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.