Satanic Ethics
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 behaviours
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
behaviours 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
behaviours 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" behaviour (cast into the lake of eternal fire,
etc.).
Buddhism, on the other hand, still recognizes a set of behaviours
which are right and wrong, but says that
the individual is given full freedom of choice... but is expected
to choose the correct behaviours. There is
no punishment in Buddhism for choosing wrong behaviours, other
than being once again incarnated on the
Earth.
It is significant to realize that all of the rewards and
punish-ments offered by religion are mythic. Their
existence's are, by their very nature, impossible to prove.
However, they are de-signed 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 behaviours 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 prom-ises of eternal
reward for good behaviour or veiled threats of eternal punishment
for bad behaviour. 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-centred, 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
conse-quences 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
self-sacrifice 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 invest-ment.
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 prof-its and produce of that section of
society which actually con-tributes 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 fulfilment of their wildest
fantasies; a world in which everyone is
entirely equal on every plane; econom-ic, 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 produc-tivity 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 econom-ic 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 conspir-acy
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 expres-sion
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 Euro-pean
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 ques-tioning
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
aristoc-racy 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 fulfilment
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 fulfilment of the individual was inevitable.
Christiani-ty 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 manage-able
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.