FOLK HEARTH

Why I Reject The Bullshit of Satanism Entirely

I am not one who holds back about my views or positions about things because, for myself at least, hesitation is avoidance of honesty for all the wrong reasons. There comes a point where you stop being impressed by aesthetics. I am not sure I ever truly was, regardless of the subject. There comes a point where the symbols, the tone, the “edgy” posture, and the constant insistence on rebellion—none of it lands anymore.

• Not because it’s offensive.

• Not because it’s shocking.

But because you finally see it clearly for what it all is, without the excitement or the paranoia either; and once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

What calls itself Satanism—whether through The Satanic Temple, the Church of Satan, or any of the countless smaller offshoots—is not a profound alternative, not a hidden philosophy, and not some misunderstood path of enlightenment. It is, at its core, an illusion of depth.

The PTA of Darkness and Booger Sugar

Look, I get it. You see the black robes, the pentagrams, and the “Hail Satan” chants, and you think: Wow, these people must eat lightning and spit brimstone. 

• You expect Ozzy Osbourne energy—then you meet a dude named Trevor in a Baphomet bucket hat lecturing you about emotional boundaries.

They think they’re the heirs to Lucifer’s rebellion. In reality, they’re just spiritual theater kids with a candle budget. Modern Satanism—especially the kind that lives on TikTok and Reddit—isn’t menacing.

• It’s mood lighting for people who want to feel transgressive without missing therapy.

They talk about being apex predators, but half of them couldn’t intimidate a Roomba. “Prince of Darkness”? Please—more like Duke of Discomfort in Crowded Spaces.

Reason 1: The Safest “Rebellion” Since Decaf Coffee

Real rebels faced imprisonment, exile, even death. Today’s Satanists face mild online disapproval and the occasional unfollow.

The Church of Satan’s founder, Anton LaVey, was basically a carnival barker with a thesaurus. His Satanic Bible reads like Ayn Rand’s rejected poetry.

• Anton LaVey was a carny, a showman, and a "bullshitter" by his own admission—he cared about what sounded powerful and "satanic," not what was academically accurate.

• Meanwhile, The Satanic Temple sues cities for the right to stick goat statues next to nativity scenes—the middle‑school debate club of darkness.

Theistic Satanists on Discord? They’re lighting scented candles and praying to a fallen angel for confidence before job interviews. Rebellion used to be breaking chains; now it’s changing profile pics. The most danger most of them face is carpal tunnel from typing “Hail Satan” too fast.

• They cosplay as villains and call it spirituality.

• They treat rebellion the way vegans treat cheesecake—only in theory, and with so many feelings.

Reason 2: “Alpha” Energy With Beta Habits

LaVeyan Satanism preaches strength and self‑mastery—two traits modern Satanists abandon faster than leg day. They quote “eye for an eye” between bouts of passive‑aggressive subtweeting.

You’ve got vegan Satanists crying over “carnal indulgence.” They're like the “Alpha males of Hell” who still live off someone else’s Netflix. And you have the merch‑store occultists who treat black eyeliner as a sacrament.

They scream responsibility to the responsible while crowdfunding their next ritual robe. Real strength builds empires; these guys build Etsy pages.

• If the Hellish realm was real and had a gym, they’d post a mirror selfie, complain about the “toxic energy,” and vanish before the second set.

And let’s not forget their papal patriarch, Anton LaVey himself—the man who hijacked Nietzsche, twisted Ayn Rand, and skimmed Crowley like a Cliff Notes version of actual philosophy.

• He wanted to be a metaphysical Machiavelli but ended up the discount self‑help guru of the underworld.

His Satanism wasn’t rebellion—it was libertarian cosplay with eyeliner. He didn’t so much understand strength and individualism as he did merchandise them. His descendants continue the scam, mistaking “contrarianism” for depth.

Reason 3: Paper‑Mâché Demons, Paper‑Thin Skin

Try telling one, “I don’t really care about your beliefs.”

Boom—instant meltdown:

“You’re perpetuating Christian hegemony!”

They’ve turned grievance into a worldview with more triggers than a gun shop or military artillery. The irony is that their entire shtick mocks fragility—but they demand trigger warnings before discussing Paradise Lost. They are the emotional support animals of their own rebellion.

• If your faith’s biggest flex is “We got a plaque in a government building,” congratulations—you’re not punk, you’re infrastructure.

They insist they’re wolves surrounded by sheep, but honestly, they’re Labradoodles with pentagrams—hypoallergenic evil with good social‑media presence surrounded by the stink of booze, tobacco, and regret.

And that aesthetic? Don’t get me started.

• Their Ancient demons required blood.

• Their Modern ones require affirmation.

The mythical Lucifer fell for pride:

His admirers fall for emotional boo-boo traps.

• Their hellfire is an LED.

• heir brimstone is soy milk.

Reason 4: Hell Is a Participation‑Trophy Convention

The Lucifer of mythology rebelled against cosmic hierarchy:

His fan club rebels against dairy, opposing religion… by carefully building religions, complete with rituals, structures, public messaging, legal recognition efforts, and moral frameworks.

It’s like saying, “I reject the concept of cooking,” while opening a restaurant, writing a cookbook, hiring chefs, and launching a loyalty program called Anti-Kitchen™ Rewards.

• Nothing says “we’re not religious” quite like filing paperwork to make sure your non-religion gets equal religious protection from other religions, and "bad vibes".

They talk about ascending beyond “herd mentality,” yet they dress identically and repeat the same twelve LaVeyan quotes like a doomsday book club.

• Their arcana is Wikipedia, their rituals are Pinterest boards, and their hellish hierarchy runs on follower counts.

They’re not persecuted prophets:

They’re customer‑service reps of Chaos who file HR complaints against a God they claim they don't even believe in.

Reason 5: The Cult of Corporate Satan™

Ah yes—The Satanic Temple, the Hot Topic of religious movements. Founded by Lucien Greaves (or “the man who plagiarized rebellion and forgot to proofread it”), this brand of activism manages to be both morally smug and legally exhausting.

• It’s Satanism by way of press release—all posturing, no pentagram.

Instead of rituals, they file lawsuits: instead of scripture, they have PDF petitions; and instead of backbone, they have “statement necklaces of defiance” available for purchase.

Greaves (whose birth name sounds like a rejected Dickens character) didn’t found a movement—he founded a business model. He nicked bits of philosophy from LaVey, scraps of rhetoric from New Atheism, and aesthetic leftovers from Tumblr circa 2013, then glued it all together with irony and called it “activism.” It’s plagiarism with candles.

What’s worse, the man’s personal history of racism and ethical rot gets politely airbrushed out by his followers, who are too busy selling goat‑head enamel pins and tweeting about religious freedom to run a background check on their messiah.

Every time a critic points out the inconsistencies, they respond not with reason but with litigation—because nothing says “free thought” like threatening lawsuits against your own members.

• The Temple isn’t rebellion. It’s Scientology without Tom Cruise, without narrative flair, without even a good alien myth to lean on.

It’s corporate metaphysics in a Satanic wrapping—rebellion with a returns policy.

Reason 6: Schrödinger’s Deity — the “We’re Gods But Also Atheists” Problem

Ask a modern Satanist if they believe in any god and they’ll proudly answer, “Of course not! We don't believe in any gods of any kind”—right before declaring “We are our own gods.”

Well, if there are no gods of any kind, and then they claim to be gods, that means their declaration is pointless and they don't matter because they don't exist, and therefore are irrelevant, all the while pretending to be relevant.

• It’s the spiritual equivalent of shouting “I’m free of all labels!” while handing out personalized business cards.

They reject divinity but demand worship: they denounce theology yet crave altar lighting. It’s cosmic narcissism disguised as empowerment.

They’ll tell you their “godhood” is just symbolic—a metaphor for personal strength. But give them five minutes on social media and that symbolism turns into a sermon. They post selfies with captions like “I answer to no deity”—while expecting applause like applause itself is sacred incense.

And here’s the killer contradiction: If they’re gods in a godless universe, their hurt feelings, moral outrage, and little occult manifestos don’t just lack weight—they lack existence.

Their grievances are imaginary footnotes in a belief system that doesn’t believe in itself. It’s theologically theatrical nihilism with an Instagram filter. Put more simply: you can’t demand reverence from a religion that starts by calling everything meaningless.

It Looks Like Substance—Until You Actually Look

At first glance, it seems rational:

• Talk of individuality

• Rejection of authority

• Claims of rationalism

• Symbolism dressed up as meaning

But press into it—just a little—and it collapses because there is no foundation holding it together.

• No necessary truth.

• No coherent metaphysics.

• No binding ethical structure that exists beyond preference.

What you find instead is something much simpler: presentation without substance.

Cosplay Mistaken for Philosophy

• Strip away the branding, and what remains?

• Not a discipline, not a path, and not a system of growth.

What remains is roleplay for hire:

• Playing the rebel

• Playing the outsider

• Playing the “rational” critic of religion

• Playing the one who “sees through everything”

But they never actually build anything real in its place. That’s why it's cosplay. That's why it's cheap, disposable, and intellectually a dead end. It functions exactly like cosplay: identity through aesthetics, meaning through performance, and belonging through shared imagery. Not through truth.

The Performance Never Stops

Watch the pattern: Plagiarize -> Provoke -> Attract attention -> Generate backlash -> Claim oppression -> Generate cash -> Proclaim to be better than predecessors -> Claims copyrights of plagiarized content -> Watch it die out as you run to the bank -> Repeat.

Groups like The Satanic Temple don’t just occasionally engage in this—they depend on it. Their visibility is built on confrontation, not cultivation. Their identity is maintained through reaction, not reflection.

And when a system requires constant performance to sustain itself, that tells you everything you need to know: it cannot stand on its own and is dependent almost entirely on the controversy they seek to create, even where there isn't any.

The Contradictions Are Not Subtle

The entire structure starts contradicting itself:

• “We reject dogma” -> while enforcing their own

• “We oppose authority” -> while establishing leadership and hierarchy

• “We’re against tradition” -> while building rituals and identity frameworks

• “We’re not really religious” -> until religious status becomes useful

This isn’t complexity. It’s avoidance of accountability. Because if nothing is clearly defined or accountable, nothing can be meaningfully challenged, much less promote deeper compassion for self or others.

Why It's So Shallow

The "why" is simple. It's intended to be that way. It’s not just that the ideas are simple—it’s that they’re unanchored. Everything reduces to personal preference, aesthetic identity, and an oppositional stance. There is no deeper “why” that holds under pressure. There is no structure that demands anything of you beyond what you already want.

And that’s the key difference: a real path challenges you; this one reflects you back at yourself and calls it philosophy.

The Childish Core: Inversion Without Creation

At its heart, Satanism never moves beyond inversion.

It takes what exists and flips it:

• Sacred -> profane

• Authority -> rebellion

• Tradition -> rejection

But it never replaces those things with something independently grounded. That’s not evolution. That’s permanent adolescence dressed up as insight.

I Reject It Completely

Because once you see the pattern, it’s impossible to take seriously:

• It performs instead of builds

• It imitates instead of creates

• It contradicts instead of coheres

• It demands attention instead of earning respect

• And most importantly, it asks to be seen as deep, while refusing to do the work required to be deep.

That’s Why It’s Incompatible With Druwayu —

And Why That’s a Good Thing

This is exactly why it stands in direct opposition to Druwayu—not as a rival, but as something fundamentally incompatible.

Druwayu is built on:

• Coherence

• Ethical grounding

• Real development of self

• Principles that invite scrutiny and demand consistency

Satanism, in all its forms, operates on:

• Performance

• Contradiction

• Provocation

• Paranoia

• Shifting definitions

They are not two paths to the same goal. They are not even the same thing and don't come from the same source, like some sort of past common ancestor that never existed.

That incompatibility is a strength for Druwayu and fellow Druan, not a weakness.

If something constantly needs to reframe itself, defend its contradictions, rely on spectacle, and lean on reaction, then it's just playing on a passing and empty path relying on aesthetics. It tries to be intimidating when it's actually just annoying—an irritation that demands to be scratched.

SCREW SATANISM AND ALL OF ITS GENERAL BULLSHIT

A Real Religion isn’t just a collection of symbols, slogans, or PR Stunts and campaigns. A true spiritual tradition—such as Druwayu—consists of coherent concepts, ideas, doctrines, ethical grounding, and a committed path of a truly spiritual, personal, moral, and ethical development of self, and by proxy, the local culture. These core concepts have been largely lost/ignored by society.

By contrast, Theistic and Philosophic Satanism, especially as currently embodied in groups like The Satanic Temple (TST) and the popular media version of the Church of Satan (CoS), lacks this foundational seriousness intentionally, all while spiting moral philosophies they clearly do not comprehend as much as they like to claim. The examples below are grounded in actual lawsuits, public controversies, and observable organizational behaviors, not vague rhetoric.

Specific TST Cases and Controversies (Documented Examples With Citations)

After School Satan Club (ASSC)

The nonsense of claiming to fight hypocrisy with hypocrisy is what all of this amounts to when you use your brain for more than space filler in your skull and can see things for what they are (another form of mental abuse wrapped in with a cash grab and playing off of ignorance), rather than what they pretend to be.

• The Satanic Temple vs. Saucon Valley School District: In March 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Pennsylvania filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of TST after the Saucon Valley School District rescinded permission for an After School Satan Club (ASSC) to meet on school property in Hellertown, Pennsylvania. The suit alleged the district violated the First Amendment by bowing to public pressure and blocking the club’s access to facilities.

  The district initially approved the club—even acknowledging it “cannot discriminate among groups wishing to use the SVSD facilities”—but reversed course after community outcry and threats of violence, demonstrating how TST’s tactics trigger backlash and legal conflict, rather than fostering spiritual engagement.

  In May 2023, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction ordering the district to allow ASSC to meet, ruling the refusal likely violated the First Amendment by giving a “heckler’s veto” to those opposing the group’s views. In November 2023, the district agreed to a settlement granting TST equal access to facilities and paying approximately $200,000 in attorneys’ fees following efforts to block the club—a clear case of litigation being used as a tactic to secure institutional access and media attention.

• After School Satan Club Efforts Elsewhere (Illinois & Tennessee): In Moline, Illinois, an ASSC faced initial prohibition by the school district and was only reinstated after threats of litigation and legal pressure from advocacy groups, illustrating repeated institutional battles over access for these clubs. In Memphis, Tennessee, TST reportedly alleged that Shelby County Schools charged excessive rental and security fees to block ASSC from meeting at Chimneyrock Elementary School—again turning administrative disputes into legal confrontations.

Baphomet Statues and Public Displays

• TST’s high‑profile campaign to place a Baphomet statue next to a Ten Commandments monument was explicitly framed as a debate‑provoking publicity stunt, designed to generate controversy about religious pluralism rather than promote theological teaching.

• In Iowa in 2025, TST filed a religious discrimination complaint after state officials denied permission to hold a holiday display and event involving a Baphomet symbol at the State Capitol, citing concerns over children’s exposure. This complaint argues the state favored more “mainstream” religious events, highlighting how TST frames public denials as discriminatory even where minors are involved.

Use of Litigation as a Core Tactic

• Across multiple states, TST relies on civil rights complaints and lawsuits as a deliberate strategy to generate headlines and secure institutional access—frequently involving allied secular legal groups like the ACLU—instead of engaging in deep doctrinal formation or philosophical discourse.

What Follows Isn’t Tribalism — It’s an Analysis Rooted in Documented Activities, Official Statements, and Observable Behavior

1. Druwayu vs. Satanism — Not Even the Same Category

• Druwayu: A religion with a structured worldview—doctrines, rituals, ethical principles, and a real community intended for deep spiritual cultivation. Its teachings are transparent, internally coherent, and open to scrutiny and criticism.

• Church of Satan (CoS): Founded by Anton LaVey in 1966; does not worship a literal Satan. Satan, in LaVeyan doctrine, is symbolic, representing ego, rebellion, and indulgence; rituals are largely psychodramatic and focused on self‑assertion rather than genuine spiritual depth.

• The Satanic Temple (TST): Founded in 2013; uses Satan as a symbolic archetype for rebellion, secular humanism, and political activism rather than a coherent spiritual framework.

Key point: Druwayu posits metaphysical realities, ethical cultivation, and spiritual purpose. Satanic movements treat “Satan” largely as a rhetorical or symbolic vehicle, often for political theater rather than doctrine. No meaningful doctrinal overlap exists.

2. Philosophic Satanism: Egoism, Hedonism, or Anti‑Religion?

• Atheistic orientation: CoS frames Satan as symbolic, not a deity.

• Symbolic philosophy: Representing self‑assertion, rejection of external dogma, and indulgence within rational limits.

• Ego‑centric focus: Personal gratification and development prioritized over ethical community responsibility.

Druwayu vs. LaVeyan and TST Satanism: Druwayu sets ethical expectations grounded in spiritual principles; LaVeyan and TST Satanism celebrates self‑assertion and personal gratification. These worldviews are incommensurate—they answer completely different questions about morality, purpose, and human flourishing.

3. The Satanic Temple: Activism Masquerading as Religion

a. Provocation as Strategy

• TST’s campaigns to install Baphomet statues alongside Ten Commandments monuments were orchestrated to generate controversy and media coverage, not to advance spiritual depth or doctrinal insight.

• TST has filed numerous public complaints and discrimination claims—for example, in Iowa in 2025 when state officials denied a holiday display at the Capitol, citing children’s exposure concerns—and then framed the denial as religious discrimination.

• These are strategic publicity actions, not spiritual leadership. They focus on conflict and spectacle, justified as “defending religious liberty” while primarily creating headlines.

b. After School Satan Clubs — Key Example of Cynical Tactics

• The After School Satan Club (ASSC) program has been actively promoted in elementary schools as an alternative to evangelical clubs such as the Good News Club, repeatedly resulting in public backlash, legal disputes, and district rule changes.

• TST claims ASSC won’t teach literal Satanism, but the clubs use satanic imagery, branding, and organizational presence in school buildings—inevitably exposing children to ideological messaging and controversy.

• In Pennsylvania, TST sued the Saucon Valley School District after officials initially approved ASSC but then rescinded permission due to public outcry. A federal court ruled that rescinding the club likely violated the First Amendment. The subsequent settlement required the district to grant TST equal access and pay ~$200,000 in attorneys’ fees, showing how litigation and public controversy are leveraged for access and media impact.

Key point: These actions demonstrate that TST leverages litigation and public controversy to secure institutional access to children’s environments—a starkly different approach from Druwayu’s respect for ethical boundaries around minors.

4. Lack of Philosophical Comprehension

TST and similar movements frequently misrepresent or fail to understand the philosophies they claim to promote, often framing opposition to “dogma” in ways that contradict their own structured tenets and campaigns.

Examples include:

• Claiming to oppose indoctrination while running organized programs with guiding principles.

• Using Satanic symbolism as media spectacle rather than a coherent philosophical system.

By contrast, Druwayu is direct, precise, and open to critique, encouraging practitioners to question, debate, and engage fully with doctrine rather than relying on spectacle.

5. Self‑Contradiction: Anti‑Dogma That Is Dogmatic

• TST’s published tenets, press releases, and structured programs mean it does espouse an ideological worldview—the very dogmatism it claims to oppose.

• Branding and messaging designed to influence children in institutional settings directly contradict asserted commitments to rational, non‑dogmatic instruction. This reveals the deeper hypocrisy of leadership rhetoric versus organizational practice.

6. Hypocrisy and Organizational Identity Crisis

• CoS has publicly rejected TST’s targeting of schools and minors, clarifying that it does not sponsor after school clubs for children—highlighting internal disagreement even within Satanic movements.

• TST’s strategic use of political conflict and media tactics often amplifies sectarian debate rather than fostering ethical clarity or genuine spiritual education, undermining its stated goals.

• Internal inconsistencies and reliance on ideological stunts instead of philosophical depth show that modern Satanic movements are often driven more by activism and spectacle than coherent spiritual identity.

7. Children‑Targeting and Ethical Boundaries

• TST’s ASSC and legal actions represent deliberate efforts to insert ideology into children’s institutional environments, leveraging constitutional rules to force access for groups and programming many see as controversial.

• The $200,000 settlement payment from the Saucon Valley School District after blocking ASSC shows these campaigns have real fiscal and social impact on communities, not just symbolic value.

• Leaders openly frame such legal battles as critical for “religious freedom,” yet these actions strategically use public schools as battlegrounds for ideological confrontation.

Key point: Druwayu abhors such tactics, refusing to bring doctrine into classrooms or exploit minors with organized ideological outreach, adhering instead to ethical principles that prioritize voluntary, informed engagement by adults.

8. It Cannot Be Reconciled

Druwayu cannot be reconciled with Theistic or Philosophic Satanism because:

• Druwayu offers clarity, coherence, ethical rigor, and philosophical depth.

• Modern Satanist movements, particularly TST, prioritize provocation, spectacle, litigation, targeting children, and ideological manipulation.

• TST’s public actions demonstrate philosophical confusion and hypocrisy, undermining their claimed anti‑dogmatic stance.

• Druwayu invites critique and debate; Satanist activism invites outrage and media attention.

Where Druwayu guides, Satanism provokes. Where Druwayu educates willing adults, Satanism seeks institutional access to impressionable children. The contrast is irreducible and absolute.

9. Lucien Greaves’ Public Statements and What They Reveal

Lucien Greaves, co‑founder and most visible public representative of The Satanic Temple, has repeatedly made public statements and taken actions that highlight philosophical inconsistency, rhetorical confusion, and a lack of transparency—all of which feed into broader organizational dysfunction. These are not fringe rumors; they are drawn from public reporting, interviews, internal controversies, and documented events.

a. Philosophical Inconsistency and Rhetorical Confusion

• Greaves often frames TST as a champion of rationalism and anti‑dogmatism, yet his own statements frequently wobble between legal activism and theological ambiguity. He has explicitly stated that members do not believe in a literal Satan, instead presenting Satan as a symbol of rebellion and rational inquiry. Yet this switch between symbolic language and religiosity is never clearly reconciled, creating confusion about what TST is actually advocating.

• Greaves has publicly described the Temple as a “progressive and updated version of Satanism,” rejecting both LaVeyan social Darwinist elements and Church of Satan practices—but his explanations often circle back to slogans rather than rigorous philosophical foundations.

• In public debates, Greaves frames legal battles against public officials (e.g., challenging Governor Ron DeSantis’ comments on chaplaincy eligibility) as fights for freedom, then disparages lawmakers’ intelligence, creating rhetorical escalation rather than clarifying principles.

This inconsistency—claiming to be anti‑dogmatic while articulating vague, contradictory religious/activist goals—is philosophically incoherent and reflects at best shallow self‑understanding and at worst intentional obfuscation.

b. Lack of Transparency and Credibility Issues

• Greaves has publicly claimed that social media platforms discriminate against TST on religious grounds, including filing complaints when Twitter suspended his account rather than acting on threats of violence against TST’s headquarters. He argued the suspension was discriminatory even though the platform cited terms‑of‑service violations, revealing a tendency to interpret opposition as persecution rather than engage with legitimate content moderation policies.

• Critics have documented internal disagreements, leadership splits, and departures of entire chapters—for instance, multiple TST chapters left after controversial decisions like working with an attorney (Mark Randazza) known for defending extremist figures, which many members felt was a poor ethical choice.

• Reports from former members and critics highlight episodes where leadership dismissed calls for diversity policies, marginalized dissent, or responded to internal criticism with punitive actions rather than transparent dialogue. Such patterns fuel perceptions of opportunistic leadership rather than principled guidance.

These tensions don’t just raise administrative questions; they undermine the movement’s credibility and suggest a lack of grounded, consistent leadership philosophy.

c. Abuse of Members and Internal Turmoil

• Internal community reports reveal recurring disputes over governance, with ministers and members describing chaotic leadership responses, sudden dismissals, and power struggles that contradict Greaves’ rhetoric about inclusion and rational discourse. Former ministers were fired after disagreements, resulting in public spats and accusations of authoritarian behavior.

• At conferences such as SatanCon, public scenes (including extreme behavior like tearing up other religious symbols) led to controversy and forced organizational decisions about cancellation or retraction, widening internal disagreements and fracturing unity.

• Reddit narratives from current and ex‑members document incidents where leadership decisions were questioned, mishandled, or used to suppress divergent viewpoints within the organization—which directly contradicts TST’s professed commitment to debate and critical reason.

Conclusion: Even the Devil would Want a Rebrand (If He Existed)

If Lucifer’s out there watching, he’s not plotting apocalypse—he’s filing for a rebrand.

He's probably muttering, “This is what I fell for?” 

He defied the throne of Heaven; his disciples can’t even defy the Wi‑Fi terms of service. But he is also a popular scapegoat for the paranoid, and fools latch onto a composite myth built from several other myths.

I am certainly not a fan of concepts associated with the devil if it isn't obvious by now. That said, I am less a fan of all those that either believe in or use the character as a personal mascot with their cheap outrage culture of illiterate twats.

• Lucifer forged rebellion in the fires of pride; they’re forging discount codes for ritual candles.

• He wore fury like armor; they wear Amazon cloaks with free returns.

At this point, I would think Hell’s mightiest rebel would rather go back to being an archangel than share a subreddit with his fan club.

• Satan got cast out of paradise.

• These people got banned from Facebook for “inappropriate goat imagery.”

That’s not rebellion—that’s technical difficulty dressed in eyeliner.

Satanism isn’t dark; it’s decorative. It’s evil with an Etsy account. It’s Hell’s youth‑pastor phase—awkward, over‑branded, and way too online, trying desperately to cause and ride the wave of a new "Satanic Panic" they perpetuated as an excuse to blame other paranoid twats on the other side of their idiot coin.

They’re not villains—they’re open‑mic awkward college students, nervously asking if there’s a content warning for sin. If rebellion once roared like thunder, this crowd turned it into lo‑fi background noise.

• What once terrified kingdoms now just clogs the comment section.

Rebellion this soft doesn’t need an exorcism. It needs a nap—and maybe some self‑awareness. And those panicking over this crap need to get out more, or at the very least, have their medication reevaluated.

Screw Satanism and Satanists of All Varieties!