Skip to main content

See also:

Anton LaVey’s Satanic Bible, “On the Choice of a Human Sacrifice”

Miranda Barbour claims to be a church of satan satanist and admitted to murdering at the very least 22 people. News reports containing interviews with satanists claiming that “no true satanist would…” do such a thing (and neither would “a true Scotsman”) are afoot. But do they have a leg to stand upon (perhaps the amputated human leg which Anton LaVey cannibalized)?

Anton LaVey; founder of the church of satan and giver of excuses to commit satanic murders.
Fair use, to illustrate article's context.

We have written two articles on the murders and one on whether satanism, of the LaVey / church of satan variety would allow for any such thing:

Satanic crime – murder by numbers, the Barbours and the number 1 (and 11)

Satanic crime update Miranda Barbour claims 22 victims

Is Miranda Barbour a satanist and are her murders satanic crimes?

Herein, we continue by consider the following from a chapter taken from The Satanic Bible titled, “On the Choice of a Human Sacrifice”:

“The use of a human sacrifice in a Satanic ritual does not imply that the sacrifice is slaughtered ‘to appease the gods’. Symbolically, the victim is destroyed through the working of a hex or curse, which in turn leads to the physical, mental or emotional destruction of the ‘sacrifice’ in ways and means not attributable to the magician.”

Yet, as we read above, Anton LaVey’s own use of curses were not meant to “Symbolically” destroy but to actually, physically, destroy the victim.

The chapter continues:


In other words, the gates are wide open and satanists are welcome to murder in ritual human sacrifice at will. Think about how simple it would be to justify sacrificial murder by claiming that you needed to release wrath and how even simpler it would be to label someone as, deserving of death by the way, for being “totally obnoxious and deserving.” According to these standards, Miranda Barbour is totally, satanically, justified.

The chapter continues:

“Under NO circumstances would a Satanist sacrifice any animal or baby!...There are sound and logical reasons why the Satanists could not perform such sacrifices. Man, the animal, is the godhead to the Satanist. The purest form of carnal existence reposes in the bodies of animals and human children…the Satanist holds these beings in a sacred regard.”

After such elucidations, Anton LaVey goes directly to the issue raise above; justification:

“The question arises, ‘Who, then, would be considered a fit and proper human sacrifice, and how is one qualified to pass judgment on such a person?’ The answer is brutally simple. Anyone who has unjustly wronged you – one who has ‘gone out of his way’ to hurt you – to deliberately cause trouble and hardship for you or those dear to you. In short, a person asking to be cursed by their very actions.”

This merely compounds the subjective nature of that which personages such as Miranda Barbour take uponi themselves to do. Think about how simple it is to label someone as having “unjustly wronged you,” or “has ‘gone out of his way’ to hurt you” (even defining “hurt” is very subjective) or “deliberately cause trouble and hardship,” or someone you decide to perceive as “asking to be cursed.”

LaVey then drives the point home; destroying others is moral:

“When a person, by his reprehensible behavior, practically cries out to be destroyed, it is truly your moral obligation to indulge them their wish. The person who takes every opportunity to ‘pick on’ others is often mistakenly called ‘sadistic’. In reality, this person is a misdirected masochist who is working towards his own destruction. The reason a person viciously strikes out against you is because they are afraid of you or what you represent, or are resentful of your happiness. They are weak, insecure, and on extremely shaky ground when you throw your curse, and they make ideal human sacrifices.”

Here the lines get blurred a bit as the concept of a human sacrifice may be thought to be the good ol' stabbing upon a satanic altar with all of the paraphernalia that comes with; a ritualistic sacrifice. Recall that Anton LaVey placed a destruction curse upon Sam Brody, LaVey’s girlfriend Jayne Mansfield’s attorney. This resulted in, both, Brody and Mansfield dying a brutal death in a car “accident.” So, a satanic human sacrifice does not, necessarily, require the accoutrements of having a human being before you as a victim but it can be done from afar.

Next, LaVey offers more details on the how to of “the Choice of a Human Sacrifice”:

“It is sometimes easy to overlook the actual wrongdoing of the victim of your curse…The ‘ideal sacrifice’ may…cause severe damage to your tranquility or sound reputation. ‘Mental illness’, ‘nervous breakdown’, ‘maladjustment’, ‘anxiety neuroses’, ‘broken homes’, ‘sibling rivalry’, etc., etc., ad infinitum have too long been convenient excuses for vicious and irresponsible actions.

Anyone who says ‘we must try to understand’ those who make life miserable for those undeserving of misery is aiding and abetting a social cancer! The apologists for these rabid humans deserve any clobberings they get at the hands of their charges!

Mad dogs are destroyed, and they need help far more than the human who conveniently made froths at the mouth when irrational behavior is in order!...these people…given the opportunity they would destroy you!

Therefore, you have every right to (symbolically) destroy them, and if your curse provokes their actual annihilation, rejoice that you have been instrumental in ridding the world of a pest! If your success or happiness disturbs a person – you owe him nothing! He is made to be trampled under foot!”

Note the interplay of symbol and actual as “you have every right to (symbolically) destroy them” and/but you can cause “their actual annihilation.”

The overall message is clear and has already been noted; Anton LaVey / church of satan satanists have virtually no guidelines to go by when making “the Choice of a Human Sacrifice” and thus, can take it upon themselves to decide, at will. What follows therefrom is claims that “no true satanist would…” and that they are self-styled satanists. Yet, they may only appear to be self-styled due to the freedom of choice which LaVey enjoined upon them.


For reports on satanic crime, see this link.



Find us on:

Main (repository) homepage