It ' s thedonald , theredpill and altright rolled into one at the moment with a splattering of a game theme . I followed and enjoyed it at first now it ' s just full of kids who can ' t work out what Hitler did wrong . <| sep |> Regarding Stanisaw Przybyszewski ' Przybyszewski was indeed very close to exercising an lifestyle that could be symbolic of what some might see as religious . However , it was more so a worldview ' In her doctoral dissertation , Justyna Drozdek using Jan Cavanaugh for support plainly states ' Przybyszewski ' s interest in Satanism was not indicative of a religious doctrine ' Drozdek 2008110 . ' This is , however , an oversimplification based on a narrow definition of the term ' religion '. No he did notto the best of our knowledgecelebrate black masses on Sundays or say prayers to the Devil before going to bed , nor did he found a satanic church . But he did have a fairly welldeveloped world view with metaphysical dimensions , where Satan was the most important symbolic figure . '. ' Stanislaw Przybyszewski formulated what is likely the first attempt ever to construct a more or less sstematic Satanism . Unlike that of other literary praisers of Satan , his love for the fallen angel was sustained through many works . It was also explicit and open he publicly declared himself a Satanist . Above all , and this needs to be stressed as it is a major difference in comparison with other literary Satanists , it was welldeveloped enough to be called a system . In the history of Satanism , Przybyszewski must therefore be considered a pioneer , and perhaps , in a strict sense , even ' the first ' Satanist '.' From ' The Devil ' s Party Satanism in Modernity P a r t y S a tanismModernitydptelrefsr 11 ? ieUTF 8 qidtelsr 81 keywordsthedevil % 27 spartySo what we have here is a man whose literary focus on Satanism was so profound that he took it upon himself to openly identify with this worldview . While this can be said of many others in their artistic and expressive fields that , as scholars have stated in the quotes above , can definitely qualify as a system , but to the certainty of it being considered a religion in and of itself would be unclear . Certainly he could have very well acted religiously on it . However , doubt is present where he considered his open declaration as ' Satanist ' one attached to a religion that was put in place with the name ' Satanism ' and its members calling themselves ' Satanists '. In my research of him , I haven ' t found a single ritual or ceremony that he practiced or put into a doctrine for others to practice . So , we still have to go with LaVey as the first person to establish a religion called Satanism and set up a system inclusive of all the elements of a religion both philosophy and ceremonydogma , since the evidence for him here is so explicitly compelling and referencereinforced . When you say that LaVey wasn ' t the first one to use the term Satanism or call himself a Satanist , you ' re right . But the argument here isn ' t about the existence of the word Satanism or Satanist , it ' s whether or not there was an actual , codified religion called Satanism . And history and research shows that LaVey was the first to set up a religion by that name . But others were damn close . Also , if you are to reference someone like Przybyszewski with the implication of scholarly research , don ' t say something like ' no matter what Gilmoreasskissing , groveling worms who would do anything for attention from their masters say '. That ' s not relevant to Przybyszewski ' s words nor his position and just makes you look petty and immature .