots=8CxzfwRCpi&sig=i79XEBChyIADKUvQ5WI_OmgOeMs&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQ6ZbO-pzVAhXBCMAKHanrBqIQ6AEIKzAB#v=onepage&q=lavey%20cannibalism%20human%20sacrifice%20seminar&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.83.238 (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


It would be helpful if you could provide a page number instead of just expecting people to read an entire book to find one single quote. It's also worth noting that "Diane" was Laveys first wife and the author wouldn't have been present during the incident. It cannot be verified and could have been inserted for the sake of sensationalization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarnibog (talk • contribs) 07:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually … as the body of the main article notes, “Diane” was his second “wife” - they never legally married, and would have been around from 1960 - 1984. So, she quite likely was present, but, whether it’s truth or sensationalism , we may never fully know. 75.106.32.81 (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Manson

In this trivia section it states that marilyn Manson was offered the post of reverand many times but always refused, in the Marilyn Manson page it states that he IS a reverand. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.125.146 (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was given an honorary title, and since then neither he nor the Church of Satan has taken it away. As for his current activity, I know nothing. TomCatJoe (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Tonight Show appearance

I was wondering if Anton LaVey ever appeared on the Tonight Show, or any other talk show. If so, is their footage of that interview? I also thought that a list of guests on the Tonight Show would be a good idea for a Wikipedia article.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.181.107.90 (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]


The short answer is no. The long answer is yes. He appeared on a variety of local talk shows (primarily when the Church of Satan was "The Satanic Church") before the Satanic Panic. Good luck finding the footage, though; I don't even think it's on the CoS Archive, although I might be mistaken. There was a clip of him appearing on one that was on YouTube, back when the CoS allowed Theistic Satanists. Darkahn (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Some of you may notice that the article on LaVeyan Satanism now redirects to Satanism. This is as it should be, and is a long time coming. A serious effort is finally underway to clean up the disorder and subpar editing that has for too long characterized this series of articles. I welcome everyone interested to continue their valued contributions, and to join in the effort to restore sensibility to the representation of Satanism on Wikipedia. Thank you! -Lvthn13 06:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unorganized comments

The picture caption says 'Dr.,' yet I can't find any academic credentials in his bio. Can anyone explain?

  • Anton is referred to as Dr. or Doktor by his close friends and associates. He does not have a degree that would give him the title, but the same goes with the title 'Black Pope'. KevinISlaughter

I remember reading somewhere that he was involved with Marilyn Monroe. Can anyone confirm?

Photos exist to at least prove that Anton LaVey met both Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield, and pretty good documentation exists to confirm his involvement with Mansfield. His relationship with Marilyn Monroe is impossible to prove either way except to say that they met (though the fact that she was photographed with him at all should provide pretty strong evidence of the veracity of his claims; I can think of few other circumstances that would permit him to be photographed with her). The fact that this is always denied or ignored by biographers of either lady only proves that admiring biographers are disturbed that their favorite starlet may have been involved with him, just as most biographers of Benjamin Franklin gloss over his involvement with English Hellfire Clubs. --Lvthn13 23:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a longstanding rumour --- don't know if it's more than that --- that he had some kind of relationship with Jayne Mansfield, and that Mansfield was a member of the Church of Satan. Never heard about Monroe. Wasn't he in Rosemary's Baby as well?
Anton LaVey appeared in Rosemary's baby very briefly as Satan in the rape scene. He was also an uncredited technical advisor on the film. The Secret Life of a Satanist details his relationship with Monroe.

There is currently a great deal of controversy surrounding the life of Anton LaVey. Many of the stories that have been circulating about his life have been challenged since his death in 1997. These stem primarily from an article written by his estranged daughter Zeena and her husband Nikolas Schreck, both former members of the Church of Satan. It is attached to this article and is called Anton LaVey: Legend and Reality. Few, if any, of the claims put forth in the Schreck's article have been officially refuted to my knowledge by the Church of Satan. They include:

  • He never knew either Marilyn Monroe or Jayne Mansfield intimately
  • He had no involvement with Rosemary's Baby and was only asked to appear at a screening of the film by a San Francisco theatre.
  • He didn't ritualistally shave his head on Walpurgisnacht, 1966 in order to usher in Anno Satanas of the Satanic Empire. He shaved it later that year, on a dare made by his wife.
  • He essentially lied about every aspect of his past in order to create a legend or Myth about himself. These range from his claim that the Black House was originally equipped with secret passageways and trap doors. The Schrecks claim that this is pure fabrication and that the house belonged to his parents.

It must be kept firmly in mind that the authors of these claims both have personal animus towards Anton LaVey and may have been motivated by personal grudges. The allegations are quite harsh in places and accuse LaVey of beating his second wife Diana repeatedly and trying to strangle her, beating his pets, abetting a friend by idly watching him molest LaVey's grandson, as well as fabricating his fabled job histories as a lion tamer, crime photographer, etc.

In my opinion, the Schreck document appears to be a combination of fact and hysterical hyperbole based on a pronounced feeling of loss. Dr. LaVey had not been gone for three months when this report was compiled. Zeena Schreck left the Church in 1990 in order to join The Temple of Set, which was founded in 1975 by ex members of the COS. Prior to that, she denounced her Father and remained estranged from him until his death. All these factors make it difficult to determine what precisely is factual and therefore ought to be included in the Wikipedia biography.

The main problem is that claims have been made to challenge the validity of numerous occurances that are contained within both of LaVey's biographies. Also, loyal followers are loathe to contradict what has long been accepted as the official word on his personal life. Should we just create a disclaimer that states, something to the effect, that "the events proclaimed in this article as fact have been challenged on several fronts by individuals who had unresolved grievances with LaVey"?

I'm going to leave a note about the Schreck's article on the page. I just want to draw people's attention to the relationship between the author(s) and LaVey. _________________________________________________________ I agree completely with your final statement. It's almost amazing how people jump at the chance to denounce somebody after they have passed on and can no longer defend themselves... almost. But you have to keep in mind the dispicable nature of mankind. Everyone was too cowardly to make these accusations while he was alive. Zeena was sore about the divorce between Anton and Diana, and of course Diana would feel the same way. And when you get two women together who want to cause trouble, this sort of thing is bound to occur.

As opposed to when you get two similarly minded men together, right? --Haruki 10:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                         *               *              *

Actually, many of the claims made in Legend and Reality, (minus the personal family business), were also made in the Sept. 1991 Rolling Stone article, "Sympathy for the Devil". The original letter from Zeena to Dr Aquino, (Dec. 1990), was written around the same time as the Lawrence Wright article. Hence his inclusion, "Later I learned that, earlier in the evening, LaVey's younger daughter had chosen this special day to renounce her father.......in a letter to LaVey's archenemy, Michael Aquino." It may also be noted that Dr LaVey did respond to Mr Wright, when he said, "I don't want the legend to disappear. There is a danger you will disenchant a lot of young people who use me as a role model.".

Concerning Anton LaVey's estranged daughter Zeena Schreck, the article listed her as High Priestess of the Church of Satan from 1985 to 1990. This is denied on the Official Church of Satan website in a letter[1] to the Village Voice written by Magistra Blanche Barton. As such, I have removed this listing. --Xiaogui17 (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jane mansfield

mentioned in a disscussion with lavey in marilyn manson's long hard road out of hell (book)

The Secret Life of a Satanist details the relationship between the two, and also provides photogrphic evidence.

Hotel California

No mention yet of his supposed "appearance" on the cover art of Hotel California - Eagles. --User:62.252.224.14, 04:26, 23 June 2005

Urban myth explored here. —Morning star 06:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is the myth notable enough that it should be addressed? There appear to be so many myths (intentional or natural) about LaVey that they could be organized into a section, or at least a paragraph. -Willmcw 10:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


looked at the inside of my Dad's original LP last night...there is defenitely "someone" in the balcony window and whoever it is, it's defenitely a dead ringer for LaVey...no question about that. I personally find it hard to believe that the songs lyrical content and this supposed appearence is coincedental. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.36.35.40 (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? A dead ringer for LaVey, huh? You know, it's a WOMAN on the balcony, right? It's a female model hired for that shoot. As for the lyrics: there is nothing "mystical" or "satanistic" about the song. In fact, its meaning is exactly the same as the more prosaic lyrics of their song, "Life in the Fast Lane." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.152.178 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish heritage?

How come nothing is mentioned of his jewish heritage? --User:211.30.234.114, 19:27, 23 June 2005

Because he wasn't. --D.J.B. (User:172.195.68.61), 04:13, 15 July 2005

You're all crazy. --User:172.196.108.46, 00:40, 18 August 2005

Lavey mentions in several of his works that he is a "Jew-Gypsy."
Do you have a source to show this? I only ask so that the rest of us may verify same.150.208.140.13 19:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some references, one book that even the CoS authorises:

  • Rolling Stone Magazine interview with LaVey by Lawrence Wright’ - "It’s Not Easy Being Evil in a World That’s Gone to Hell", Rolling Stone, September 5, 1991 - LaVey reveals his own Jewish heritage and rela name, as does Blanche Barton. LaVey also stated in this interview: "There is a danger you will disenchant a lot of young people who use me as a role model." and "I don't want the legend to disappear"
  • Lucifer Rising: A Book of Sin, Devil Worship and Rock 'n' Roll by Gavin Baddeley, Paul Woods (Plexus Publishing (UK), 2000, ISBN 0-85965-280-7) page 214. Referring to the influence that Sir Basil Zaharoff had on LaVey, as opposed to “Stanton” being LaVey’s middle birth name, Barton writes, “LaVey’s grandson, born in 1978, was named “Stanton Zaharoff” in his honor.” Barton, The Secret Life of a Satanist, 24. When referring to LaVey’s grandson’s first name, Barton says that he was named after a character in William Lindsay Gresham’s novel Nightmare Alley. Ibid., 42. What Barton fails to mention in both instances is that “Stanton” was Anton LaVey’s middle birth name. Because Barton was LaVey’s live in lover and here the author of his “authorized biography”, the failure to do so is significant because it further goes to prove a deliberate repression of pertinent information for the purposes of advancing LaVey’s self-created “autobiographical” details.
  • A Critical Biography of LaVey: Hypocrisy, Plagiarism and LaVey by John Smulo
  • In a well-documented article by one of LaVey’s daughters, Zeena LaVey, and Nikolas Schreck, entitled Anton LaVey: Legend and Reality, virtually all of the oft-repeated details about LaVey were shown to be fictitious. Zeena LaVey and Nikolas Schreck, Anton LaVey: Legend and Reality, [2] and [3] (February 2, 1998). Accessed March 1, 2001. For further confirmation of this cf. Lawrence Wright, “It’s Not Easy Being Evil in a World That’s Gone to Hell” in Rolling Stone. September 5, 1991: 63-68, 105-16. Cf. also Joe Abrams, The Church of Satan, https://web.archive.org/web/20070702123849/http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/satanism/churchof.html. Accessed 17/11/01.
  • Other references [4], [5], [6]
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anton_LaVey#Birth_name
  • Saints and Sinners by Lawrence Wright, ISBN: 0679761632

FK0071a 10:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry

People are free to capitalise on whichever part of their ancestry they feel defines them as an individual.If he didn't feel that his Jewish heritage helped his image, maybe his chose not to mention it in his books.It's really no big deal.I was born in California,yet on my user page I identify as Irish due to my lineage being about 3/4 Irish.It's a personal thing.I'm not ashamed of being American.--jeanne (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a similar vein:

"During this time, it has been alleged, he was involved in underground Zionist groups in San Francisco which helped smuggle arms to the Irgun during the Israeli War of Independence."

This "has been alleged" by whom?! This strikes me on the face as an easy anti-Semitic smear, attempting to link the state of Israel to a noted Satanist. (And a quick Google offers little but Wikipedia mirrors and white supremacist sites.) Sources, anyone?

... Update: To answer my own question: it seems to have been alleged by LaVey himself, via the official biography... objection withdrawn

The official biography is known to have many inaccuracies, unsourced and unverifiable statements therein. I repeat what I stated below: Most families of genuinely orthodox Jewish faith maintain proper geneology charts and records as is necessary to the continuance of the religion, particularly on the mother's side. LaVey's mother is listed as Russian and Ukranian, but not Jewish. LaVey's failure to ever in his lifetime produce geneaology references, religious geneaology, bar-mitzvah documentation, or anything more substantial than an off-the-cuff remark in an interview for shock value, does not bode well for the veracity of the claim.

If Ms. Barton would like to produce Mr. LaVey's documentation or certification of his heritage, she's more than welcome to do so. However, there are just as many other earlier written sources prior to Barton's volume where LaVey himself claims he is not jewish. Since Mr. LaVey considered himself a master Machiavellian, this claim may amount to nothing more than a classic LaVey trump card. Got2Bthere (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Claims of LaVey's Jewish heritage stem primarily from his authorized biography by Barton published by the one Church of Satan in-house publishing source (Feral House). Therefore it is not a reliable source for this claim, falling under Wiki's “Questionable sources” and “Self-published sources” Wiki definition: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest."

Desktop publishing, Print-on-demand and other forms of self-publishing are generally not considered reliable sources. If there were other, objective, cross-referencing sources without personal interests at hand, that could be taken into consideration. But with only LaVey supporters upholding the claim, and no other evidence from objective outside sources, it must be considered as dubious any religious followers supporting their leaders' claims.

There are many historical comparisons to figures such as L. Ron Hubbard, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Jim Jones, Aleister Crowley, Carlos Castaneda, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, etc. all of whom have followers who, to this day despite exposure to the contrary, uphold falsified histories. So why might it not also be the case in this instance where we have a model of someone who admittedly made it a part of his philosophy to create one's own history?

Vote in favour of removal of claims until proven beyond a doubt.

13:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Got2Bthere (talk • contribs)

Proof Anton is jewish, from his own group's mouth: [1] - Time to update his jewish ancestry. 2601:195:4100:7920:DD7:58BC:F4E:173D (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/churchofsatan/status/966451445062025218?lang=en

The above isn't "proof". Burton Wolfe, a Jewish author and friend of LaVey who wrote the first biography of LaVey (The Devils Avenger), and an updated edition (The Black Pope) after LaVey's death, said that there was no evidence that LaVey's mother was Jewish; in fact the claim has never been made. Jewish heritage is acknowledged to be matrilineal and LaVey alluded to himself as being of mixed Jewish-gentile heritage. As only LaVey's father was Jewish, it does not seem accurate to refer to laVey as "jewish" — secular or otherwise — but rather to acknowledge his mixed heritage. He would not be regarded as Jewish by other jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.247.28 (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His maternal grandparents were buried in a Jewish cemetery (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/237229256/baris-e-coulton). Smamuel123 (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have any WP:SECONDARY sources connecting the pictured gravestone to LaVey. Findagrave is considered unreliable per WP:USERG. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geneaology

A false geneaology has been cited for Anton LaVey listed on five accounts on his Wiki page and should be removed for the following reasons:


1) According to California SS# death records (cross referenced with other family members to find the CORRECT Michael J. Levey), Anton LaVey's father, Michael J. Levey, was not born 30 Oct. 1891. Anton LaVey's father was born November 17, 1903; no notation as to religion was stated; died August 1992. Therefore, the Michael J. Levey listed in this geneaology is false/the wrong person.


Therefore, all of the following quote from "Biography" on subject's page is utterly false based on mistaken identity of the father: "His father, Michael Joseph Levey, was a liquor distributor from Omaha, Nebraska. His grandfather, Leon Levy, was born in Paris, France and emigrated to the United States in 1886, settling in Douglas County, Nebraska, where he married Louisville-native Emma Goldsmith, who was of German Jewish ancestry, two years later." --INACCURATE


2) Subsequently, all grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. would therefore be utterly inaccurate when the wrong person is listed as father. A major factual error, erroneously written into Anton LaVey's biography.


Accurate citation still needed to support subject's geneaology - i.e., there is no solid, documentation to support LaVey's claim of Jewish descent, save for his and others' claims when adventageous to dispute/dispell LaVey's and his collegues' extremist political views.


Most families of genuinely orthodox Jewish faith maintain proper geneology charts and records as is necessary to the continuance of the religion, particularly on the mother's side. LaVey's mother is listed as Russian and Ukranian, but not Jewish. LaVey's failure to ever in his lifetime produce geneaology references, religious geneaology, bar-mitzvah documentation, or anything more substantial than an off-the-cuff remark in an interview for shock value, does not bode well for the veracity of the claim.

Got2Bthere (talk) 10:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Photos

It'd be great to get some photos of LaVey and his family. Does anyone have their own pictures of him that they could release under the GFDL or public domain? LaVey had such a striking appearance that a picture would be very informative. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Satanis: The Devil's Mass is an old documentary about the CoS in it's early days which is in the public domain. Any screenshots would be as well.
I own a copy of "The Devil's Mass" as distributed by Something Weird Video. Does anyone have information as how to prove something is public domain? I was hope to utelize the movie of similar audio sampeling/screenshot purposes as well. 172.132.1.180 20:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

neutral revisions

praise God —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkzilla (talk • contribs) 22:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I cleaned up the article considerably.... there were an excessive number of one-sided "then Anton said this, which was later proven to be a lie" totally NNPOV statements. I removed these and mostly quarantined such drama to the "Criticism" section, which I have expanded greatly. Statements in the biography part that are highly contentious have been softened and tempered with language like "reportedly" and "according to his biography". Pro-Anton supporters may be irked that I've given more space to Zeena's criticisms, but on the other hand, Pro-Zeena supporters will probably be irked that the article reflects Zeena's lack of proof of her claims, aside from mere anecdotal hearsay from Anton's old enemies. wikipediatrix 19:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SuB par article.

Excuse me here, but we are talking about a perverse prick, and what i am reading in this expurgated version is the story of a saint. FAR BELOW WIKIPEDIA STANDARDS. What about satanic rituals, i mean everyone associates that with abuse, cults, evil etc. where the fuck is all that?

Right under the "Satanic Scare of the 1990's" Header. Don't forget that Wikipedia is a _neutral_ Encyclopedia, not an outlet for religiously slanted blather.

You need to educate yourself about the subject. Stop equating accusations with fact.
He was not a perverse prick. He was a genius and you are an idiot.
Why is this even being talked about, i'd figure if you can't back up any claims of him being a pervert (subjective, therefore invalid), prick (subjective, therefore invalid), abusive, or evil (subjective, therefore invalid). and if you have any source cited claims about criminal activity (not subjective adjectives and rumors), then mention your source(s) (and their source(s) please).150.208.140.13 19:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rv satanism tag

Anyone know why an anon keeps removing the satanism tag? It seems to me that s/he has a problem with the tag itself, not with its presence here. I'll rv it again. The IP# has multiple users and blocking seems useless. AvB ÷ talk 08:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Satanism tag is misleading. Anton LaVey created Satanism; therefore his definitions and codifications should be the guideline. According to LaVey, there are no denominations or "Types" of Satanism. Keeping this in mind, I think it would be appropriate to remove the tag. "There are Satanists, and there are nuts." -ASL —This unsigned comment was added by 132.33.132.19 (talk • contribs) .
Anton LaVey only created his own form of Satanism. There were Satan worshippers long before the year 1966! wikipediatrix 15:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

132.33.132.19, I see your point. You do have a problem with the tag itself. However, the tag exists, and it does apply to Lavey, so it should be included in the article. You may want to try and dispute the tag and all it stands for - the correct place would be Satanism and/or Template:Satanism. But you have very little chance of generating a consensus for your ideas there - Lavey already has a prominent place in the Satanism article but there are other major and minor POVs that can't be ignored or subsumed. AvB ÷ talk 17:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikipediatrix- I see you haven't read the article in question; Anton LaVey was not a "Satan worshipper." He was a Satanist. There is a vast difference between the two.
I see you didn't read my post. I didn't say LaVey was a Satan worshipper. I said Satan worshippers existed prior to 1966. wikipediatrix 00:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avb- simply because the tag exists and loosely applies to LaVey, that does not make it accurate. Satanism is mixed together with Satan-worship in the template, which is innacurate and misleading- factors Wikipedia disdains in its articles. The two deserve their own seperate tags. A more accurate Satanism tag should be placed here. —This unsigned comment was added by 132.33.132.19 (talk • contribs) .

Wouldn't you agree that this is something to be sorted out in the main Satanism article first? After all, such tags are generally based on the articles, aiming to direct readers to related information or gain an overall picture. I would say that this specific tag is interesting in that the reader who follows the links will be informed about everything related to the term "Satanism". This is in accordance with the WP:NPOV policy - Wikipedia is not about the one and only Truth but about the truth as the various groups and people see it... AvB ÷ talk 12:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weasel words

This article was uglied-up by not one but two "this article contains weasel words" tags... I looked over it again and don't see any weasel language at all. If anything, it's just the opposite: there are passages that could be tempered with a dose of uncertainty and benefit of the doubt. If anyone else thinks there's weasel talk, discuss it here, or better yet, just fix it. wikipediatrix 00:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birth name

Birth name was reverted by anon, asserting that the Encyclopaedia Britannica is not a reliable source, which stated his birth name as "Howard Levy". We also find on sites like churchofsatan.org that his birth name was "Howard Stanton Levey". There is an entry in the Social Security Death Index at familysearch.org for "Anton LAVEY", with the same birth date and death dates and locations. However, the number was issued in California, that is, not at birth. This could indicate that he changed his name and got a new number therefor. The name change agrees with several sources. Is there a good refutation of the name change somewhere? —Centrx→talk • 20:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social Security numbers were not originally issued at birth. I got mine when I was about fifteen ? You didn't have to get a Social Security number until you got a job. The totalitarian state has since changed that. 116.231.76.61 (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

churchofsatan.org is not a reliable source for this information, not only from a CoS POV but from a Wiki POV. Their own bias is very clearly strong, and should be ignored. Encyclopedia Britannica is a source of unknown information on this, as it is not clear at all where Encyclopedia Britannica got this information; I think it is fair to say that perhaps even such usually reputable sources get lazy when it comes to an issue like Satanism.

http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/Montalba.html

This source, as well as Magistra Barton's book, seem to suggest otherwise. According to her, his birth name was Howard Anton LaVey, but also mentions confusion in spelling the last name as it was spelled LeVey by his father but LaVey by his uncle; understandable as it was a name assigned at Ellis Island to his family. She also mentions that even as a child he wrote his name Anton Szandor LaVey, suggesting that it could have been a name his own family used for him (perhaps out of old world sentiment, it does not specify).

While I do not feel like it is a particularly big issue and hence I have never edited it, I have never in all my research heard him referred to as "Howard Levy" {which should throw EB's facts into deep question as no one else mentions this name, among all those who knew him and even his detractors), and no reliable source that his name ever included "Stanton" (actually, looking at the original source of this information the motives for this should be clear).

My suggestion is to simply make no mention of alternate names in the article as they are not relevant to his life (he was never published or known by any other name), at the very least until a truly reliable source of information, namely official court documents, is cited. I don't personally think it's worth my time to request those documents, and probably there would still be constant argument on the issue even if you had proof in hand. --Lvthn13 00:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the "Levy" was suspect, but it is found in a handful of places on the Web, and it could be a typographic error for "Levey", which is found in several places. —Centrx→talk • 04:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The info on the FCoS website seems quite verifiable: http://www.churchofsatan.org/aslv.html
I'm not in the U.S., so all I have to go on is the Web, but if someone could check that "Birth certificate 4/11/1930, Cook County, Illinois", it would be great. In the meantime, keep in mind also the attempted forgery of his death certificate and the corrections made to it by a doctor and two family members, under signature: http://www.churchofsatan.org/fake.html
I'm willing to bet his birth name was Howard Stanton Levey. And, Lvthn13: you might be interested to know that your automatic rejection of FCoS opinions because of a suspicion of bias is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem circumstantiae.
D0nj03 (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage

I am not aware of a source that suggests that Dr. LaVey possessed any Ukrainian heritage; the original quote citing his heritage is from Magistra Blanche Barton's book, "The Secret Life of a Satanist," a biography of him by the person who probably knew him best. In any case, I have reverted said edit and cited the source. If anyone believes there is any other case for this, sources should be required and discussed here first. --Lvthn13 00:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason this again seems to be a source of eternal controversy, for unknown reasons. Why anyone feels like it is relevant information that one person with a clear agenda has disputed his ancestry amidst other "discrediting" claims (many of which have been verifiably disproven) is beyond me, except that he is such a controversial figure that any small foothold for criticism is embraced without question. A Rolling Stone interview with a drug addict should not by any standard be given equal credence to a published biography. In any case, criticisms should be restricted to the section devoted to that; a good article should present the bare facts as they are most commonly accepted by the most qualified sources. If we simply must include unverified and unfounded claims in a subsection just to satisfy the critics (mostly anonymous editors, I might add), then at least keep it restricted to that section. --Lvthn13 00:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Prevent any furthur misunderstandinds, the editing to say he was for definite Ukrainian was a error on my part, however both Blanche Barton's "The Secret Life of a Satanist" and Zeena LaVey's "Anton LaVey: Legend and Reality" both make claims of his ancestry without any sources. A compromise should be made (if there is an agreement on the lst statement) that being that according to LaVey's biography "The Secret Life of a Satanist", his ancestry can be traced to French, Alsatian, German, Russian, and Romanian stock, and any mention of the dispute from Zeena LaVey will be restricted to the Criticism section. to say that His ancestry could be traced to Romania does not reflect the neutrlity of wikipedia in that no third party has verified such a claim. No further editing on this will be done by me until an agreement can be found. --AlexanderLevian

Actually this is not exactly a fair statement. Blanche Barton's biography of LaVey was in fact sourced, by LaVey himself. One could attempt to make the "he could have lied" argument, but given the fact that there is no conceivable reason why someone would lie about having widely mixed heritage (especially when his own name supports his claimed origins) and much of her biography is readily supported by available facts and photographs this is a last ditch type of argument that is "unresolvable" but most importantly unproductive. Contrasted to this, Zeena's claims include a great many statements that have been entirely proven false, rendering her flatly an invalid source for any information on his life. If a source has a reputation for honesty, it should be trusted; if a source is proven dishonest, it should be ignored especially when it contradicts an honest source.
I am at a loss to account for why you think it is a neutrality issue as to whether or not LaVey had Romanian heritage. What "third party" do you want, his entire family tree verified by various European governments? The demands made to "prove" LaVey's claims far, far exceed those made of other historical figures, which if you will pardon me saying so is far more of a neutrality issue. The fact that his accounts of his life, including his very own biography written by a person close to him, is constantly called into question despite the fact that not one of his statements about himself has ever been proven to be an outright lie is a travesty of neutrality. Were we to enforce fair and balanced Wikipedia neutrality upon this article, I would be obliged to immediately delete the entire criticisms section and remove every last one of the critical statements from the articles since not one of them, not a single one, is based upon a reliable source.
The very problem with this article and most of the Satanism articles is that every last point made in them is ever under attack by non-neutral parties who want to smear them at worst, and when forced to admit that they do not have good sources want to "compromise" by making their smears in thinly veiled language or leaving half in and taking half out. For the reasons I have named, that Zeena LaVey cannot be considered an honest source of information and that her claims cannot be taken in good faith from a Wikipedia stance of neutrality, every criticism made must be sourced or face removal. If we wish to bring out the neutrality issue, I'm all for doing so and mercilessly putting all these claims on the cutting room floor. LaVey's claims are backed by two biographies (yes, two; Burton Wolfe wrote another that further substantiates many of his claims), photographic evidence, and countless personal accounts from friends and associates. His detractors claims are backed by a document proven to be dishonest published in a pop culture magazine consisting of an interview with a drug addict. The evidence speaks for itself. --Lvthn13 18:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not saying to mention the dispute in his wikipedia biography nor to change the claim (your right, it's the critic's duty to present verifiable sourses) but the entire article for him on wikipedia includes the following "according to his biography." before all articles claimed in said biography. If this change will be aloud then the dispute will be irrelevant (there's no dispute that both of his biograhy claims this heritage). Don't misunderstand, I'm not out to tear down LaVey's Name. Just to find an agreeable (and objective) statement. I hope we can reason this out like gentlemen. I'm only asking that the statement be changed as i shall do so, and if this is still opposing wikipedia's nuetral view point, i will allow changing of same. thank you for your time. --AlexanderLevian

Certainly, I do not mind the input. I agree that in strict neutrality, certain sentences should be rephrased to specify that they are claims made according to him, and neither wholly substantiated nor disproven by outside sources. Certain personal details of his life are literally impossible to verify with outside documentation, and not because he's hiding things but because he was prior to the Church of Satan not a celebrity and therefore not particularly documented. However, many such facts are of considerable interest to the man's life and should not be omitted wholly, but I will agree that in the interest of Wikipedia standards, some of them may be best revised to indicate that they are only sourced by himself and his biographies.
I simply find it mildly frustrating that "sources" that for any other public figure would be immediately considered tabloid and entirely unusable as a reliable Wikipedia source are considered valid as it applies to LaVey (I am specifically referring to Zeena's claims). I do strongly support true neutrality with this article and all articles, but it is a long uphill battle to get neutrality when it comes to Satanic subjects. --Lvthn13 16:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I know, From my own research, none of Zeena's claims are verifiable except a few that were never "lies" in the first place (such as the claim that the satanic bible was plagiarized, when in fact excerpts from "might is right" (not copyrighted, to my knowledge however) were used and some ideas of past occultist and philosophers were reasearched and organized, all to back Lavey's initial ideas. also the rosemary's baby movie to with i still can't find a interview or lititure that anton ever said he was a advisor or satan or anything but a heavy influence) she is unreliable and i as of now delete any sources that i have cited using her. but i still maintain my claim with rosemary's baby based on william castle's (producer/cameo actor of rosemary's baby) biography. And 3 IMDB entries, but to be fair these are internet sources. i'm glad we've come to agreement, and yes it will be a long time before subjects like satanism can be discussed and research in an objective and neutral fashion. thank you. AlexanderLevian 19:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heard from many that Anton Lavey has Hungarian origins though I can't find anything about that in the article. The letter combination Sz is pronounced in hungarian as S.. By surfing the net I also found a book written by Dr. Drábik János (http://mek.oszk.hu/01500/01560/html/02.htm - a book from the Hungarian Electronic Library (MEK)) who mentions that Anton Lavey is Leövey Sándor. It is known that he had a leopard called Zoltan, the name Zoltan is a living and popular Hungarian name. After the IWW many Hungarian fled form Hungary and from the detached territories(71.5% of land loss, half of the Hungarian speaking population) to the USA. Around 3 million Hungarians remained in Transylvania, which is a historically Hungarian territory, that was annexed to Romania after 1920. Hungary had many nationalities and had close connections with neighbour states like Germany, Russia, Austria(Austro-Hungarian monarchy) and the Hungarian nobility was studying in France. In my opinion further searchings would certainly prove Anton Lavey's Hungarian origin. 83.166.208.136 16:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Turul[reply]

Rosemary's Baby

Recent changes by anonymous editors have led me to start this discussion. I have not read anything in which Dr.Lavey (himself) made any claim of being an actor nor a technical adivisor in the film "Rosemary's Baby". the IMDB website entries mentioned by the editor as sources state no involvement of his with the film. The biography of William Castle (cameo actor and producer of Rosemary's Baby) claims the same. therefore, I have reverted the changes, cited sources, and will continue to do so until proper sources are cited to show Dr.LaVey's involvement as either technical advisor or actor (or atleast actually saying he was, in the case of the IMDB entries). I hope we can maintain nuetrality (as hard as it is with subjects like satanism). thank you. AlexanderLevian 07:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I felt like we'd have to leave it as you say until there's a source to at least suggest otherwise:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rosemarys_baby/about.php
I haven't changed anything yet, but this is a counter source. It leads me to believe that possibly the whole thing should be changed to say "disputed" since it would appear that even ignoring any CoS sources, there is in fact public disagreement on whether or not LaVey really did do the role. It's not an issue of great importance to me either way, but it does make me wonder why all this disagreement exists (and watching the movie, I agree that the eyes look pretty similar). -Lvthn13 20:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally agree, but there are two problem. First, the site doesn't name the writer of that article, therefore we don't have credentials of his authority on the movie. second, the site doesn't list any lititure or official interview to show where they would get such information. the site itself is therefore unreliable. I've noticed several similar sites claiming the source of LaVey's involvement is in Charles Manson Superstar, which is written and directed by Nikolas Schreck (The same man who, along with Zeena Lavey, began spreading the "Anton LaVey: Legend and reality" slander) and on the DVD release of same Schrek changed his position and would even later claimed LaVey "lied to him". So since we consider him (Schrek, that is) discredited, there's no actual ability to say that he was or even (with justifiable reason) claim a dispute. Wikipedia isn't for unqualified disputes (as you showed me on our first encounter, I'm sure you remember). But the point is we can only count sources that were themselves there or of an official interview of Dr.LaVey or someone who officially (and legally) spoke for him saying otherwise. AlexanderLevian 01:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suggest that we change the whole thing. But this site is actually news to me; perhaps we should include a line stating that there is some disagreement in sources? You may have a point, that this site doesn't specify where it got the information, but rotten tomatoes is certianly not "sympathetic to Satanism" so it led me to wonder where this came from. Perhaps we should further research and find additional sources either way. No change made, yet. -Lvthn13 01:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like the best idea. And it would also be wise to see if anyone else in the past looked for information on LaVey making such a claim. I will change the article to include the disposition of rottentomatos and other internet sources. Literature would also be a good source to obtain. the two that I have comes from M. Aquino (who I haven't found anything to (legitimitely) discredit him, but if you find something let me know) and W. Castle (The producer) and I refuse to cited N. Schrek as a source of anything but problems. If you find furthur literature please post. thanks man. AlexanderLevian 05:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to check on that before I could answer definitively. Incidentally, your recent edits have been mostly quite fine, though I changed the edit "often known as a 'founder of Satanism'" because it is clumsy wording and unclear. A founder? As opposed to which other founders? Besides the fact that a very solid historical argument can be made that he was the first person to use the term "Satanist" as a statement of actual religious affiliation, and of course the fact he certainly founded the first religious body dedicated to Satanism, it simply makes little sense to suggest that he might have been one of many when no other "founders" can be named. If the goal is to suggest that Christians believed there were Satan worshippers (as opposed to Satanists) for centuries before, or that occult movements existed prior to the CoS (Crowley for example, though he strongly disavowed any suggestion that he would be considered a Satanist), then I think maybe this is trying too hard to say an entire mouthful in one phrase. Satanism as it is defined was indeed founded by Anton LaVey, so the present phrasing is entirely accurate.
If the intended suggestion was that there existed actual Satanic or devil worshipping cults prior to the Church of Satan, the myth of "generational Satanism," then I suggest that this be sourced. LaVey himself researched this exhaustively as he would have liked to have found some evidence of this kind of occult underground, and since then countless occultniks, scholars, and laymen have searched in vain for any solid evidence that such groups ever existed. I'd be delighted if a real source for this is found, but that source should be both accurate (i.e. Catholic Inquisition manuals are...shall we say, unreliable as sources of information on this) and predate 1966 (foundation of the Church of Satan) or else reference sources or evidence predating 1966. Sure, lots of people have claimed those groups existed after the fact, but no proof in either physical evidence or literary reference has ever been unearthed. Until real proof is shown, LaVey will continue to be the sole "founder of Satanism." —Lvthn13 12:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First I didn't initially write that he was "A founder of Satanism" (a previous editor wrote that in). Second, I agree, as a matter of fact. I (personally) find The founder of satanism proper for the sources we have. All of the older so called "satanic organizations", that i've researched, were almost never devoted to Satan. for examples, Crowley prefered Horus, Hellfire Club prefered Venus and Bacchus, and The so-called "Devil Worshipping Yezidi" prefer Malak Ta’us (whom is considered, by some Judeo-Christian persons, to be the equivilant of Satan but I can't find actual proof). Therefore, no connection to Satanism is found. The article shall not be edited (atleast by me or with my knowledge) without proper sources cited. Thank you. AlexanderLevian 03:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though the Rosemary's Baby rumor started with misconceptions about LaVey's claiming to be a strong influence on both the Novel and Movie (valid enough). This seems to have been exagerated by third parties. Therefore, until someone can find this claim that Anton Lavey made, this should be considered the current stand point. It's just like Zeena and other Anti-Lavayen Satanist to say that he claimed to be an actor/T.A., and then present the facts supporting that he wasn't, but never cites the source of Dr.Lavey ever claiming it in the first place. This is just a slightly more complex lie that Zeena has piled on top of other (more straight foward) lies. My only question... Is the rumor of such significances that it needs to be mentioned in the Anton Lavey article? I, of course, mean by Wikipedia standards (not our opinion) with policy statements to show the same. Until then I believe we are to refrain from deleting the article due to the relevancy and according to Wikipedia's policy on vandalism. by the way Lvthn & Alexander good job changing the so called "criticism" section into a list of trivial facts about LaVey (definitly more positive and organized that way).150.208.140.13 17:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

I've attempted to change all instances where he was named simply as "Anton" instead of either by full name or last name to "LaVey" according to general convention. To name a major figure by first name only is not commonly accepted practice, in addition to the fact that it was inconsistent within the article. Naming him by last name or full name should be the norm. -Lvthn13 17:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a footnote, not an argument, he is “Howard”, up until the 1950 Census, where he is “Anton S.Levey”. ( No clue when “Levey” became “LaVey”.)75.106.32.81 (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title of "Doctor"

--WerewolfSatanist 02:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "doctor" aside from being something of respect, is Church of Satan related. He was considered to be a Doctor of Satanic Theology and Philosophy. Doctor was basically what you called the person who achieved "Magus." AKin to calling a person who was a Priest "Reverend."

Other churches have done this.

I agree and I went ahead and put your reference in a more apporpriate form for wikipedia. thank you AlexanderLevian 23:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any standards/policy stated by wikipedia about titles (such as doctor) used in the articles?

it just seems like that would be the only problem.

I would say we do. Titles are given by organizations and while its not the same as a university doctorate, it stll was bestowed by an organization on the grounds of what that meant to the organization. The article already explains WHY and gives a source so I think it would be safe to put "Dr" in front of his name. It keeps things neutral with the Satanists who respect LaVey as a Doctor and keeps things neutral with everybody else by explaining WHY he was considered so. WerewolfSatanist

Well its been a good four days or so. No objection then? =) WerewolfSatanist


I object! your renaming of Lavey to title him Dr.Lavey goes against wikipedia (i'm sorry but we don't care about peggy's reasons for calling him doktor as your source shows). the official policy (not the CoS) of titles such as Dr. is stated in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). therefore it shall be changed back and remain until policy changes are made. thank you AlexanderLevian 17:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that one. Sorry then! WerewolfSatanist

It's cool. A misunderstanding only (I assure you), I agreed with mentioning the title and information regarding it. But wikipedia is one of the first websites to give honest and objective view of LaVey, and therefore I try to uphold their standards and I appreciate you being so patient with my double checking. Thank you and good day sir. AlexanderLevian 01:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in the Policy that eliminates him from using the Title of Dr. He was a High Priest of the CoS and one title bestowed upon him by the organization was Dr. The Wiki Policy allows for clergy to be titled as he was Clergy, I am going to readd the Dr. --QSaranis 14:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of Falsehood

I don't seen anything in this article made about the accusations of falsehood that have been circulating in an article (available at http://www.churchofsatan.org/lavey.html and other places) that dispute many of LaVey's claims about himself. I don't want to start putting in information from the article, because I can't yet find the original third-party source, and it was compiled and is hosted by people who are not without significant bias. --Halloween jack 16:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of today I have created the section "Controversy" to include all accusations against LaVey as well as Blanche Barton's rebuttal. I have also tried to reword the information to be consistant with wikipedia's NPOV policy. Key word: TRIED. If anyone feels that I have not done a significant job, please improve as I agree whole heartedly that my edit requires much improvement but is a start. Thank you. AlexanderLevian 17:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might add information about whether he was an adviser for Rosemary's Baby. This issue crops up repeatedly with people simply edit warring and substituting that he (was/was not) a part of the film. Discussing the debate should provide a place for both POVs, provided there's good evidence for both. Antonrojo 00:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anton LaVey was an advisor and cameo actor for Rosemary's Baby and there are more sources saying he was, than not. So now there should be NO argument over his involvement!!!
Of the sources listed as backing for LaVey's involvement in Rosemary's Baby, some are from his own church, others are from pages who most likely got their information second-hand or are reprinting rumours, and one (IMDB biography) actually informs us that he was not involved in the film. The recent revision makes no sense. Also, why does everyone assume that those of us who don't buy LaVey's official biography and life according to his followers are "anti-LaVey?" I'm largely indifferent to LaVey and to Satanism. --Halloween jack 19:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding a section with cites recently listed to support the claim that he was involved in the movie below. Antonrojo 21:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errors

I've been reading over this biography, amongst the ones of his ex-wife, and supposed seconds wife, and his two daughters. There are a few things I noticed, not all of those 'facts' added up. Date of death seems to shift quite a bit, and the cause of death seems various, also that in one of the articles it says that Diane and Anton had never been married, and suddenly they were man and wife for two decades.

I hope you don't take this as a criticism, it's not that at all. In fact I've always been a fan if you will, of Antons work, read his books as a teenager, and was quite interested in the way he percieved the world around him. And now, a few years later I stumble across these articles and I'd like to know more. Does anyone know anything more detailed than "supposed this and that", on the matters that I mentioned above?

I'd deeply appreciate it, if someone could provide that information.

I haven't checked the dates, but LaVey died of congestive heart failure. He was not legally married to Diane Hegarty, but they did cohabitate for over twenty years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.171.243 (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection needed?

71.108.30.54 keeps adding in little phrases were he accuses Marilyn Manson of being the current High Priest of Satanism (which is blatantly false, Marilyn Manson was made a Reverend, though many believe it merely an honorary title), perhaps we need a temporary protection from new or anonymous users if this keeps up.

-Current magus is Peter .H Gilmore,HS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.62.8 (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

The only people producing material on Anton LaVey, as near as I can tell, are equally divided into those who have something against him (like his daughter) and those who have something to gain from maintaining his reputation. Despite the fact that the linked article is hard to verify, there must be some mention on the page that not everyone accepts LaVey's "official" biographical account of his life at face value. The controversy section wasn't an attack on LaVey (it linked to the CoS refutation of the article it mentioned). --Halloween jack 23:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Vey involved in Rosemary's Baby production?

This question repeatedly crops up and a batch of cites recently added to support this are below to move towards consensus on this. The reasons I don't think these are reliable sources is below. It would be best to find a primary source that can prove or disprove that he was in the film...or if this isn't possible to state the uncertainty. Good primary sources outweigh a large number of contradictory yet unreliable sources.

  • Primary source (the gold standard for WP:RS)

Film insider denies LaVey's involvement: Gene Gutowski; William Castle, Step Right Up! I'm Gonna Scare the Pants off America, New York: Pharos Books, 1992; Diane LaVey, Michael A. Aquino (COS, page #17).

Does anyone know where I can find a biography (and page number would help) or official interview in which LaVey, himself, makes such a claim?

I've read through the sources and here are my discoveries:

Anton LaVey, himself, does not make this claim, the gentlemen interviewing him makes that statement in the introduction (not during the interview, Anton LaVey would have no chance to contradict)
No primary sources are mentioned at all!
  • However, The following sources have either the credential or primary sources to make such a claim, but they deny his involvement:
    • Gene Gutowski; William Castle, Step Right Up! I'm Gonna Scare the Pants off America, New York: Pharos Books, 1992 (William Castle was the producer of the film)
    • Michael A. Aquino (COS, page #17) [7] (Michael A. Aquino was a member of the Church of Satan and therefore has an undisputed (to my knowledge) connection to LaVey)

(List of links by Antonrojo up until "Does anyone know..." where rest was added by AlexanderLevian) 03:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I realize that we could pile on many websites that back up his involvement, but none of these mention any sources at all! We do however have info from primary sources claiming he was not. In fairness to Wikipedia policy and NPOV, we must leave the information as is (maybe mentioning that there is a rumor, but nothing more) Thank You. AlexanderLevian 17:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I wasn't clear. I agree that the cites don't support the claim. I'm adding them because I think this is a fair characterization of the cites I see linked to the claim (e.g. see the 'filmography' claim that I just removed). Antonrojo 03:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys ? You have to belong to Equity to be in a movie. Or on stage. Or do any professional acting at all, without all the rest of the actors walking off. Either he joined Actors Equity (pretty unlikely, but if he did there would be a record) or he was not in Rosemary's Baby. I'ma gonna go with Door Number Two. 116.231.76.61 (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually … if you’re a background actor, or have no lines … you can be in a major motion picture, without being an Equity or SAG member. ( From personal experience.)
Curiously, has anybody actually WATCHED “Rosemary’s Baby” - specifically the onscreen credits? I know it seems obvious. But, in “The Devil’s Rain” - he IS noted onscreen. Sooo … has anyone checked that? 75.106.32.81 (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Lavey

Anyone know if Jess Lavey is actually the son of Anton Lavey? this site claims that Jess, born Anthony Jai Lavey, is Anton's son who was born into the Church of Satan but left and became a christian preacher, denouncing both the Church of Satan and his father. Anton's supporters claim that this is not his son. I'm not sure if this is something that should be placed in the controversy section.

This is hardly worth note. His claims just aren't verifiable. His picture with his "father" looked like a bad photoshop job. He used "Black Pope" in his interviews like it was an actual title within the Church of Satan, when that was simply a title given by the media. None of the other LaVey children mention another son, which would have been particularly damning (I'm sure it would have been a big point with Zeena Shreck's "Myth and Reality" article). On his "birth certificate" that he offers, it states that the date is 1968, yet Anton's age is recorded as 49. Which is off by at least ten years. Anton LaVey's birthplace is listed as in Germany. Plus the claims of the "Mother" Church of Satan that Jess was "born" at. No such thing has ever been recorded by ANYBODY. Its stupid. Another Michelle Remembers.64.5.145.74 13:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this helps the person who started this thread (or if this counts as a third-party source, as it seems to be a christian magazine) but there's a news story at the link provided below that seems to discredit him.

http://www.charismamag.com/display.php?id=6348 (Nimue the mighty 19:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It's also worth noting he claimed that both George Bushes participated in 'devil worshipping rituals' which 'Anton forced him into' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Prime (talk • contribs) 20:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's possible that a family of Satanists might have one child that is terrified by all the ritualism and darkness and that it is possible that one of the children broke away (like say someone who is raised Amish or Quaker and becomes disillusioned). So therefore it is possible that the LaVey family, completely embarrased and/or offended by the "Jess" break away to Christianity, disowned him, especially once he became a Reverened. Something to think about. Disowning would definitely be in the heart of a Satanist, as loving someone unconditionally is a concept developed by Christ. Btw, i am what you would refer to as areligious. I find it all to be a bunch of nonsense, it's the people involved and what they are physically doing that fascinate me, aka these primitive rituals conducted and the physical actions taken by people who believe in these things (that goes for Catholicism et. al).Ipunchouthorses (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Horse pucky a satanist is just as capable of loving a person as a christian is of hating and disowning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.191.102.20 (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the photo

This photo is a bit dark. Are there any lighter ones out there? A smile would be nice. ;) Kansaikiwi 10:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Most pics of LaVey were dark due to his "public image" & finding one with a smile is next-to-impossible. AcidEdge76 13:37, 31 May 2007

Perhaps the Temple of Set would lend one from their Church of Satan document. There was one of him smiling in there. 4.88.18.108 20:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LaVeyKnife.jpg

Image:LaVeyKnife.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lavey1.jpg

Image:Lavey1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Succeeded herself?

"... Satan Xerxes Carnacki LaVey, born November 1, 1993. She succeeded herself as the head of the Church ...", the article states. How on earth/heaven/hell did she succeed herself? Alpheus (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

she's just that talented? lol i think the person made a mistake saying "She succeeded him as head of the church." Sajfer pfenix (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verification

"Satan Xerxes Carnacki LaVey (1993) - Only son of Anton and Blanche. He is also a standing member of the Church of Satan, and is widely regarded by most Satanists as a immensely powerful child. At only thirteen, he already takes part in, and in some cases, leads many rituals and lectures. He is 100% likely to be the next High Priest of the Church of Satan when the time comes."

This needs to be verified. Given the strigency of the Church of Satan when it comes to enforcing policy, I doubt that a 15 year old would be allowed to join, even if that child were LaVey's son, considering the age requirement is 18. I'd like to see a statement by Magistra Barton, Magus Gilmore or Magistra Nadramia, or another reputable source on the status of LaVey's son and his involvement within the CoS. The last statement looks especially fabricated. 76.228.118.32 (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xerxes LaVey was indeed a very powerful child, and the most intelligent one I had ever met. Very outgoing, even at the age of 5, he was very sure of himself and wasn't afraid to speak his mind. The most respectful child ever, he could carry on a conversation as though he was 20 years old. He had the ability to discuss topics that baffled me and I learned much from him. Blanche Barton is a great mother and has done a more than excellent job in raising him. it has been 5 years since my last contact with Blanche and I am sure that at the age of 21, Xerxes has become a fine young man. Xerxes LaVey has been involved in "rituals" since at least the age of 5, as that was his age when I met him and his mother. These were not the evil, wicked, slaughtering of children or animals. These rituals were for self empowerment only and to assist in obtaining health, wealth, or love. I feel it would be natural for Xerxes to become the next high priest of the Church should he wish to do so... as Dr. LaVey's only son. For further info, please see churchofsatan.com (Nine Satanic Statements). Nowhere in these statements does it mention the harming of anyone or anything in any way. Children and animals are seen as sacred in the eyes of the Church. As per the paragraph below, he is called Xerxes..... not Satan. I am unsure of the necessary citing on Wikipedia, but I swear this to be true. {[Special:Contributions/M.Snow.}] 17:55, 30 July 2014 (MST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.126.229.201 (talk)

The only verifiable thing is that Satan LaVey is a member. The policy is that if your parents are members and they allow it, you are allowed to be a member. That is the only exception to the 18 age policy. That is verifiable: http://www.satanosphere.com/story/2001/9/7/121041/3661

The whole bit about him "100% likely" to be the next High Priest is just speculation. Similarly, I've never heard from a verifiable source that Xerxes is "an immensely powerful child." It always sounded like a rumor. 4.88.18.139 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Globe, Arizona

I've read LaVey's biographies and many articles about him but this page is the first time I've read that he lived in Globe, Arizona. What is the source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.215.200.194 (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation, specially his middle name

I would really appreciate if anyone could add the pronunciation of his name to the article, with sound example, specially his middle name that I can't read at all. I'm sure it's difficult to most readers too.

If sound clip is impossible, an IPA sample would be welcome.

Thanks in advance. Ali Nazifpour (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Ali NazifpourAli Nazifpour (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one knows how his name is pronounced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali Nazifpour (talk • contribs) 17:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the source of the trouble is the sz digraph. I believe this to be pronounced as a Z with a very brief sibilant lead-in. In IPA this may be written as ʃ̻z, but I can never tell with IPA. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The First Family of Satanism

  • Anton Szandor LaVey (1930-1997)
    • High Priest and Founder of CoS (the Church of Satan).
  • Carole Lansing
    • Anton's First Wife and Mother of Karla Maritza LaVey.
  • Karla Maritza LaVey (born 1952)
    • Daughter of Anton and Carole.
    • High Priestess of the Church of Satan (1990 to 1997); High Priestess of the First Satanic Church (1999 to Present).
  • Diane Hegarty-LaVey (born 1942)
    • Anton's live-in companion; Mother of Zeena Galatea LaVey.
    • Hostess, Model-Enchantress, Mother, Magician's Wife, and High Priestess of the Church of Satan (1966 to 1984).
  • Zeena Galatea LaVey-Schreck (born 1963)
    • Daughter of Anton and Diane.
    • Wife of Barry Dubin, AKA Nikolas Schreck (1988 to Present); Mother of Stanton Zaharoff LaVey.
    • Alpha Female and Co-director of the Werewolf Order and Radio Werewolf (1988 to 1993).
    • Priestess of the Temple of Set (1995 to 2002); Co-Founding member and High Priestess of the Storm International Vanguard of the Sethian Movement (2002 - Now Defunct).
  • Stanton Zaharoff LaVey (born 1978)
    • Son of Zeena Galatea Lavey.
    • Stanton carries on the family tradition as a "lifestyle Satanist." He is supportive of his grandparents' character and philosophy.
    • Married Szandora LaVey on 06/06/06 (marriage lasted only one year).
  • Szandora LaVey (born 1981)
    • Former daughter-in-law of Zeena LaVey-Schreck.
    • Worked as a go-go dancer and hula-hoop artist for a 1950s surf band, The Swank Bastards.
    • Satanic Model, Satanic Witch.
    • Married Stanton LaVey on 06/06/06 (divorced the following year).
  • Blanche Barton (real name Sharon Densley; born 1959)
    • Last Companion of Anton; Mother of Xerxes.
    • High Priestess of the Church of Satan (1997 to 2002).
    • Now Magistra Tempi Rex and Chair-mistress of the Council of Nine (the governing body of the Church of Satan).
  • Xerxes Carnacki LaVey (born 1993)
    • Son of Anton and Blanche. A standing member of the Church of Satan.

Wicca

Greetings. this has been difficult, but I have had to follow certain criteria for certain reasons. I read the Bunco sheet at the Church of Satan website, and it's such a great piece of literature, but, for some reason, I had to go to the Wicca people (before I read). I am Lucifer, angel/man. Tried to explain, and went to great detail about my situation, and how things are arranged. Law offices and others wouldn't do anything, even after I explained anomalous and undeniable occurances that have taken place.75.201.240.80 (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as potentially of interest to those editing the article, so I'm not summarily deleting it, although I would accept it if an established editor took a different position. But, could the anon explain what this is supposed to be, and what it has to do with the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moloko Anton Lavey

Whenever this article grows a pop culture references section or sub-article, let us not forget that the Korova Milk Bar, formerly of New York's Alphabet City, has an alcoholic milkshake specialty drink called a Moloko Anton LaVey, ingredient list "Root Beer Schnapps, White Cream de Cocoa, Chocolate Syrup and Ice Cream". —chaos5023 (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Death

Someone changed it to Jan 22, which it isn't. Tried to revert but it didn't work. Can someone who knows what they're doing please repair this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.172.10 (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overglorified Atheism?

Maybe it should be added that LaVey's Church of Satanism is more or less overglorified Atheism? Zeena has said this several times, once on a Geraldo special called "Satan's Underground Exposed". Maybe she is biased since she is now a member of the Temple of Set, but she is right. LaVey Satanism has no deity to worship, other than oneself. Then again, this could be a completely ridiculous talk subject. Just a suggestion, if anyone agrees, would you please add it to the article? Sajfer pfenix (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LaVey called his brand of Satanism for Ayn Rand/Objectivism with rituals. He did not know of Ayn Rand when he started the COS, if I remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Deathbed Conversion"

Someone added a bit at the end of the "death" section claiming LaVey made a deathbed conversion. The supplied reference just linked to a YouTube video assembled out of clips of a some commentators talking about an unnamed "famous occultist" who supposedly recanted on his death bed. Highly dubious reference, and no other verification, so I'm removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.64.130 (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

maybe locking this article is needed

Considering the amounts of vandalism this article seems to get as well as the issues with unsourced material being added perhaps it would be wise to make it at least semi-protected? I admit to not fully knowing wikipedia's rule on protecting an article but to be quite honest, I'm surprised to see such a controversial and polarizing figure such as he having an article open to editing by anyone, including bratty kids and overzealous religious types. 174.49.19.28 (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REQUEST

I just want to become a satanist and i dont no who to contact and how???? but i just wanna mixed up peoples live who hurt me in life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiera laura (talk • contribs) 14:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] 

== What is the meaning behind the name Szandor? ==

I'm curious, since also the name of Paul Feval's master Vampire in The Vampire Countess, and any attempt to search for a possible origin for that name just keep leading me back to here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.50.78 (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anton LaVey. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hyperbole reduction

At the end of Church of Satan, I changed "founded by the elite mastermind, Michael Aquino" to "founded by Michael Aquino". I'm willing to entertain objective proof that Aquino has ever been "elite" or particularly mastermindful, as much as I like his writings.

This entire section suffers from poor sourcing, much hand-waving, and blatant redundacy -- see "excerpts from Ragnar Redbeard's Might Is Right and concluded with "Satanized" versions of John Dee's Enochian Keys".
Weeb Dingle (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anton LaVey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Jewish

Most reviewers take the viewpoint of Blanche Barton who wrote in 1990's The Secret Life of a Satanist that LaVey's only connection to Jewish heritage was one great-grandmother. This great-grandmother married a "gypsy" man in Transylvania and bore a daughter named Luba Lupesku-Primakov, later known as Luba Kolton—LaVey's maternal grandmother. So the Jewish connection is too small, too distant to mention. His grandparents and parents were not Jewish, and LaVey was not raised Jewish. Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weelll... according to Judaic law, being Jewish is inherited via the maternal line, so, "too small, too distant" is exactly wrong in this case. His grandparents and parents were not Jewish, and LaVey was not raised Jewish, on the other hand, is more relevant. But since all this is WP:OR, the real question is: do we have a reliable source that calls him Jewish? If not, let's forget it. An IP gave a Twitter source above, but that's worthless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:Twitter, self published sources can be used as sources about themselves. This tweet came directly from the Church of Satan itself.192.231.40.122 (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But not from LaVey. And The Church of Satan is not the one with the Jewish ancestor. You know what "self" means? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of The Secret Life of a Satanist

How reliable is the aforementioned book about his life? --192.231.40.122 (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone actually start this disussion?2600:1700:551:EED0:85FB:4BA6:E184:243A (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Full name for title

Why isn't the full name of this article, "Anton Szandor LaVey", or could we make it that? And then just have "Anton LaVey" be a redirect of course? — Moops ⋠T⋡ 18:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood religion?

Anybody know what religion (if any) he was raised in? That seems significant. --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B011:9:3DF1:E12A:EC4F:7D4C:2D7 (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LaVey's Theism?

I collected some interesting quotes that would indicate LaVey indeed was a theist, that would confirm the belief of Aquino's people that claim that LaVey was a theist that didn't want to push theism publicly so he could get more money:


“The Satanic Bible states that the magician should treat the entities he calls upon as friends and companions, for even an "impersonal" device will respond better to a conscientious and respectful user. This principle is accurate for operating automobiles and power tools, as well as demons and elementals.”

Page 24, Satanic Rituals © 1972 by Anton LaVey


“An indication of the cowardice of "magicians" of the right-hand path is the practice of calling upon a particular demon (who would supposedly be a minion of the devil) to do his bidding. The assumption is that the demon, being only a flunky of the devil, is easier to control. Occult lore states that only the most formidably "protected" or insanely foolhardy sorcerer would try to call forth the Devil himself. The Satanist does not furtively call upon these "lesser" devils, but brazenly invokes those who people that infernal army of long-standing outrage - the Devils themselves!”

Page 57, The Satanic Bible © 1969 by Anton Szandor LaVey


“In the name of all who suffered and died as agents of the Devil in ages past, the present band of heretics—those who would deny the Devil, yet play his game— must be called to task”

“And what do they do , now that it is safe and clear to use His Great Infernal Name? They deny Him!”

—Anton Szandor LaVey The Devil’s Notebook, page 33


“The difference between prayer and magic can be compared to the difference between applying for a loan and writing out a blank check for a desired amount. A man applying for a loan (prayer) may have nothing but a job as collateral and must keep working and pay interest, should the loan be granted. Otherwise he will wind up with bad credit (purgatory). The man (magician) who writes the desired amount on the blank check, assumes there will be delivery of the merchandise, and he pays no interest. He is indeed fortunate—but he had better have sufficient funds (magical qualities) to cover the amount written, or he may wind up in far worse straits, and have his creditors (demons) out looking for him.”

Page 20, bottom paragraph, Satanic Rituals © 1972 by Anton LaVey


“If one is truly good inside he can call the names of the Gods of the Abyss with freedom from guilt and immunity from harm. The resultant feeling will be most gratifying. But there is no turning back. Here are the Rites of Lucifer ... for those who dare remove their mantles of self-righteousness.”

Anton Szandor LaVey Page 14, Satanic Rituals © 1972 by Anton LaVey


“As to the pronunciation of the names involved (despite some occultists who insist, "You can't expect help from the forces you call upon if you can't pronounce their names right,"), assume that the forces, demons, or elementals have enough 5 insight to judge a caller's worthiness on more profound criteria than his glib tongue or expensive shoes.”

Page 22, Satanic Rituals © 1972 by Anton LaVey


“The Devil has been attacked by the men of God relentlessly and without reservation. Never has there been an opportunity, short of fiction, for the Dark Prince to speak out in the same manner as the spokesmen of the Lord of the Righteous.”

Page 29 of The Satanic Bible © 1969 by Anton Szandor LaVey


“For all the centuries of shouting-down the Devil has received, he has never shouted back at his detractors. He has remained the gentleman at all times, while those he supports rant and rave. He has shown himself to be a model of deportment, but now he feels it is time to shout back. He has decided it is finally time to receive his due.”


“Oh great brothers of the night, thou who makest my place of comfort, who rideth out upon the hot winds of Hell, who dwelleth in the devil's fane; Move and appear! Present yourselves to him (her) who sustaineth the rottenness of the mind that moves the gibbering mouth that mocks the just and strong!; rend that gaggling tongue and close his (her) throat, Oh Kali! Pierce his (her) lungs with the stings of scorpions, Oh Sekhmet! Plunge his (her) substance into the dismal void, Oh mighty Dagon!”

Pages 149-150, The Satanic Bible © 1969 by Anton Szandor LaVey


“Oh great lurkers in the darkness, oh guardians of the way, oh minions of the might of Thoth! Move and appear! Present yourselves to us in your benign power, in behalf of one who believes and is stricken with torment. Isolate him (her) in the bulwark of your protection, for he (she) is undeserving of anguish and desires it not…”

Page 151, The Satanic Bible © 1969 by Anton Szandor LaVey

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blanche Barton who was LaVey’s secretary and live-in girlfriend and mother of his child wrote some pretty interesting things:


The Secret Life of a Satanist: The Authorized Biography of Anton LaVey” © 1990, 1992 by Blanche Barton:

Page 16, bottom of the page: “Hadn’t anyone called forth the demons before as their friends? I thought they surely had.”

Jayne Mansfield’s six-year-old son Zoltan was attacked by a lion at a zoo. Here is what Barton writes:

Page 98: “Now as he held his cape out like great leathery wings against the raging wind, the rain beat hard on his face, and, summoning all the power within himself, LaVey called upon his brother Satan to spare Zoltan’s life. In remarkable time, Zoltan recovered form his wounds.”

The Church of Satan © 1990, by Blanche Barton:

Page 93: "LaVey didn’t want to stand inside a feeble, chalk-drawn circle, summoning these whirling forces in the name of “Jehovah” and flailing the sign of the Cross in the air to protect himself. His magickal instincts told him that, if he wanted to entreat the Dark Ones to carry out his wishes, he’d best call upon them boldly, with conviction, as friends and companions, not quivering in their unholy presence.”

Page 97: “We don’t have to kill our God: we don’t wear the instrument of his agony and death around our necks.”

Page 103:

“When you’re faced with that decision, with that piece of paper in front of you, declaring your allegiance to Satan for all eternity, renouncing God, Jesus Christ, Heaven and redemption, you may find suddenly that you don’t want to go through with it. That’s good. You should find out. If you do want to align yourself with those forces completely, and you know there is no turning back, you know you can pursue the delights of the flesh without repression. “

Page 104:

“It is also dangerous for people who take part of the philosophy and try to ignore the rest; adopt the liberation without taking responsibility. Or using Satan’s tools to gain material wealth, then not giving homage to the Devil in some small way, in some dark subterranean grotto somewhere. Some of the most powerful men and women in history have freely given that homage, where no one would ever suspect, let alone discover. And their wealth and happiness increased beyond reckoning. But you have to take responsibility for your actions. As has been said, nobody rides for free.”

Page 109:

“If you have nothing in particular you want to perform a ritual for, its perfectly understandable you may feel a strong need to ritualize but don’t actually know why. If that’s the case, develop your own kind of Dedication Ritual, to renew and reaffirm your strength and alignment. Open the ritual as instructed, then instead of reading one of the three suggested invocations, speak your mind freely. in speaking directly to Satan himself, you may discover what is in your subconscious that you can’t quite bring to the surface. Express appreciation for the direction you have received from the Dark Lord and ask that he continue to guide you to further increase your earthly power - - you might want to write out part of your Dedication ahead of time, to spur your thoughts once you’re in the chamber. Ask that he bestow ever-increasing wisdom and perspective so that you can carry out your Dark Will on the Earth. Instruct the demons you name to manifest themselves to you by increasing your earthly pleasures.”

Page 110:

"Keep yourself constantly aware of instructional coincidences, open to the demons who will whisper in your ear. An old meaning of demon used to be ‘muse’ - - a guiding, inspirational spirit. You will get guiding signs if you only make yourself sensitive to them.”

Page 111:

“Our standards, Satan’s standards, remain consistently high.”


Also, this is archived from CoS's official website (http://web.archive.org/web/20050301035159/http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html) (go to "Theory-Practice", then to "Policy Statements" and click on "Satanic Youth Communique")

"Don’t be disturbed or frightened or think you’re crazy when you feel contacted by the Dark Ones you conjure forth, or by the magical results you begin to produce. You’re not crazy for feeling the way you do about the hypocrisy, blindness and incompetence you see all around you. Nor are you crazy to see the results of your Black Magic. Approach the Dark Masters with the proper degree of respect and decorum—that’s what rituals are for, to establish a relationship. If you approach the demons respectfully, they will reward you with knowledge, guidance, and success. Your demon guide is within you—don’t look for it outside. You just have to contact that part of yourself and listen to it. That is the most important work anyone can do." Gjergj333 (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protect this article

https://twitter.com/ChurchofSatan/status/1719879437133684761 ShobanChiddarth (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, Back in 1950 …

A handful of footnotes from the 1950 Census, which may debunk a few things, and/or prove others.

  • The family name appears as “Thompson” owing to an A.I. mis-reading, and that is how it is filed at FamilySearch. ( A visual inspection shows the family name recorded as “Levey” )
  • Howard appears as “Anton S. Levey”. (Possibly first documented use of “Anton”.)
  • He has no job. ( All job related questions are answered “no”.)
  • He lives with his parents, and grandmother “Luba Coulton”, in San Francisco.
  • Their address is 790 32nd Avenue. ( NOT “The Black House”.)
  • Michael Levey’s occupation is car salesman. ( Same as the 1940 Census.)

The document in question, among others, can be viewed at FamilySearch for your own gratification. 75.106.32.81 (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anton_LaVey&oldid=1257674910"