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

Hannan Fodder: This week, Daniel Hannan gets his excuses in early

I didn't do it. 

Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy...

When I started this column, there were some nay-sayers talking Britain down by doubting that I was seriously going to write about Daniel Hannan every week. Surely no one could be that obsessed with the activities of one obscure MEP? And surely no politician could say enough ludicrous things to be worthy of such an obsession?

They were wrong, on both counts. Daniel and I are as one on this: Leave and Remain, working hand in glove to deliver on our shared national mission. There’s a lesson there for my fellow Remoaners, I’m sure.

Anyway. It’s week three, and just as I was worrying what I might write this week, Dan has ridden to the rescue by writing not one but two columns making the same argument – using, indeed, many of the exact same phrases (“not a club, but a protection racket”). Like all the most effective political campaigns, Dan has a message of the week.

First up, on Monday, there was this headline, in the conservative American journal, the Washington Examiner:

“Why Brexit should work out for everyone”

And yesterday, there was his column on Conservative Home:

“We will get a good deal – because rational self-interest will overcome the Eurocrats’ fury”

The message of the two columns is straightforward: cooler heads will prevail. Britain wants an amicable separation. The EU needs Britain’s military strength and budget contributions, and both sides want to keep the single market intact.

The Con Home piece makes the further argument that it’s only the Eurocrats who want to be hardline about this. National governments – who have to answer to actual electorates – will be more willing to negotiate.

And so, for all the bluster now, Theresa May and Donald Tusk will be skipping through a meadow, arm in arm, before the year is out.

Before we go any further, I have a confession: I found myself nodding along with some of this. Yes, of course it’s in nobody’s interests to create unnecessary enmity between Britain and the continent. Of course no one will want to crash the economy. Of course.

I’ve been told by friends on the centre-right that Hannan has a compelling, faintly hypnotic quality when he speaks and, in retrospect, this brief moment of finding myself half-agreeing with him scares the living shit out of me. So from this point on, I’d like everyone to keep an eye on me in case I start going weird, and to give me a sharp whack round the back of the head if you ever catch me starting a tweet with the word, “Friends-”.

Anyway. Shortly after reading things, reality began to dawn for me in a way it apparently hasn’t for Daniel Hannan, and I began cataloguing the ways in which his argument is stupid.

Problem number one: Remarkably for a man who’s been in the European Parliament for nearly two decades, he’s misunderstood the EU. He notes that “deeper integration can be more like a religious dogma than a political creed”, but entirely misses the reason for this. For many Europeans, especially those from countries which didn’t have as much fun in the Second World War as Britain did, the EU, for all its myriad flaws, is something to which they feel an emotional attachment: not their country, but not something entirely separate from it either.

Consequently, it’s neither a club, nor a “protection racket”: it’s more akin to a family. A rational and sensible Brexit will be difficult for the exact same reasons that so few divorcing couples rationally agree not to bother wasting money on lawyers: because the very act of leaving feels like a betrayal.

Or, to put it more concisely, courtesy of Buzzfeed’s Marie Le Conte:

Problem number two: even if everyone was to negotiate purely in terms of rational interest, our interests are not the same. The over-riding goal of German policy for decades has been to hold the EU together, even if that creates other problems. (Exhibit A: Greece.) So there’s at least a chance that the German leadership will genuinely see deterring more departures as more important than mutual prosperity or a good relationship with Britain.

And France, whose presidential candidates are lining up to give Britain a kicking, is mysteriously not mentioned anywhere in either of Daniel’s columns, presumably because doing so would undermine his argument.

So – the list of priorities Hannan describes may look rational from a British perspective. Unfortunately, though, the people on the other side of the negotiating table won’t have a British perspective.

Problem number three is this line from the Con Home piece:

“Might it truly be more interested in deterring states from leaving than in promoting the welfare of its peoples? If so, there surely can be no further doubt that we were right to opt out.”

If there any rhetorical technique more skin-crawlingly horrible, than, “Your response to my behaviour justifies my behaviour”?

I could go on, about how there’s no reason to think that Daniel’s relatively gentle vision of Brexit is shared by Nigel Farage, UKIP, or a significant number of those who voted Leave. Or about the polls which show that, far from the EU’s response to the referendum pushing more European nations towards the door, support for the union has actually spiked since the referendum – that Britain has become not a beacon of hope but a cautionary tale.

But I’m running out of words, and there’ll be other chances to explore such things. So instead I’m going to end on this:

Hannan’s argument – that only an irrational Europe would not deliver a good Brexit – is remarkably, parodically self-serving. It allows him to believe that, if Brexit goes horribly wrong, well, it must all be the fault of those inflexible Eurocrats, mustn’t it? It can’t possibly be because Brexit was a bad idea in the first place, or because liberal Leavers used nasty, populist ones to achieve their goals.

Read today, there are elements of Hannan’s columns that are compelling, even persuasive. From the perspective of 2020, I fear, they might simply read like one long explanation of why nothing that has happened since will have been his fault.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @JonnElledge.