Any philosophy must, as a matter of course, at least imply a code of moral
ethics for its followers
to espouse. Satanism, as a philosophy and as a religion, can do no differently.
However, the nature
of that moral code will seem entirely alien to those who have been raised
on the ages-old idea of a
"good versus evil" world view. All of the major world religions (Christianity,
Judaism, Islam,
Taoism, Hinduism, and Buddhism) are rooted in moral absolutism. That is,
there is a definite and
objective set of behaviors which are "right" and which are "wrong" for
an individual to practice.
The differences between these religions come to the fore when the exact
nature of those behaviors
is defined, as well as the latitude afforded the individual in regards
to a choice between them.
For example, Christianity is very specific in its list of moral behaviors
which it considers right and
wrong (exemplified in the Ten Commandments and other Old Testament strictures),
and is equally
specific regarding the consequences of failing to observe "right" behavior
(cast into the lake of
eternal fire, etc.). Buddhism, on the other hand, still recognizes a set
of behaviors which are right
and wrong, but says that the individual is given full freedom of choice...
but is expected to choose
the correct behaviors. There is no punishment in Buddhism for choosing
wrong behaviors, other
than being once again incarnated on the Earth.
It is significant to realize that all of the rewards and punishments offered
by religion are mythic.
Their existences are, by their very nature, impossible to prove. However,
they are designed to play
upon the gullibility's and fears of the Masses, and in this way something
which may not actually
exist at all has a definite impact upon the real and observable world (by
means of modifying the
behaviors of the people of the world).
Satanism, too, offers a list of do's and don'ts, codified in several places,
including The Satanic Bible.
However, Satanism does not presume to cajole its adherents with either
vague promises of eternal
reward for good behavior or veiled threats of eternal punishment for bad
behavior. Rather, the
Satanist is encouraged to look upon every action in a unique light, and
weigh the consequences of
the various possible decisions. In this sense, Satanism offers a very relative
(rather than absolute)
moral code. To the Satanist, morality means doing what is best for yourself.
Note that this is not the wholly self-centered, selfish, and myopic world
view that some would like
to portray. By following this code, Satanists are not encouraged to go
out and steal, lie, cheat, and
murder merely for the slightest material or emotional gain. Rather, the
Satanist is encouraged to
look at the consequenches of his actions in a cold and rational light.
He must take into account not
only the short-term gains which are possible from a given action, but also
the long-term
ramifications which follow any decision. The Satanist must be wholly logical
in determining his
actions; there can be no other factors to be taken into account in making
the determination.
This attitude stems from the Satanists' reverence of intellectual freedom.
By following the path of
the intellect, rather than blindly obeying the Will of another (or even
succumbing to his own
emotional dictates), the Satanist forges for himself a path of true morality;
doing what is best for
himself. No creature can be expected to do anything less than that.
This runs contrary to the current conventional wisdom that selfsacrifice
is, in some way, noble in
and of itself. True, there are instances where self-sacrifice (either material
or psychic) is the most
reasonable course to take. But under no circumstances would the Satanist
(or any other rational
being, for that matter) undertake a self-sacrifice unless the benefits
to be gained eventually
outweighed the cost of the self-sacrifice. In such instances, the sacrifice
can be considered more
to be an investment.
This egalitarian attitude, which states that self-sacrifice is a worthwhile
action for its own sake, has
been incorporated into Western society at every level over the last few
decades. When this nation
was founded, it was founded on the idea that every individual was responsible
for himself; this
rugged individualism and self-reliance was the cornerstone upon which our
nation was built. Now,
however, the idea has been introduced that somehow each person is owed
a living-- food, shelter,
and even luxuries-- merely because that person is a citizen. This has been
expressed socially in the
prevalence of begging in major metropolitan areas. It has been expressed
politically in the entire
welfare and taxation system which has been in place since before World
War Two.
Prior to the introduction of the New Deal and, later, the Great Society,
charity was the province of
the private sector. If an individual wanted to give money to a particular
charity (be it a soup
kitchen, an individual beggar, or whatever), then that individual could
make a conscious, informed
decision to do so. Whole organizations were set up to facilitate the transfer
of funds derived from
these self-sacrificial urges, such as the Salvation Army, and various religious
groups.
Today, this idea has been corrupted. Rather than making charity an object
of a personal decision,
the State has taken it upon itself to oversee the collection and disbursement
of money from those
who have it to those who do not. Hardly any notice is taken of the individual
worth of the people
receiving such funds, and certainly far less notice is taken of the desires
of the people from whom
the money is being taken! In essence, the profits and produce of that section
of society which
actually contributes to the nation are being stripped from them without
so much as a consultation.
The beneficiaries of these funds are often those segments of society which
are unable or (even
worse) unwilling to contribute to the nation's prosperity. They exist merely
for their own sake, and
their only function in the web of society seems to be to act as a weight
on the more productive
segments, dragging them down to the same level. In this way, the egalitarians
see the fulfillment of
their wildest fantasies; a world in which everyone is entirely equal on
every plane; economyic,
social, intellectual, etc. It does not matter to these would-be do-gooders
that the method they have
chosen for this work does not raise the humble to the level of the lofty,
but rather drags everyone
down to the same, lowest common denominator.
It does not take a genius to see where this trend would eventually lead.
Without the impetus of the
doers of society, society as a whole must inevitably falter and wallow
in a morass of mediocrity,
struggling merely to maintain a level of productivity and a standard of
living that was made possible
only by the Herculean efforts of a small segment of society to prop up
the vast majority. And why
would the egalitarians stop at economyic and social equality? Heartened
by a complete victory in
that area, they could very easily continue the process into the very bodies
and minds of the
individuals. How could a population be truly equal, they could argue, when
some individuals are
smarter? Or stronger? Or faster? The imagination shudders at the Orwellian
possibilities to which
this road of "human equality" could lead.
What, then, would be the answer to this frightening conspireacy of mediocrity?
Before it is too late,
the rising tide of egalitarianism must be halted. Once more, humanity
must realize a simple truth
and come to terms with it; some individuals are simply better than others.
In days gone by, this was
taken as a given by everyone-- the very idea of an aristocracy is an expresssion
of the realization
that all men are not, after all, created equal. It can be said that the
American revolution (and the
subsequent realignment of ideological and political power throughout the
world) was a reaction to
the failure of the European system of aristocracy, which had, by that time,
failed to encapsulate the
best and brightest of the times, but rather acted as a breaking factor
on progress, entrenched and
more interested in maintaining its position of power through hereditary
lines than in representing the
leaders of the age. The mantle of the true aristocrats had passed from
the hereditary Lords of
Europe to a new breed of intellectuals and innovators. The American Revolution,
therefore, was
not a revolt against the idea of aristocracy, but rather a revolt against
the ossified institution that the
old aristocracy had become. It did away with the system of European Lords
to make room for a
new system of American Lords, whose superiority would be witnessed not
by the extent of their
land holdings, but on the extent of their philosophical and mental acuity.
It is entirely in line with the Satanic idea of the questioning of old
models of authority. There
inevitably comes a time when institutions come to represent the very opposite
of their original
intention. Any organization will, given he fullness of time,
come to think of itself as an end
product, rather than as a mere means by which ends are achieved. When the
European
Aristechracy became a mere vehicle for its own self-perpetuation, it lost
the mandate of leadership
which it held. Now, we find ourselves in a similar situation. The original
ideals of the Founding
Fathers have become perverted. America was originally a land wherein the
individual could find his
own fullest fulfillment as a person. His success or failure would rest
squarely on his own shoulders.
Today, however, this idea has been totally stricken from the American world-view.
Today, it is the
innovators, the productive, who must bear the burden for the sustenance
of the unproductive, the
followers.
The reason for this inversion of what, for thousands of years, was the
natural order of the world is
simple-- the rise of egalitarianism through its chief vehicle; Christianity.
When the leaders, the
innovators, became entrapped by the Christian creed of egalitarianism,
the failure of the American
experiment to provide fulfillment of the individual was inevitable. Christianty
is a fine tool for
controlling the masses; it curbs their rebellious impulses and allows them
to continue in the delusion
that they are somehow on the same level as the natural leadership of society--
this keeps their
resentment and jealousy to manageable levels. However, it is hardly a philosophy
for those whose
task is to lead the masses; the natural aristocracy cannot be taken in
by such an inversion of the
natural order.
