March 21, 2025

Anton LaVey plagiarized* “Might Is Right” — here’s the proof

Anton LaVey , the founder of the Church of Satan, directly lifted passages from the 19th century proto-fascist book Might Is Right by “Ragnar Redbeard” (Arthur Desmond) and did so extensively and without credit to produce a substantial part of LaVey’s most famous and popular work The Satanic Bible.

[skip to comparison]
[skip to asterisk]

This has been known for a very long while, although most Satanists tend not to be aware of just how shamelessly and thoroughly this work was done.

In fact, the Church of Satan sometimes tweets out passages from Might Is Right while supposedly praising LaVey.

The Church Of Satan @ChurchofSatan
“Hate your enemies with a whole heart, and if a man smite you on one cheek, smash him on the other!” - Anton LaVey, The Satanic Bible
July 12, 2019

To have quote LaVey here, the Church of Satan would have had to tweet just “on the other”.

This is not a stray, incidental unattributed line that LaVey could have argued his readers ought to have immediately been familiar with as a sort of homage. This was part of a wholesale, uncredited and unacknowledged ransacking of another person’s writing in order to create another, ostensibly-original book and sell it for profit.

For example, here is how much from one particular section of Might Is Right ended up making it into LaVey’s book:

A portion of "Might Is Right" highlighted to show how much was directly copied; about three fourths of this section is
Portions from one passage of Might Is Right used in the “Book of Satan” section of The Satanic Bible

This is what LaVey and his partner Diane Hegarty, who also served as his typist an editor, used to introduce people to The Satanic Bible in its opening section the “Book of Satan”. This isn’t in some appendix or footnote; this is the first thing people reading the book were shown.

The “Book of Satan” portion of The Satanic Bible is essentially identical to parallel lines in Might Is Right. If you strip out differences in punctuation(!) and Capitalization and compare them, it’s even more shameful: depending on how you want to count it, something like 85 percent of this opening can be identified as directly copied, which still includes Americanization of spellings, leaving words out from the original, and a handful of words substituted within much larger phrases and ideas that were retained fully intact.

Difference checker comparing "Might Is Right" to "Book of Satan" in "The Satanic Bible"; there are very few differences, and they are quite minor
Example comparison from above DiffChecker.com links

Only two of the 53 statements of the “Book of Satan” appear to be original creations of LaVey and Hegarty: Book III No. 5 (Is not “lust and carnal desire” a more truthful term to describe “love” when applied to the continuance of the race? Is not the “love” of the fawning scriptures simply a euphemism for sexual activity, or was the “great teacher” a glorifier of eunuchs?) and Book V No. 13 (The angel of self-deceit is camped in the souls of the “righteous” – The eternal flame of power through joy dwelleth within the flesh of the Satanist!).

Now, the book does go on from there, it’s true. Again, depending which version of the book you’re using and how you’re counting, this “only” makes up somewhere between 4 – 7 percent of The Satanic Bible‘s total by page or character count.

But that’s actually a lot for a supposedly original book, especially while giving LaVey full credit for the “Enochian Keys” he includes as “my own translation” to make the last 10 percent or so of the book.

The defense by some LaVeyanists past and present that LaVey always openly acknowledged the influence of Might Is Right on his book is true only in the strictest and most literal sense of the word “acknowledge” given that he listed “Ragnar Redbeard, whose might is right” among 18 other people the book was “to” with no indication that he quoted from Redbeard so much more directly and extensively than anyone else he mentioned.

The Satanic Bible acknowledgements page; 7th of 19 people in the "To" section with a further "and to" section to follow

Yeah, a person could can claim they’ve acknowledged what they did there copying someone, but obviously they just snuck it in and didn’t make straightforward indication of what they were pilfering because, in 1969, they figured a book out of print for more than half a century like Might Is Right wouldn’t get recognized in the time it took to complete their book deal and get paid.

(Note: the fact that LaVey looked at a book by a frothing bigot whose reasoning rested fundamentally on disgust for Jewish people, non-Anglo men, all women, and for anyone who believed in egalitarianism then LaVey said, “Hey, I could make a religion out of that!” ought to give people pause for different reasons, but we’ve written about that elsewhere and already.)

Considering all of the above and most people willing to grant that , “Yes, a lot of the most quotable passages credited to LaVey in his lifetime were lifted directed from a book originally published 70 years earlier”, why is there an asterisk(*) in the title? Because that wasn’t the law back then, obviously. What LaVey did was not technically plagiarism despite it being plagiarism for anyone to do the same thing now.

That is, if existing copyright law had existed at that time, The Satanic Bible would almost certainly have been sued out of existence and the Church of Satan with it for doing what LaVey did. Might Is Right was first published in 1896 and Arthur Desmond died in 1929, our present Disney-fied copyright law of “70 years after the death of the author or 95 years after publication” would’ve made it impossible to write for LaVey to write The Satanic Bible that way until 1991 (LaVey died in 1997). But LaVey was born before the House of Mouse had got its hooks into U.S. government and intellectual property law, lucky him.

In this context, the sanctity of The Satanic Bible and rejection of ILLEGALITY(!!!) as represented by Church of Satan members is even sillier. Their book literally exists thanks to public domain and not paying for shit, but the official COS stance on reading a PDF is still this:

It seems obvious that people would still buy physical editions of The Satanic Bible and other works by LaVeyan Satanists to display in their bookshelves, for their altars, etc.

In our experience with Satanists of all stripes, Satanism is, more than anything, just an aesthetic people like to adopt in lieu of real rebellion or action, and the books sitting in full view in your living room or on Instagram are part of that. The Church of Satan would probably end up making even more money with an accessible text that sucked in more people and buying more of their other merch and publications, they just would also have to be doing new stuff people wanted in order to activate them some other way and have to deal with those new people.

And honestly, like a lot of things you enjoyed at the time but look back on and cringe, reading The Satanic Bible is never as good again as the first time when you were 14 years old and LaVey sounded really confident and smart. If more people didn’t stumble on LaVey until they were 32, the world would be a better place. (Or at least Satanism might be.)


Comparison

To be clear, this is not the first time an analysis or comparison has been done, but between this article and The Satanic Wiki entry the table is taken from, hopefully it is more accessible now. A more dedicated person could probably track down which version of Might Is Right that LaVey and Hegarty were working off of here since Arthur Desmond produced multiple ones from 1896 to 1927, but that exceeded the patience and time of this project.

Former Church of Satan “council of nine” member Michael A. Aquino wrote The Satanic Bible‘s introduction for the editions that appeared between 1972 and 1976, and went on to found the theistic Satanist group “Temple of Set”, which was ultimately quite critical of LaVey and the Church of Satan. At some point, Aquino produced a comparison of his own between MIR and TSB. He did it like so:

Having both versions side-by-side may make it harder to read than how Aquino chose to do it, but it does hopefully make it easier to compare.

Finally, if you’re looking for a more positive analysis of the “Book of Satan” and choices of addition and subtraction LaVey and Hegarty made in adapting it from Might Is Right, see Asbjørn Dyrendal, James R. Lewis, and Jesper Aagaard Petersen in their book The Invention of Satanism and chapter on “The Satanic Bible“. They also find evidence, contrary to Aquino’s claims, that the “Book of Satan” portion was not included late in production to pad out the final version by deadline (although they do admit the Enochian Keys stuff was probably a bit much).

Leave a Reply

The Satanic Temple's Boogeyman

Queer Satanic

TST sued us from April 2020 to September 2024, and we are still here.