The gates of Hell are thrown open...

An introduction for the uninitiated of the very often misunderstood belief of Satanism

Satanism. Even today, the very word strikes a note of avid concern and furrows the brow of even some of the most contemporary and supposedly unorthodox minds. And if anyone thinks I am writing this to allay any fears people might have they would be terribly mistaken. The fact is Satanism, for many, is indeed something to be feared. But it does not find its source of power in those laughable caricatures presented for public consumption by a variety of pious maniacs intent on filling their own coffers by preying on the paltry fears of the more feeble minded within society and a media that has, at times, been all too eager to spread the gospel of lurid, lascivious and nefarious tales of Satanic ritual abuse.

I simply do not have either the space or the inclination here to waste time demolishing the moronic claims that Satanism is an international conspiracy of evil psychopaths intent on destroying the planet and enslaving the masses through drug abuse and the sacrifice of children and animals. Those absurd charges have already been lambasted – no less than by the FBI, who in 20 years of investigations have publicly stated that they have never found a scrap of evidence to back up these claims. In fact, it’s rather a shame they had to waste such an inordinate amount of time foraging around in a quagmire of “evidence” born only in the minds of the mentally ill, when they could have been out doing what they are paid to do – locking up those less palatable members of the human race who’s business it is to thrive at the expense of everyone else.

So what is Satanism? Satanism is a religion that accepts man as he most naturally is. Our philosophy is one of elitism, whereby the strong rule over the weak and the productive over the wastrel through a process of Social Darwinism that occurs as a consequence of stratification. The compounding effect of egalitarianism has provided a firm foundation for the abysmal propagation of the parasite. Counter measures are long over due. Satanism espouses justice. And that extends to upholding the principle that only a meritocracy can truly serve the human race. In nature there is a pecking order and higher resources must not be drained by the wilfully less effective who are happy to sit at the bottom of the ladder and drain everyone else like a bloodsucker. No one is suggesting greasing the rungs. The strong stratify themselves, pull themselves up by their own boot-straps and pick themselves up again when they get knocked down – they seek to attain the sweet fruits of indulgence found on the higher plateaus of human endeavour.

Satan, to the Satanist, is an archetype symbolising the inherent nature of man and our acceptance of this brutal philosophy that governs us as a species. To this extent we are atheistic, adopting this mantel as the ultimate figure of pride, rebellion and human excellence.

So as you see, worship and sacrifice are not a part of our rationale; since we do not uphold a deity to bow down to. It has been said that we worship ourselves in the sense that our own egos provide the only bench-mark through which we seek to gratify our desires, pursuing our goals and furthering our own lives through the passionate application of our individual proclivities. For us, there is no hope of reward in some intangible afterlife - here and now is the only opportunity.

Dr. Elmer Gates (1853 – 1923), the eminent research psychologist made specific reference to the importance of individual development, referring to such persons as “a world worker.” He said: “a person whose genius or other predilection is contributory to the development of any science, art, philosophy or religion as a lifework, having accepted his mission and administering it for the world’s weal and his own happiness – he is a world worker.” Satanists are world workers. Satanists are people who can do things. You might be a factory owner, unbeknownst to you the young man who sweeps your floors might be a Satanist. He would certainly never bother you with the fact – but you can be sure you’d have the best swept floors in any factory you can think of. You’d better hold on to that young man because you can be sure he won’t be sweeping floors forever. And you can be just as sure he will apply himself effectively in anything he undertakes.

For those who haven’t yet read The Satanic Bible, Satanic philosophy can be encapsulated in The 9 Satanic Statements (copyright Anton Szandor LaVey 1969):

1: Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!

2: Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams!

3: Satan represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical self-deceit!

4: Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, rather than love wasted on ingrates!

5: Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek!

6: Satan represents responsibility to the responsible, instead of concern for psychic vampires!

7: Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development” has become the most vicious animal of all!

8: Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental or emotional gratification!

9: Satan has been the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!

So there you have it. And if evil they brand us, then evil we are! But as you see, there is no element of Devil worship in our credo. Satan is quite simply a symbol of man living as his nature dictates and remaining the final arbiter of his own destiny.

Umberto Ray is predominantly known as a poet and his work has appeared in magazines and anthologies around the world. His first book, The Blood In My Veins, was published in 2005. He has been a CoS member for several years and was ordained into its priesthood on Walpurgisnacht, 2007.
Getty
Show Hide image

Everyone's forgotten the one issue that united the Labour party

There was a time when Ed Miliband spoke at Momentum rallies.

To label the row over the EU at Thursday’s Labour leadership hustings "fireworks" would be to endow it with more beauty than it deserves. Owen Smith’s dogged condemnation of John McDonnell’s absence from a Remain rally – only for Corbyn to point out that his absence was for medical reasons – ought to go down as a cringing new low point in the campaign. 

Not so long ago, we were all friends. In the course of the EU referendum, almost all of the protagonists in the current debacle spoke alongside each other and praised one another’s efforts. At a local level, party activists of all stripes joined forces. Two days before polling day, Momentum activists helped organise an impromptu rally. Ed Miliband was the headline speaker, and was cheered on. 

If you take the simple version of the debate, Labour’s schism on the EU appears as an aberration of the usual dynamics of left and right in the party. Labour's left is supposedly cheering a position which avoids advocating what it believes in (Remain), because it would lose votes. Meanwhile, the right claims to be dying in a ditch for its principles - no matter what the consequences for Labour’s support in Leave-voting heartlands.

Smith wants to oppose Brexit, even after the vote, on the basis of using every available procedural mechanism. He would whip MPs against the invocation of Article 50, refuse to implement it in government, and run on a manifesto of staying in the EU. For the die-hard Europhiles on the left – and I count myself among these, having run the Another Europe is Possible campaign during the referendum – there ought to be no contest as to who to support. On a result that is so damaging to people’s lives and so rooted in prejudice, how could we ever accept that there is such a thing as a "final word"? 

And yet, on the basic principles that lie behind a progressive version of EU membership, such as freedom of movement, Smith seems to contradict himself. Right at the outset of the Labour leadership, Smith took to Newsnight to express his view – typical of many politicians moulded in the era of New Labour – that Labour needed to “listen” to the views Leave voters by simply adopting them, regardless of whether or not they were right. There were, he said, “too many” immigrants in some parts of the country. 

Unlike Smith, Corbyn has not made his post-Brexit policy a headline feature of the campaign, and it is less widely understood. But it is clear, via the five "red lines" outlined by John McDonnell at the end of June:

  1. full access to the single market
  2. membership of the European investment bank
  3. access to trading rights for financial services sector
  4. full residency rights for all EU nationals in the UK and all UK nationals in the EU, and
  5. the enshrinement of EU protections for workers. 

Without these five conditions being met, Labour would presumably not support the invocation of Article 50. So if, as seems likely, a Conservative government would never meet these five conditions, would there be any real difference in how a Corbyn leadership would handle the situation? 

The fight over the legacy of the referendum is theatrical at times. The mutual mistrust last week played out on the stage in front of a mass televised audience. Some Corbyn supporters jeered Smith as he made the case for another referendum. Smith accused Corbyn of not even voting for Remain, and wouldn’t let it go. But, deep down, the division is really about a difference of emphasis. 

It speaks to a deeper truth about the future of Britain in Europe. During the referendum, the establishment case for Remain floundered because it refused to make the case that unemployment and declining public services were the result of austerity, not immigrants. Being spearheaded by Conservatives, it couldn’t. It fell to the left to offer the ideological counter attack that was needed – and we failed to reach enough people. 

As a result, what we got was a popular mandate for petty racism and a potentially long-term shift to the right in British politics, endangering a whole raft of workplace and legal protections along the way. Now that it has happened, anyone who really hopes to overcome either Brexit, or the meaning of Brexit, has to address the core attitudes and debates at their root. Then as now, it is only clear left-wing ideas – free from any attempt to triangulate towards anti-migrant sentiment– that can have any hope of success. 

The real dividing lines in Labour are not about the EU. If they were, the Eurosceptic Frank Field would not be backing Smith. For all that it may be convenient to deny it, Europe was once, briefly, the issue that united the Labour Party. One day, the issues at stake in the referendum may do so again – but only if Labour consolidates itself around a strategy for convincing people of ideas, rather than simply reaching for procedural levers.