When one’s Satanism, like mine, is adjacent to the Order of Nine Angles (ONA/O9A), certain issues inevitably arise. One of these is running into Satanists who talk as if “it’s cool to be evil.” On one hand, I understand how a degree of flirtation with evil is inherent to the left-hand-path. But on the other, I ultimately find such talk counterproductive. This post will undertake a detailed examination of why.

Introduction: what is “evil”?
It seems to be trendy in Satanic circles to point at an etymological root of “evil” revolving around boundary transgression. And one readily gets from there to “transgressing boundaries is cool” and “Satan is a badass boundary transgressor”.
However, this approach neglects the not-unimportant question of how people actually use the word “evil”. Here are some facets of that which occur to me:
- That which causes undeserved harm to oneself or others.
- Something that obstructs things from reaching their full potential, analogous to an illness or injury.
- Disliked on account of being opposed to the default values and expectations of an individual or group.
- Contrary to the will of a supreme being or other allegedly-unquestionable authority figures.
I have arranged these in descending order of what I think people usually mean when they say “evil”. i.e., I think when most people, regardless of background, call something evil, “harmful” (1) is primary in what they mean. Harm will often have a long-term dimension as well as an immediate one, hence 2 is implied also. 3 and 4 follow from these features, being rationales humans have developed to discourage harm-causing. I would thus call 3&4 derived meanings of “evil”.
It’s worth noting the possibility of cases where 1&2 diverge from 3&4. On one hand, society/religion may outlaw X even though X is not harmful. In that case, X is “evil” in senses 3&4, but not in senses 1&2. On the other hand, Y may be harmful even though society/religion doesn’t formally regulate it. In that case, Y is “evil” in senses 1&2, but not in senses 3&4.
Under what circumstances is it “cool” to be “evil” in mainline Satanism?
When Satanists talk like “it’s cool to be evil,” it seems they implicitly define “evil” in terms of 3&4. And there are worthy Satanic principles this suggests:
- Do not just ape other people regarding what you should / shouldn’t do.
- Don’t just accept received tradition or supernatural revelation regarding what you should / shouldn’t do.
- Instead, think for yourself regarding what does / doesn’t serve your interests and what is / isn’t just.
What’s noteworthy is that the third point implicitly evokes “evil” in senses 1&2. It presupposes the Satanist already has their own definition of “evil” as something bad that should be avoided. And so if society/religion impose alien values on the Satanist, society/religion should be disregarded.
Note, though, that it follows from this analysis that the Satanist is not actually pro-evil. They are, instead, what might be called “alt good”. They’re not claiming indifference to questions of harm. They are, instead, insisting that society/religion’s established ways of articulating harm and hindrance are faulty. This, then, is “I reject your idea of evil and seek my own good,” not “I purposely seek what we both agree is evil”.
I think most Satanists “grow out” of “it’s cool to be evil”. Is such a sentiment a fun way of shocking your parents when you’re 16? Sure. But if you never move past that point, you over-define Satanism in terms of what it opposes. Yes, Satanism rejects traditional values etc. But it also proposes something instead – something more substantial than just “evil”. You should at some point, then, be able to intelligently articulate what positives you are “for” – e.g., freedom instead of repression, wisdom instead of ignorance, etc.
Under what circumstances is it “cool” to be “evil” in more extremist forms of Satanism?
Everything I just said applies most readily to LaVeyans, Satanic Temple, etc. Look at something like O9A or Satanic Front, though, and of course things look different.
In these crowds, there are broadly-speaking four things that “it’s cool to be evil” seems to mean:
- “Evil is cool” in senses 3&4 only. Mainly seen among Niner-adjacent folk in whose worldviews the concept of honor plays an important role. Generally though, these are not people who actually spend a lot of energy insisting that evil is cool. They can instead readily articulate their worldview in terms of positive values, just as other Satanists can.
- “Evil is cool” in all four senses of evil, because the individual is an accelerationist. i.e., dislikes the current social-political order so strongly that they promote mayhem in order to destroy it more quickly.
- “Evil is cool” in all four senses, via taking “strength through adversity” to its furthest logical conclusion. Someone who believes certain kinds of Sinister personal development can only be achieved by purposely violating your own moral code. Often the kind of Satanist who has enthusiasm for things like culling, insight roles, etc.
- “Evil is cool” in all four senses, because the individual is a dysfunctional nihilist with no coherent ethos. “Men would rather spout badass-sounding bombast about ‘evil’ than go to therapy” -type energy.
[1] here is basically covered in the preceding section. And [4] I don’t think is deserving of philosophical engagement, as that’s just some resentful asshole who’ll probably wind up adopting Dogmagianism-in-Satanic-drag to justify his assholery. ( “But women can be this too!” = sure… but hang around the Satanic scene awhile and you’ll see why I phrase this the way I do…)
What about [2] and [3], though?
Accelerationist “evil”
Push the accelerationist re: what they envision after the downfall of society, and you’ll see their true colors re: “evil”. I reckon here are basically two types:
- The type that says something substantive about an alternate form of social-political organization. Probably it will involve “a better life for our people, without those people” – i.e., what other people would justly label evil in all four senses, because, like, racism with genocidal implications. Note, though, that this presents itself as “alt good” in the understanding of those who espouse it, if indeed they insist such would be a preferable world via certain kinds of harm-causing and potential-stifling being (supposedly) rectified.
- The type that doesn’t actually have anything substantive to say about an alternate form of social-political organization. i.e., Iron Gates cosplayer having spiteful fantasies about getting back at everyone they currently feel powerless against.
The first type collapses into [1] above. Many mainline Satanists would understandably be offended at the implication that Niners might have anything in common with themselves. The thought structures here are parallel, though: all these Satanists see what they’re doing as primarily counter-cultural (evil type 3&4), not harmful (evil type 1&2) – even if others strongly insist such ideas are harmful.
The second type, meanwhile, collapses into [4] above. They just add an enhanced dose of “I’m too mad at life to kill just myself – better an apocalypse that ruins it for everybody” to the mix. Which might be a recipe for writing some good black metal, but doesn’t seem very useful for much else.
Tempel Ov Blood “evil”
One seems to find the strongest promotion of “evil” among O9A-adjacent Tempel Ov Blood (ToB) types. These are the sorts who argue that “true” Satanists commit crimes, live as outlaws, etc.
Now, I’m unusual in that, while I reject this position, I can nonetheless make sense of several of its facets:
- There’s a violent harshness inherent in nature that modern people live insulated from. Satanists ought to come to terms with this, rather than living in denial of it.
- People are often unaware of moral baggage they’ve absorbed from the society/religion they were brought up in. Transgression is therefore useful insofar as it shatters taboos. Such experiences can release powerful energies and make room for the discovery of values that are truly one’s own.
I’ve met people online who seem to have arrived at genuine self-evolution via ToB experiences. I believe though that only a very small minority is capable of such. To this, some will predictably reply, “that’s the point: the path is supposed to be self-culling”. I, however, see this rather as an indication of the path’s flaws.
To flesh out this claim further, I will make two main points. One, ToB-style views of evil are haunted by a paradox. Two, enthusiasm for self-culling often comes with dismissive indifference toward collateral damage – and I would argue that there are qualities inherent to Satanism which imply that actually, you should care about avoiding this if you are going to claim to be a spiritually-mature being.
Given such factors, I’d argue Satanism ought to find other, better ways of achieving what ToB-style promotion of “evil-doing” is aimed at.
The paradox of “it’s cool to be evil”
The paradox I see in ToB-style promotion of “evil” is as follows:
People who do things like kill animals, etc. “for Satan” are often just power-hungry thrill-seekers. Hence, they are not really breaking a taboo or authentically facing nature’s harshness through these acts. Instead, they are merely doing what they already wanted in their hearts to do. Bereft of empathy, they do not actually grasp the significance of what they are doing to their victims.
Vs.
People who take a taboo super-seriously would gain more self-insight and release more energy when breaking said taboo. But because they take the taboo that seriously, they could also trigger relevant transformations in themselves via sufficiently-immersive visionary shadow-work experiences in which they break the taboo, without having to go out and commit said actual crime. Now, I am not saying this is “the same” as the real thing. I am asserting, though, that an internal experience of this sort would do more to transform the consciousness of a truly-conscientious person than “I’mma kill this cat because God/society won’t like it, but I myself am a dumbass with no moral compass who just thinks this is cool and funny” -type garbage on the part of an immature practitioner.
Hence, either you perform the act and don’t receive the spiritual benefit, or you can receive the benefit without actually having to do the act.
In a recent lecture, Pierre Lavigne distinguished between darkness and evil. This suits my purposes here: the delinquent is the one who seeks “evil”. Vs. the spiritually-mature person seeks an encounter with their own darkness. The latter can promote personal growth without harming others. Vs. the former harms others while only producing personal growth in a very rare kind of person.
What do ToB-style Satanists mean by “evil”?
But let’s now envision ToB-style “evil-doing” operating the way it’s “supposed” to. A tiny number of people gain true personal insight via the commission of “evil” acts. A vastly larger number just go to prison and/or otherwise destroy themselves. Oh, but that’s Satanic elitism for you, shrug the people who are into this kind of thing.
Now, I’d get this way of talking if all these “evil-doers” were “just” committing acts of types 3&4. That would be like every Satanist since forever, doing the Black Mass and embracing sexual freedom etc. But note ToB’s equivocation: talking flippantly if it’s “just” things society/religion thinks are bad, but acting as if only actually harmful-and-heinous deeds “count”. Embracing sexual freedom need only be “evil” in senses 3&4; rape, on the other hand, is evil in all four senses; ToB-style idiots act like the former isn’t enough, they must glorify the latter.
If you thus call for “evil-doing” that is “evil” not just in senses 3&4, but also in senses 1&2, notice what follows: you will, by definition, be causing harm to undeserving sentient beings via these acts. And I do not think “oh well, nature is harsh” at all cuts it as an excuse for this. Yes, there is competition and predation in nature, but there is also cooperation and mutuality.
“Aren’t you the one who believes in some horrifying Dark force behind existence, though?” Yes, I was just getting to that…
Incompatibility between Tenebrous ethos and ToB-style “evil-doing”
Tenebrous Satanism asserts that a brutal, amoral “Darkness” behind the scenes of reality drives the great Adventure that is life. We do not bemoan this as a tragedy or see this force as our enemy. One could blame it for life’s suffering, but it just is, and is not escapable.
What are the appropriate responses to this reality? One is empathy: life’s difficulties are a shared condition of all; therefore, don’t make things worse than necessary for your fellow living beings. Another is honor: realistically, we cannot relieve the sufferings of all; upholding honor means recognizing bonds that weigh most closely upon us and acting accordingly. (Click those links for lengthier pieces I’ve written on these two concepts as Satanic virtues.) The Satanist who acts without either thereby suggests that they do not “get it” re: the Dark realities we all live amid.
Such is the charge I’d level against the typical ToB criminal type. Some of these people think they have honor and empathy, because they do uphold ethical obligations to other Sinister path-walkers. Their presumption, though, is that Magians / mundanes / clayborn / etc. getting hurt is either ethically irrelevant, or is a worthy sacrifice to the “evil-doer’s” self-evolution. If so, though, note:
- Very often, people who reason this way will turn out to have adopted a worldview that is actually Dogmagian. Such people are typically bitter chauvinists who are not nearly as different from RHP fundamentalists as they seem to think.
- Evoke the idea of worthy sacrifice, and you are essentially arguing that said act is for a greater good. But then, why parrot the worldviews of established society/religion in calling it “evil”? Why, save for a juvenile infatuation with “evil” that seems ill-suited to attracting those actually capable of self-evolution?
Conclusions re: ToB-style “it’s cool to be evil”
Again, I’m not totally without appreciation for what ToB’s extremism seems aimed at. A rare few may accomplish something via such practices. My objection, though, is to harms they cause along the way. Meanwhile, an even larger number of oblivious delinquents cause yet greater harms to themselves and others, without even such limited gains.
The core problem stems from glamorization of “evil”. ToB here tries to out-Satan the rest of Satanism: “Oh you guys just promote evil in senses 3&4? Well, we promote evil in those senses and also senses 1&2!” This does not seem to be a case where “more is better”.
Nor do I see anything spiritually-evolved about indifference toward harm caused to others. Where is your honor? Where is your empathy? Amid such flippancy toward life, I can’t believe one is attaining much in terms of awareness, discipline or personal power. And absent such flippancy toward life, an introspective and sensitive soul possesses wisdom enough to find paths to self-evolution that need not require such cruel imposition upon others who are just trying to live their lives.
Given such considerations, ultimately I think ToB “it’s cool to be evil” suffers the same collapse as other variants above. A small number of cases may count as [1], i.e., “you’re not actually seeking what you think is evil; rather, you’re seeking a very niche conception of good”. (one that, in ToB’s case, basically no one else agrees with.) I suspect though that we’re more in the category of [4] here: stranded in the juvenile “mad at life” stage of Satanism, romanticizing “chaos” and “the void” without stopping to think, hey, could my total absence of positive values be a factor in why I’m a miserable person who does nothing but make others miserable too?
Concluding thoughts
Ultimately, this post makes two fundamental arguments against “it’s cool to be evil” discourse in Satanism:
- Re: “evil” in senses 3&4:
If the Satanist is seeking what, to them, is good, then calling this “evil” reinforces society’s/religion’s definitions. Purposely seeking what you actually think is evil is a self-canceling, self-destructive position. You are not doing that unless you are some kind of dysfunctional nihilist. So what are you actually doing? Affirming a different definition of good than what society/religion thinks is good. Stand up for yourself then, and assert your good as good, instead of accepting negative labels others put on it. - Re: “evil” in senses 1&2:
One can argue acts of harm have a place in Satanism, via forcing confrontation with transgression and with nature’s harshness. Promoting this position, however, creates a “for every awakened Vindex, here are several hundred loser criminals” -type outcome. Rationalizing those odds via appeals to elitism strikes me as morally lazy. A wiser course would be to center confrontations with darkness instead of centering the commission of evil acts (using Lavigne’s definitions of these words). Such a shift could do much to make the dangerous and challenging arenas of Satanism a place for intelligent, self-reflective people, instead of a place for thrill-seekers who don’t actually “get it” anyway.
I’m thinking this post has a higher risk than most of pissing off a bunch of my social media followers. So by all means raise issues with my arguments, but I would just request that any bitching about my “not being hardcore enough to get it” be accompanied by actual intelligent argumentation in turn.
Absolutely,recently i noticed that on Tiktok a videos that talk about nihilism,depression issues and how suicide is the solution and some quotes,stories those people who suffer from difficulties.In a time,it dragged to nihilism and despair,the thing that made me drawn to anti-cosmicism again “what’s the use of creation of this world and universe?What’s the goal of our existence?”and when i’ve read this post,it illuminated my mind.So,doing evil is not something good,i read some comments in youtubd channels that say “if there’s no sinister tradition,how LHP will be of value?”or something like that.Also,the word “sinister” and it is a latin word,i’m not sure,has two meaning:1]left and 2]in the sense of evil or hostility etc…Even if i used that word someday,i will mean it in the sense 1 (as i said above) not 2,because it means to me “left hand path”.
Yeah I use “sinister” in a similar way to how you do. I think it’s fair to note that it probably does come with some of the same problems as “evil” re: we use it in quite a different way than people outside of this path do, and that can cause confusion re: being pro-things-that-cause-harm as opposed to pro-things-that-aren’t-the-accepted-norm. At the same time though, I do think the association of “sinister” with “left” makes it a better word to turn toward ambiguous usage than “evil” is. “Sinister” also has the connotation more of “inauspicious”, which to me then ties it more inherently to the “what people are afraid of” angle than the “what is actually harmful” angle in comparison to evil being used more with emphasis on the latter by most normal people. Glad if this post was illuminating for you in any case though!