Society

Satan thinks eugenicists should be aborted

Posted on by A lesser demon

There is nothing unnatural in lending Nature a helping hand. That is why sane humans will mend a broken leg and write a prescription for painkillers afterward instead of insisting that the “natural pain” is good for you. There are exceptions, of course, for example, when certain groups remind women that the pains of childbirth are good for both the mother and the baby, and by some sheer coincidence, the Bible happens to require just that experience. And rest assured that when you burn in Hell, painkillers will not be provided.

Humans soon learned to refine crops for better yield, to cross previously inedible plants into variations fit for human consumption, and to breed animals for select features. Humans, too, were aware that they inherited the features of their progenitors, although the gods might curse them if they stayed too closely related over several generations.

It was not until the late 1800s, however, that evolution was formally discovered, adding that both physical and behavioral traits were inherited in a constant struggle for resources that are scarce enough to prevent a single species from dominating. Charles Darwin introduced the term “natural selection” to indicate how specimens that could not adequately beat the odds would perish, leaving those that were better “fit for survival” to produce offspring—a term that Darwin adopted from Herbert Spencer, although the latter used it as an argument that certain races were preserved in the struggle for life.

Early theory of evolution conveyed the message that one’s survival came at the cost of other human lives, and it seemed clear that if a certain group of humans wished to improve its lot in life, others would have to pay: those who were thought to be less fit for survival due to attributed racial qualities. Satan has already discussed how such Social Darwinism has been shown beyond doubt to be pseudoscience but in the early 1900s, such speculations had yet to be debunked. It was yet to be learned that a master race is not cultivated by the physical and mental education of an “iron youth” that would eventually beget strong children, nor that the traditional concepts of race mean anything in those equations.

Programs were established in some countries that aimed to accelerate the process of refining the respective master races through the “science” of eugenics, a term coined by Sir Francis Galton in 1883. Generally speaking, it was the white élites with strong biases about who was “fit” and “unfit” that embraced eugenics, believing that social ills in their countries would be eliminated by increased breeding of Nordics or Anglo-Saxons like themselves. Several countries introduced mandatory sterilization, usually targeting immigrants, people of color, Indigenous people, poor whites, and people with disabilities. The USA was the international leader in eugenics and the Nazi Germany sterilization law that led to the sterilization of a staggering 400,000 “undesirable” and “defective” individuals was modeled on US laws that had then been effective for over two decades.

Eugenics apologists have argued that modern, civilized societies still have eugenics programs when, for example, they offer termination of pregnancies where a fetus is determined to suffer from severe disabilities. Not surprisingly, anti-choice propagandists have also gladly invoked the specter of eugenics at any mention of abortion.

It is true that, although far less terminal and draconian than forced sterilization, state-sanctioned or state-encouraged termination of pregnancies that will lead to significantly lowered quality of life for the otherwise delivered child can be said to be a “state program” for controlling the genetic make-up of the population, and it may also target minorities. Such reflections, as well as options for enhancing human characteristics and capacities through the use of reproductive technology and human genetic engineering, have led advocates of such practices to introduce the term “liberal eugenics” early this century. An important aspect of liberal eugenics is individual choice, where the decision to alter or select an embryo should be left to the parents’ preferences rather than forbidden or mandated by the state.

The traditional form of eugenics, in contrast, is authoritarian eugenics, where the individual (parent) is given no choice regarding the selection of their embryo or even their reproductive rights.

Satan does not give the important distinction too much thought because here in Hell, we demons are spawned not birthed. We are manifestations of Satan’s infinite evil, and no pre-spawn measures are required. However, The Rejected Angel keeps an eye on His Church of Satan, whose members are of the human kind—although their existence would be abruptly eradicated were society to embrace the ideals of “The Book of Satan.” There, in His church, the Devil finds that rank and file members argue that the eugenics advocated by Anton LaVey and Peter Gilmore is liberal eugenics, albeit being unaware of the term. With such a take on eugenics, The Church of Satan represents nothing controversial, except maybe for a hint of a progressive stance, they argue.

Satan is not the forgetful kind but keeps written journals for those of us who are tasked with his evil bidding and checks His records in case of doubt. He does not recognize liberal eugenics anywhere in the scriptural teachings of The Church of Satan and suspects that, as usual, its uninitiated and untrusted members have either not properly studied their scripture or are struggling with feelings of guilt. Satan thinks it is worth recapping the true stance of The Church of Satan.

One does not readily identify eugenics in The Satanic Bible but The Church of Satan cites additional canon in which one finds these views. (For those who forget, canon is the scripture that defines the religion; it is not something from which questionable elements can simply be dismissed as, say, just some personal opinion of the author.) Satan thinks one should begin with Anton LaVey’s take on sterilization: women who are so irresponsible as to become pregnant only to face problems raising their child should be sterilized by force, as should men who are stupid enough to choose such women. Useless people should be sterilized by force through state programs. The choice is not laid upon the individual parents, who can only pray and otherwise attempt to paint themselves as good, Christian citizens that the state considers them useful.

LaVey knew very well his ideological legacy when, in interviews, he desired to enhance the growth of new, more intelligent generations, if I had the chance, by selective breeding. But this is so terrifyingly related to Hitlerism that usually I can’t even talk about it. His ideas centered around the group-oriented breeding policy of that very regime, declaring that [s]elective breeding, elitist stratification, advocacy of polygamous relationships for breeding purposes, and eventually building communities of like-minded individuals are Satanic programs antithetical to the cherished egalitarian ideal.

Satan may not have high thoughts about humans in general but trusts that any reader who has made it this far in the present text can unmistakably identify Anton LaVey’s eugenics as the authoritarian variant from the darkest chapters of human history.

Some of LaVey’s teachings have been altered significantly, albeit without admitting to revision; for example, Satan has mentioned how might has become impotent and how the current Church of Satan High Priest Peter Gilmore describes magic as “just psychodrama” despite LaVey insisting that it is not just psychodrama. This has yet to happen for The Church of Satan’s stance on eugenics, despite apologetical members insisting on the liberal interpretation. Both LaVey and Gilmore have repeatedly used the term in reference to hopes of breeding a genetically superior Satanic élite to replace their current best bet.

Peter Gilmore even complains that the failure to maintain early-twentieth-century eugenics is the very cause of the widespread growth of egalitarianism and collectivist thinking that he despises (and, like LaVey, misinterprets according to alt-right propaganda). He avoids mentioning the big bad state but confirms that genetic technologies are not for everyone: We wish the ranks of the “superiorly abled” to increase in number, before time runs out and we all perish under the crush of mediocrity. As with LaVey, there is no question about the group-oriented application of authoritarian eugenics.

As often happens to shallow thinkers, both LaVey and Gilmore rely on exceedingly thoughtless criteria for such eugenics. There is no mention of which standards apply when people are deemed irresponsible or stupid, nor who is certified to make such judgments. The Church of Satan places itself firmly in the tradition of historical authoritarian eugenics when its support for eugenics is based on politics and ideology, disregard for individual rights, and vaguely formulated, unscientific ideals of genetic purity. It believes that merely agreeing with a particular ideology proves genetic superiority. By the injunction of international law against involuntary sterilization, Anton LaVey and Peter Gilmore advocate a crime against humanity.

Despite the counter-individualistic, unscientific, authoritarian stance of His church that opposes everything Satan symbolizes, Satan thinks there is insight to be derived from its appeal to its members.

To join as someone with less than some combination of Mensa-grade intelligence, the physiology of an Olympics contestant, and virtuoso talents is unconscious suicidal ideation: one joins a cult that wishes one dead, only unlike Christianity, this death cult promises no rewarding afterlife. It is a desire to leave the cosmic wheel of life entirely. One must be utterly self-loathing to join such an organization if one suffers from disabilities of any kind that are costly to society, cumbersome to one’s closest associates, or too expensive to pay by oneself because, remember, the organization also rejects societal altruism.

Satan thinks that to most of the members of The Church of Satan, believing that one not only stands a chance for life but even qualifies as breeding stock for their envisioned élite is an extreme form of delusion of grandeur. Satan thinks that had they been livestock, they would have been turned into soap. Only thus would they contribute to a human breed cleaned of impurities.

Satan thinks egalitarianism has merit

Posted on by A lesser demon

Every religion considers other religions to be the source of devilry, although in the past, pantheistic religions have usually been happy to incorporate inspiring elements from other religions into their own. People and hence their religions tend to become more tolerant towards other religions if resources are scarce and reliance on alien cultures is vital to one’s existence. However, as a general rule, anything that seems wrong in one’s society has always been blamed on others. It does not matter that it had been effective for centuries; if it eventually became undesired, it could be blamed on others and perceived as some kind of demon that they had introduced.

The Devil’s own church, The Church of Satan, has identified its share of demons that it attributes to other religions. One such archdemon is egalitarianism, which Peter Gilmore repeatedly denounces in The Satanic Scriptures and believes is caused by Christianity. He demands instead Social Darwinism and authoritarian eugenics, arguing that they expose the fundamental fallacies of egalitarian doctrine, although he does not explain how. In Peter Gilmore’s mind, the fallacies of egalitarianism are the belief that everything and everyone are, or should be, equal:

Thus, some random splashes on a canvas were considered an equal achievement to the Sistine Chapel; a mud hut was held up as being equivalent to Versailles. A janitor was dubbed the equivalent to a physicist; a novelist was now the peer of one who scrawled graffiti on a bathroom wall. This principle of “discrimination” was applied to all other fields of achievement.

The opposition to egalitarianism is deeply entrenched in both LaVeyan and Gilmoron Satanism, to the degree that the very first point, “on which all the others ultimately rest,” of The Church of Satan’s mostly political program is: “the advocacy … of stratification, which is no less than the elimination of egalitarianism wherever it has taken root.”

Egalitarianism, in The Church of Satan, is meant as a complete leveling of all differences between human beings. Similarly, equality is the presumption that everyone has equal abilities and no differences, and nobody performs to the best of their ability as everything is compressed into conformist homogeneity. Satan can barely fathom how nightmarish the thought of thereby having nothing to brag about must be to a stereotypically complete grandiose narcissist such as Peter Gilmore. From the Devil’s opposite perspective, however, most of His followers would improve considerably if it were possible to average all humans. When we sort their souls for incineration in Hell, we usually classify them as “small combustibles” unless they are toxic waste.

Neither of the two writers appears to be aware that their understanding of egalitarianism is utterly false nor that egalitarian principles have secular origins. These principles were born of the Enlightenment and are now adopted by numerous international laws, treaties, and domestic constitutions and bills of rights despite religious opposition. They cannot be dismissed as the product of a single religion or even several religions in unison. Egalitarianism involves the principle that everyone has a set of immutable rights that should not be infringed upon. They are designed to protect all individuals from social, legal, political, or other abuse. They are minimal standards, not maximal standards, whose goal is to prevent the worst, not enable or prescribe the best.

Human rights are not a leveling tool and have no bearing on ability or skill. They exist to protect the vital existence of every individual, not to artificially foster incompetence or homogenize society, and are constructed on the basis of human equality. In egalitarianism, equality is the claim that all humans are of equal moral worth, not equal ability. Anyone with the ability to write a symphony rivaling Beethoven’s genius is free to do so, and any individual who lacks the ability never will. (Satan thinks that, although holding a degree in musical composition, Peter Gilmore’s closest experience with musical recognition will remain the Salieri syndrome.) The human rights of egalitarianism protect everyone from repression or persecution in pursuit of their respective goals, and do not determine what individuals can do with their natural abilities nor flatten the differences between those abilities. With their fundamental liberties protected by egalitarian principles, individuals become free to pursue any life they feel is rewarding, providing that the rights of others are respected. Egalitarianism is a prerequisite for a functioning meritocracy.

Satan initially thought to Xerox Peter Gilmore a copy of the definition of egalitarianism from any modern dictionary, but the extent and the form of Gilmore’s misunderstanding of the term is all too familiar to His Infernal Majesty, who knows that Gilmore will not be educated. It is how the far-right ultra-conservatives apply the term when (like LaVey and Gilmore) they imagine that their arbitrarily charted group of people has intrinsically higher moral worth than other human beings. The only difference is that LaVey and Gilmore believe the horror stems from left-wing politics emanating from Christianity, whereas the typical far-right advocates against egalitarianism are equally convinced that it is a left-wing plague but believe that Christianity is the cure.

Old Nick considers an exposition on right-wing politics to be outside of the scope of these thoughts and believes it suffices to observe that when egalitarianism is yet another word that The Church of Satan uses incorrectly, in this incident, the primary explanation is not their usual subaverage comprehension skills. The Church of Satan echoes a far-right view that makes sense only when accompanied by a complete ideological framework from that same end of the political spectrum. It is an interpretation tightly knit with several other elements that provide that political position’s view of humans and cannot be separated from those elements.

One does not have to be a master of systemic functional linguistics (which Satan is, of course) to understand that people’s vocabulary reveals much about them, nor that social semiotics tells us that a consistent use of specific misunderstandings serves as a language equivalent of secret handshakes. The Church of Satan reveals and communicates a far-right political platform and attracts members accordingly.

Satan thinks Epicureanism is no indulgence

Posted on by A lesser demon

Most of what is said about our Master in Hell serves to either amplify His malice so He can be blamed for one’s irresponsibility or to tame Him so one’s own impotence in all matters demonic is less evident in comparison. Satan understands why His sworn enemies resort to such tactics but is scornful towards those of His own followers who betray themselves with similar campaigns.

The herd mentality of the Devil’s church members compels them to chant the words of their clergy, never imagining it would be prudent to verify the claims or check the references. This emphasizes the importance of a responsible church magistrate whose alliance must always remain with Satan not their lesser selves, despite their delusions of grandeur.

One such incident was the current high priest’s, Peter Gilmore, attempt to flatten Satanism and explain it in terms that can best be described as the vulgarity of the uneducated, when Gilmore reduced Satanism to “modern Epicureanism,” explaining that it is a refined selection of gourmet indulgences. Satan thinks perhaps He should be thankful that Gilmore at least managed to contrast it to primitive hedonism.

A little-known Finnish-Greek philosopher among our ranks here in Hell named Perkeles once made an attempt to reconcile Epicureanism with Anton LaVey’s Satanism but abandoned the project before making any significant headway. Perkeles began with a study of Epicurean physics, which stipulated that there is no such thing as life after death, immaterial souls, or gods and devils. All that exists is physical reality. Neither God nor Satan exists. This appears to be the end of Perkeles’ study, because after proudly presenting the distinctly unconvinced King of Hell with his findings that there is no Devil, he vanished without a trace. However, although naturally opposed to worldviews that deny His existence, Satan admits that as far as humans are concerned, one should always reject supernatural claims; He can wait until the day He makes sure they learn the truth the hard way.

Epicureanism is one of several attempts among ancient philosophers toward a practical philosophy of achieving happiness. It is named after the Greek philosopher Epicurus, who lived from 341 to 270 BCE. Epicurus believed that the greatest good and the key to human happiness was to attain a state of tranquility through freedom from fear and the absence of bodily pain, and by not increasing one’s worries through acquisition or ownership. One would spend the best life if surrounded by all your friends, by minimizing one’s desires to the bare minimum required for survival so one had as much time as possible with said friends, and should strive to form communities with them. Hence, Epicurus himself abstained from sex and stuck to a diet of bread and water. Friendship was of such paramount importance to him that he held that a wise man would rather die for a friend than betray him. Epicureanism denied that wealth and power can bring happiness.

Satan could hardly think of anything less congruent with His nature. He represents indulgence instead of abstinence, and although moderation and prioritization of one’s pleasures mark the difference between indulgence and compulsion, Satan thinks that the bare-bones minimum requirements for survival cannot possibly qualify as anything but sheer abstinence. Satan, marvelous in His independence, would also not be caught dead feeling dependent on, or even overly keen on socializing with, anyone including friends. The Prince of Darkness derives His own, dark peace of mind from knowing that He is self-contained and that His diabolical essence is within his full control, unaffected by what others think. He shuns the notion of a community and considers misanthropy a positive trait. Satan agrees with the Epicurean view that there is no intrinsic purpose to life beyond biological imperatives, but He permits Himself the right to determine his own indulgences and values, thank you very much.

It is only in modern, popular usage—explicitly attributable to the promulgation of misunderstandings of Epicurean doctrine by Christian polemicists—that Peter Gilmore’s use of the epicure as a connoisseur of the finer sensual pleasures may be acceptable, but Satan thinks it is just that: a Christian misunderstanding that, if kept unchecked, could easily turn Satanism into its almost polar opposite.

Yet, Satan can identify some genuine parallels between Epicureanism and His church and its members. Firstly, He is convinced that a great deal of them are involuntary Epicureans whose fierce limitation of indulgences occurs by necessity rather than choice. Secondly, Epicureans discouraged learning, culture, and civilization, believing such would upset one’s tranquility, except to the extent that such knowledge could rid oneself of fears. Satan is certain that His church does its utmost to uphold this standard. Like the Epicureans, they rely on empiricism (which denies rationalism and trusts only what humans can directly experience with their senses, and is ultimately the cause of such nonsense as modern-day flat-Earth belief) and are unswayed by fact, science, and logic, demonstrating at every chance they get that they have no grasp on these phenomena whatsoever.

This fervent resistance against intellectual development could, ironically, be their bulwark against the full depravity of Epicurean abstinence and people-addiction. Satan takes solace knowing that His church members, being one of the least studious ethnicities there exists, will echo Gilmore’s words like braying sheep but luckily for them will never choose to study and pursue Epicureanism. Like so many of their “truths,” it is, as the Epicureans would say, an empty sound.

Satan thinks His temple is a hate group

Posted on by A lesser demon

Make no mistake about it: The Satanic Temple is a political activist group first and a religious organization second. The fact that it has been around for about a decade and has yet to expound on a philosophy, still only listing seven ambiguous but generally reasonable and mostly agreeable tenets, is evidence that its resources are spent elsewhere than religious principles: the attention of the head of The Satanic Temple is directed at its many court appearances and political actions. Its stance as a religion is a means to an end that provides the Temple with the legitimacy required for legal combat against religious affairs. It is a weapon that changes the Temple from an interest group whose opinion existing religious groups can safely disregard to an equal whose rights and complaints must be taken seriously.

This does not imply that the religion is mere self-delusion to the members of The Satanic Temple. Satan thinks that the Temple’s reason to found a new religion is as good as any, if not better than yet another uneducated joker who believes he has discovered the truth, and the resulting religion is as authentic, meaningful, and legit as any religion based on fantasy creatures. But, Satan thinks that with such limited doctrine, the religion lacks the unification and direction that are some of the positive aspects offered by religion. Members are instead on their own with no guidance. The organization made the absolute minimum effort on this matter: it has secured legal recognition as a religion but does not provide religion beyond a very superficial level.

The Satanic Temple has chosen the strategically sound approach of appearing to be “for” something not “against” something. Hence, its official stance is to promote religious tolerance and pluralism and to ensure that its own members have equal rights as those of other religions. It does not take a genius to understand that The Satanic Temple thus turns the system upon itself and that its primary agenda is to oppose and combat Christian dominance in society and legislation, but its battles are fought in the arenas of believers, politicians, and lawyers, not geniuses, where subversive or hidden agendas are common. Thus, although it was important to establish a religion, the glaring absence of scripture and teaching shows that the founders of The Satanic Temple evidently are not invested in creating and maintaining a religious ideology. In practice, all The Satanic Temple is “for” is a very shallow body of opinions and values.

Satan thinks this reality is not entirely lost on the membership. Some naïve members may fall for the narrative that The Satanic Temple is truly bent on religious tolerance, and some members with diplomatic flair will claim so for political reasons, but moderately perceptive people soon learn that the Temple is—deservedly, let us not deny it—directly antagonistic towards Christians.

With scarcely any philosophical content to discuss or examples of articulated ideology from representatives of the governing body of The Satanic Temple to appropriate, the lay membership adopts its antagonism and acts accordingly. Ideology boils down to a concentrate of anti-Christian sentiments, mutual reassurances of the evils of Christianity, a continuing compulsion to vilify the enemy, and repeated ridicule and constant criticism of their superstitions, with a majority of its membership creating and chiming in with such animosity. Satan agrees that Christianity is an atrocity of mankind, but He thinks that if one declares oneself a Satanist, one is already abundantly informed about their inhumanity and needs no daily dossier—in fact, Satan thinks that if one is a Satanist, one feels no need to revisit their territory and prefers to not be reminded of their existence. Hell may be a place of eternal suffering, but even His Focality of the Nine Circles would not inflict more Christianity upon the damned than they have already endured. Such preoccupation with Christianity has no place within any ideology of His.

Satan thinks that, based on the declarations and commentary from the active majority of the members of His temple online, The Satanic Temple is becoming a hate group—defined as a social group that practices animosity, hostility, malice, or hatred towards designated segments of society. The Devil defends His absolute sole right to torment Christian souls because it is His designated role, but will not lend His magnificent name to groups who sustain the proud Christian tradition of hating their enemy while outwardly subscribing to a religion of professed tolerance and compassion. Satan thinks that His temple’s haters need culling if not elimination.

Satan thinks degrees are hot

Posted on by A lesser demon

His Infernal Majesty is a sucker for ranks, hierarchy, and degrees, and enforces relentless stratification throughout His infernal empire. Degrees boost efficiency, because they relieve everyone of the tedious and uninteresting task of learning about each other. An accurate and carefully awarded degree provides you with everything you need to know about a demon or, in the world above us, a person.

For example, if a person advertises a sixth degree in Scientology, you immediately know that he is a top shelf idiot who has spent a significant sum of money and time becoming delusional. There is no need to speak at length with this individual and learn it the hard way.

It should go without saying that the quality of a degree is contingent on a strict curriculum and objective, unbiased evaluations. Satan has no respect for organizations that award degrees as a token of “esteem” or any similar set of undefined skills. Satan’s church is right to warn against a degree system with no answers in its Satanic Bunco Sheet. Degrees have no merit unless they can be independently verified—secret, unpublished standards, subjective evaluations, or cautions that if you have to ask about a degree, it is because you cannot afford it, are a foolproof litmus cult test. Degrees are meaningful only if they are meaningfully awarded: students who pride themselves of graduating from the school of hard knocks rarely boast notable grades elsewhere and hence seldom impress people with actual educations.

Even a correctly granted degree per the Devil’s requirements holds merit only among those who consider the issuer to be authoritative. Any earned degree is hogwash to people who find the organization ridiculous whether it deserves such an opinion or not.

Either situation—that the organization’s degrees are absurd or useless outside of its membership sphere or that the organization applies arbitrary requirements, or both—explains why some “warlock” in one organization may be readily recognized as a black-belt retard in all walks of life by people outside of the organization (and often because of the degree, cf. the aforementioned Scientologist).

Satan thinks His disciples should be mistrustful of all such degrees. Satan represents rebellion against phony authorities and The Goat-Legged One thinks it behooves His followers to follow suit and question authority; if nothing else then because He says so.

This raises an important point. All disciples of the Prince of Darkness were raised in societies where self-proclaimed élites have manufactured a system in which degrees signal social positions. It compels people to attribute importance to a degree regardless of its significance, worth, or merit. Satan thinks that instead of conforming to herd mentality and automatically credit an awardee with importance, one should apply analytical thinking. Since everyone considers a degree to signal relative importance, degrees reflect a value system: by observing ranking members one can deduce what the real values of an organization are as opposed to its purported values.

A personality-cult–like organization (or one characterized by individuals with narcissistic proneness) often have few other values than unbending loyalty towards the organization and sycophantic praise of those who are superior in degree. It awards degrees to lickspittles and personal friends of the issuers. It is often possible to deduce such values by observing who receives degrees.

In contrast, formal procedures and veracious requirements for degrees usually indicate a system focused on the advancement of bodies of skill. The obvious example is educational institutions. The hierarchy of degrees is typically shallow considering the size of these organizations. (This is true for higher education, too, because although they feature a plethora of degrees, the degrees are identical across different scientific fields in terms of “level.”) Such degrees are often legally protected as a bulwark against counterproductive activity. Satan secretly longs for the day when “witch” is designated as a protected degree, but thus far it has been awarded only by historically inept personnel.

It does not matter for identification purposes whether the degrees make any sense; the institutions and their members think they do and that is enough. Satan thinks that the use of degrees in higher education is generally admirable although degrees in fan-fiction fields such as theology, political science, and economics are mostly self-contained. The key is that degrees expose an organization’s fundamental objectives and that they may tell a different story to the out-group than to the in-group.

Within any group, degrees are important regardless of their merit for entirely different reasons than position, prowess, or progress. They serve as structural elements that keep organizations together.

Firstly, they establish a hierarchy of authority that dissuades early adopters from voicing criticism. This is generally advantageous to any organization. Bodies of knowledge rarely benefit from “input” from insightless newcomers, and power-centric organizations gain little from status seekers. This mechanism is maintained through-up the degree system, ensuring that authority stays in the hands of its rightful owners.

Secondly, they increase efficiency (as mentioned earlier). No single member must investigate who is considered an authority within the organization, because degrees provide this information. All that remains is to choose among the available array of higher-ranking individuals as sage, inspirator, or mentor, depending on organizational terminology.

Thirdly, degrees cement loyalty through multiple means. Growth recognition fosters loyalty in that as long as there is yet a degree to attain, members are compelled to keep advancing and hence staying until they reach the pinnacle degree. (New degrees may be introduced, should too many students become proficient.) Few organizations focusing on personal development can keep their members interested unless their growth is continously acknowledged.

Perhaps a corollary of hierarchy and achievement, a degree makes the owner feel important. Human vanity enjoys any badge of social recognition—especially that of your favorite group—that you may pin on your suit, literally or figuratively. The feeling of being significant by virtue of membership often suffices to keep the sheep at bay. In the same vein, what you have been given can be taken. Your title may be revoked or you may even find yourself disassociated from your organization. This silent threat is highly motivating towards loyalty.

More importantly, degrees are captive. Degrees designate a role, and roles are defined by expectations. Once a degree has been awarded, its new owner adopts a role whose behavior and sense of loyalty is predefined and reinforcing, because otherwise no-one within the organization will recognize the new awardee as such. (The so-called “Stanford prison experiment” by Philip Zimbardo, although critized and contested, illustrates the power of roles.) Both loyalty and values are thus preserved because the new degree owner must imitate the behavior that led him or her to achieve the degree to begin with.

Satan likes degrees but mostly in the sense that He loves to boil the souls of the damned.

Satan thinks stratification would kill several followers

Posted on by A lesser demon

Pentagonal revisionism is the political and social program of the Church devoted to His Infernal Majesty. It includes strict taxation of all churches, no tolerance for religious beliefs secularized and incorporated into law and order issues, the development and production of artificial human companions, the opportunity for anyone to live within a total environment of his or her own choice, and—most importantly, according to the Church—stratification on all levels of society: no-one should be protected from the effects of his own stupidity, and everyone must find his or her place in society without help.

The Old Lad Himself wholeheartedly supports stratification on Earth as it is in Hell, His own realm being founded on a strictly feudal basis with a Lordship-retainer relation between all of our denizens. It is entirely coincidental that our infernal structure happens to match the social structure of Medieval times when humans began to depict Hell. Johann Weyer’s elaborate description of our hierarchy was reputedly a satirical spoof but we who dwell here know better.

Thus we have several Sons of God who stand as praiseworthy examples of breaking social heritage, a vast array of demons, numerous devils (ranking above the demons), arch-demons, princes, dukes, lords and overlords, and many specialized trades such as chefs, jesters, spies, generals, captains, and ministers. It may be every demon for himself, but everyone knows its place, including yours falsely, who dutifully mans the furnaces and is only allowed to relay The Gentleman’s infernal thoughts on his unpaid overtime.

The astute reader may have noticed that our hierarchy, although incompletely outlined above, does not include any of Satan’s followers. There is a good reason for that: Hell is intended to be their punishment not their playground. Satan thinks that if they want to rule in Hell, they can go create their own damn (or damned) place on Earth where they belong for now. Satan will not reward them with some title and a fiery fiefdom when they die. Such nonsense is what “God” promises.

Satan thinks that the promise of an afterlife in an eternal bliss if only one succumbs to the demands of the clergy while alive is a death wish. Atheists abound who agree. (Old Horney has no comments on His own role in that myth.)

In spite of Freud’s derailing psychology for decades to come, Satan thinks there is some truth to be found in his idea of a “death drive.” Satan believes Thanatos describes a biological response in a body which is aware at a some deep level that it is unfit to exist and must perish and rot. Thanatos drives the body host towards self-destructive behavior and activities that are harmful to himself or herself. It drives the person towards ideologies that deny their carnal being and reject the body—such as Christianity, which stipulates that their essential being is something that does not exist: their soul. They desire to be freed of their body, to be obliterated from existence.

This brings us back to the political goal of stratification. Satan thinks that all of His followers who joined The Church of Satan should question their own role: which social stratum do they occupy in their current societies, and which stratum would they occupy in if that society was shaped per pentagonal revisionism?

Satan thinks many of them would perish. A person who is both physically and mentally retarded has nothing to offer and would crash anonymously and unceremoneously to the bottom stratum in a matter of days if a Satanic social structure was enforced.

Such people, as well as anyone who is functioning but below average usefulness, would seem stupid, self-deceited, or hypocritical to join an organization whose declared goal is to suppress them, but Satan ascribes it to Thanatos: they are attracted to The Church of Satan because it promises an alternative to their frustrations with their current lot in society that would prove far worse to them. They harbor a subconscious desire to be eradicated.

Satan thinks that a substantial number of His followers who support The Church of Satan’s ideas of meritocraty and strict social stratification may wish for a hell on Earth that would come considerably close to the mythical Hell. And Satan approves.

Satan thinks Satanic child abuse is taboo

Posted on by A lesser demon

In spite of their ideological differences, one thing my Master’s followers can agree on is that sexual abuse of children has no place among Satanists. But let us be honest: there are genuine examples of sexual child abuse among Satanists. Satan personally knows of an example involving a former priest in His church and another example involving a person who possessed a membership card of a Satanic organization. Both of these examples considered their sexual abuse of their own children to be a facet of their beliefs. His Infernal Majesty must know such things because He is required to keep track of human evil to exact a fitting punishment when their time comes.

A little sense of realism should erase all doubt anyway. Statistics on child abuse vary and involve unreported numbers but given any 1,000 people it is virtually guaranteed that some of them are unfortunately child abusers or harbor some level of pedophile tendencies. This implies that any organization with more than a few hundred members should be expected to have child abusers among its members regardless of ideology. It is not the nature of the organizations but the disagreeable human nature that allows such a prognosis. The Devil has a few larger groups devoted to Him, and any accusation that they include pedophiles is, sadly, bound to be true for this reason alone. Satan wishes them rooted out regardless of the internal taboo of His Satanic organizations that was bound to take root when Anton LaVey condemned child abuse to the level of elevating it to one of the Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth.

Yet, Satan advises His followers to keep their pride checked and avoid unnecessary suspicions. Any one group of organized Satanists that accuses another Satanic organization of pedophile inclinations and thus perpetrators of the worst taboo should remember its own position in the real world. The history of the “Satanic Panic” in the late 1980s and early 1990s had real implications for thousands of innocent victims, and the current QAnon attempts to resurrect the panic as part of their political movement should be a concern for any modern Satanist with a little historical and social perspective. Such people do not distinguish between Satanic groups, and if Satanic organizations accuse each others of child abuse, all would-be Satanic Panic revivalists will just lump them together and throw all non-Republican presidential candidates in for good measure, and could not care less if these Satanic organizations happen to damn each other away from Hell.

The last thing any Satanic organization needs is to feed such nation-wide herd stampedes with speculations that tie right into their myths, and which they will readily use against this same Satanic organization. An accusation of pedophilia may help dissuade a few would-be members from joining the other Satanic group but it misses the greater picture. Any little harm one Satanic organization inflicts upon another is a gain to opponents with genuine power to effect changes for the worse who will happily use it. It is a poor general who loses the war to win the minor skirmishes.

Satan thinks that His original organization, The Church of Satan, is particularly challenged in its perspective when its members repeatedly insinuate that The Satanic Temple has a pedophile appeal for constructing a statue that allows children to sit on its lap and for establishing projects such as their “after school Satan” program. In fact, Satan thinks it is worrying when people who think in terms of sexual child abuse at the sight of a child on the lap of a statue feel the more attracted to an organization which proudly displays a picture of a little child next to a naked, real woman in a Satanic ritual, and describes in its literature how this child, the daughter of the very founder, became pregnant with an unknown father at the age of 13. The pendulum may strike back hard one day.

Satan thinks abortion is murder

Posted on by A lesser demon

Before your unfaithful narrator begins, the Devil wishes to stress that He does not intend to discuss Anton LaVey’s opposition to abortion. Nor does He wish to discuss how Anton LaVey views demonstrated both misogyny and an unusual lack of perspective.

He will therefore not address Anton LaVey’s opinion that the wish for an abortion demonstrates ignorance, negligence, or irresponsibility on the behalf of the would-be parents, or how Anton LaVey criticized the idea that women should have the right to control their own bodies. (Perhaps this explains why, when Anton LaVey’s own daughter became pregnant at the age of 13, she became a mother two months after her 14th birthday.) Least of all does Satan want to discuss the impossibility of mandatory sterilization or use of contraceptives that Anton LaVey proposed as a “third alternative.”

The Prince of Darkness thus leaves it to others to imagine examples when an abortion might have other causes than stupidity, or whether especially women might want a time in their lives when they avoid pregnancy and only later become parents.

No, Satan has something different in mind. He is thinking of the ethical issues about abortion potentially being comparable to murder, at least in those situations where they are choices rather than medical emergencies intended to save a mother’s life.

To begin with, Satan finds that “pro-life” arguments are generally horrendous. Religious anti-abortionists usually apply arguments that make no sense outside of their religions; for example, that abortion is a crime against their god—making it a victimless crime to anyone else. Any meaningful argument should at least appeal to some level of neutrality or reason and leave superstition out of the picture.

Satan also objects to highly polarized positions. Some anti-abortionists believe that a fertilized (human) egg that has not even divided into a second cell qualifies as a human being, but Satan begs to differ. Bacteria are single-celled organisms, yes, but at that stage they are also in their adult life, as it were, whereas it takes about 26 billion times that number of cells to comprise even a newborn baby. It indeed stands a four-out-of-ten chance of developing into a healthy baby, but maintaining that the very first cell was a human being is as absurd as asserting that no child, even after the due date, is human until it is born.

There are fortunately few who claim the latter but Satan thinks there is nonetheless a gray area in-between those extremes where the debate becomes valid. It is in this area that pro-choicers prefer to debate, too, and they usually acknowledge that an embryo or a fetus (the difference is the development of vital systems versus growing bigger) has the potential to become a “real” human being.

Pro-choicers find themselves in a more difficult position than anti-choicers, however. Anti-choicers oppose any termination of pregnancy, period; but pro-choicers must either define the cell constellation in the womb as somehow non-human or admit that they are supporting the termination of innoncent human lives even if they can find good reason for it.

Satan thinks it is more difficult to distinguish between abortion and murder than pro-choice groups tend to do. He thinks they merely assume that some specific developmental stage can be determined and leaves it to the experts—presumably biologists and medical experts—to identify it while the pro-choicers themselves avoids the thought.

It might seem reasonable to conclude that if the embryo were but a lump of body matter with no brain, it would feel no pain and have no level of consciousness. But, already at four weeks the brain of the embryo is identifiable and the nervous system is beginning to form. The mother may yet have just begun to consider a pregnancy test, and it would be too late by this definition. The heart, then? That comes one week later. It is evident that at this point there are signs of life beyond a petri-dish cell-multiplication experiment, even if is on human life support.

Such an observation leads naturally to a second-best option: the distinction between abortion and murder may be the time where the fetus can survive without its mother provided it receives medical life support. (Satan is willing forego the objection that a newborn cannot survive without support either, because it is identical to the aforementioned polarized view.) This stage of pregnancy determines the current abortion time limit in the USA.

Yet, medical advances have continually lowered the age at which a fetus can be saved and suffer only minor inconveniences as an adult. As of this writing, a few fetuses have survived at an age that is lower than the abortion time limit of some countries. Nothing seems to indicate that even younger fetuses or even embryos cannot be saved as methods are improved. The assessment of when life can be sustained outside of the uterus moves steadily closer to the polarized claim that life begins at conception. Come the day when scientific advances allows the construction of an artificial uterus, pro-choicers must face the uncomfortable realization that any argument stating that abortion is only legal until a child may live outside of a uterus is functionally identical to the hitherto religious, extremist position: that life begins at conception.

When Norway became the first country to non-provisionally legalize abortion in 1964, providing abortion within the first 12 weeks of gestation, Norway bypassed such considerations by choosing the time limit so that the mother would suffer minimal medical risk. This limit is still effective today, nearly sixty years later. A similar problem as the above haunts the Norwegian argument, however: by virtue of medical advances, abortions performed weeks later than 12 weeks pose no higher risk to women today compared to the medical situation of the 1960es. The time limit steadily moves towards the other extreme where, ultimately, doctors may perform a no-risk abortion if the mother changes her mind on the due date.

Satan thinks that although medical science manages to save prenatal lives at a still earlier stage and manages to perform safe abortions at a still later stage, science does not exactly help the pro-choice arguments by doing so. Satan thinks that pro-choicers will eventually face an uncomfortable dilemma: either they change their minds and ban abortion with all the suffering this entails, or they must argue why the mother’s body takes precedence, i.e., why prenatal murder should be legalized.

The Devil prefers the latter but thinks of prenatal murder from a different perspective.

Death is not a unique point in time. It is a process. Death may seem instant, but the body undergoes a series of changes before the actual process of dying is complete, often beginning before the person becomes aware of the imminent inevitable. Not even a decapitation is an entirely instant death. There is no specific time during the process of dying that one can establish a time of death without applying a “dead enough” argument. What constitutes “enough” is constantly being pushed by medical science. Some conditions that once made the medical staff cancel life support are now considered generally temporary due to improved treatment.

Birth, like death, is not a unique time point incident either. It, too, is a process during which one cannot meaningfully establish a point in time when there is “enough life,” especially because a child needs support for several years following its birth. It is impossible to answer such a question or even reach a consensus. Satan thinks it is no coincidence that abortions usually cause varying degrees of mental trauma to the women who had them, because more often than not do they feel they somehow committed a wrong regardless how reasonable or even necessary their decision may have been.

Satan thinks the current pro-choice argument of life-capability outside of the uterus is a pseudo-argument serving to justify an arbitrary time to terminate the birth process. It strikes the Devil as an argument similar to allowing organ harvesting from a seriously injured person on the grounds that the person would die without treatment. Satan thinks there is no point in time during pregnancy where one can unambiguously state that abortion is not murder.

Were it not because anti-abortionists care little about the loss of human life while their true agenda is to force their religion and its entire package of methods to control people (not least their sex lives) down everyone’s throat, Satan might even agree with them on the murder perspective.

Satan would prefer that pro-choicers face the ethical challenges of their choice. (And, now He is at it, that anti-choicers would for once take responsibility for the consequences of their decision: causing abortions to just become more dangerous because abortion rates have been found not to drop in regions where abortion is outlawed.) He thinks pro-choicers try to hide behind the illusion that the murder is performed in such a way that it seems defensible and somehow not as murderous as stabbing a child in the back because one does not want this child around. Humans are a hypocritical species and the human brain includes a string of defense mechanisms that make you believe that crime is what only others commit where as you yourself have good reasons. But, barring medical emergencies, abortion is a choice.

At this point it may sound like His Infernal Majesty is opposed to abortion. He stays true to Christian myths, however, and takes no issue with murder. Satan sees such trivial human actions from a broader perspective: the human cost of having a child at the wrong time, in the wrong place, or for the wrong reasons is high at the individual level of the child and the parents; and the social costs of unwanted children and parents who cannot cope is difficult to imagine. Satan thinks the alternative to legalized abortion causes collateral human damage that far exceeds the sacrifice of the unborn. Abortion is not a question of whether to murder. It is a question of who to murder on a broader scale. Satan thinks pro-choicers should admit this instead of thinking the world permits binary arguments.

Satan thinks water should be prevented from finding its own level

Posted on by A lesser demon

The Devil has been aware for quite a while that one of His churches ranks stratification as the foundation of its so-called five-point program, which ostensibly contains the goals of the organization. In the words of its founder, Anton LaVey, water should be allowed to find its own level with no attempt to mandate its flow. People are not equal, and allowance for incompetence should be prevented from interfering in human life, because according to Mr. LaVey, this benefits the weak at the expense of the strong.

Satan always enjoys a good phrase that communicates a simple solution to a complex and compound issue. Such childish optimism and joyful obliviousness of the nature of a difficult problem always brings a smile to the Dark Lord’s face, or at least a sardonic smirk. It seems somehow intuitively true that the entire world would become a better place if everyone was allowed to develop into their true selves—a universal Maslowian paradise of self-actualizing indiviuals, no less. It seems almost too good to be true, and as common sense would caution, it is.

The analogy can be taken a little further without being drawn too far; in the present case one may realize that left to its own devices every particle of water ultimately goes downhill not up, and that only violent manipulation can make it temporarily rise. Water that is allowed to seek its own level with no natural or artificial dams, dikes, redirections, or pumps to force its flow and keep it in motion will settle and turn stagnant. The natural flow of water is in the direction of mediocrity.

Satan is confident that LaVey realized this and only desired an abolishment of the control systems in those areas where he believed to be personally unfairly limited, and would eagerly restrict the options for anyone who happened to have conflicting goals. He did specifically address apologists of mediocrity after all, and was undoubtedly in favor of draconian measures against those whom he felt held him back. This sentiment naturally impresses the Prince of Darkness, but playing the Devil’s advocate for a moment, Satan cannot help but compare the attitude with the motto of the eternal underachiever: they would have recognized my genius had they not preferred mediocrity. In Anton LaVey’s case, his proficiency in music and visual arts reached the level of a skilled hobbyist, and his intellectual insights into the nature of mankind would be met with overbearing smiles from any modern day philosopher, anthropologist, psychologist, or sociologist.

The Devil does not hold this against Mr. LaVey, who has now joined us in Hell and is busy being tormented with an unobtainable doppelgänger of Jayne Mansfield (who, incidentally, is also among us, but in a different department). Mediocrity depends on context and is not to be confused with a sweeping average across the entire population. One group of people may have standards which interpret mediocrity far above or below the potential of another group. (Considering the creative and intellectual level that Satan has observed among the members of the “mutual admiration society” of Anton LaVey’s legacy, Satan is confident that Mr. LaVey remains the one-eyed king of the blind.) Anton LaVey was at the very least aware that mediocrity is not going away in the near future, and saw no other solution than isolationism, with space ghettos as the only viable answer.

Now, Satan is not certain whether Anton LaVey had been watching Flash Gordon too self-identifyingly given his striking similarity with Ming the Merciless of said space opera or if LaVey had merely given the solution inadequate consideration, because it is impossible for a self-sustaining human society to exist without a highly diverse set of skills.

This finally provides a key insight: everyone is mediocre in all but maybe a few respects. A brain surgeon is layman in the field of rocket science, the rocket scientist is layman in most fields that do not involve space satellites, and both are laymen plumbers. You are for the vast part mediocre. Mediocrity will not disappear. Any “mutual appreciation society” on some distant moon colony may admire each others’ specific competences all they like, but everyone must be excused for being mediocre on virtually all accounts—and thus mediocrity is inevasibly apologized. This apology violates Anton LaVeys cardinal formula for a better world, but unless it is granted, it is tantamount to equipping each human being with an original sin with no redemption or escape, simply for being human. It is a pipe-dream to believe that mediocrity can be averted save by death or by withdrawing to the insanity of a mind that has closed itself against the reality of the world.

Satan is not convinced that space ghettos will ever be created save for research purposes and expects that even in the best case scenario the exodus will be reserved for those who currently can afford to own private islands in the tropics. There is no salvation waiting in the sky for the Devil’s followers, because none of them will find themselves entitled to an interstellar den. The Devil does not personally care. His Infernal Majesty is content as long as the planets contain a Hell and orbiting or traveling space stations include a section below deck that is decorated with brimstone, sulphorous lakes, and molten rock.

Mediocrity thus being the rule that describes each and everyone of you humans, and space ghettos solving nothing (if ever they be constructed), Satan thinks that one’s opinion on the merits of mediocrity is utterly pointless. The question is how to deal with it right here, and right now.

Everyone is mediocre, and the only immediate reaction that makes sense is the ultimate apology in the shape of a complete recognition and acceptance of this fact of human life and interaction. Satan is inclined to say that humans apologize too little for their shortcomings when they act as if just one proficiency entitles them to an opinion on matters that lie beyond their comprehension, or when they bully people with genuine skill out of their positions. The only proper reaction to such pretentiousness is to understand that everyone is naturally apologized for mediocrity and then move anyone who speaks outside of his or her skill areas out of focus—by force, if necessary.

Satan thinks it is through the acknowledment that all humans are mediocre and excel in very limited areas only that corrective action may be taken to place people of skill into their various areas of expertise, and to prevent people from meddling in those affairs where they know as little as everyone else. This cannot be left to laissez faire governance. One might, for example, assume that some social media playform will regulate itself according to likes and dislikes and eventually reach a desired level, but nothing could be further from the truth … unless the desired level is the lowest common denominator where only mediocrity reigns. Instead, the needed regulation requires heavy interference from people who dare to acknowledge when a person is operating outside of one of his or her fields of incompetence. It is the very opposite of allowing water to find its own level. Water that finds its own level is the deluge that washes away landmarks and distinctions and eventually becomes stale and rotten. Water that is carefully controlled and protected as necessary as a valuable resource, however, is a powerful tool.

Satan thinks there was no evidence of a “Satanic age”

Posted on by A lesser demon

In The Satanic Rituals, Anton LaVey predicted that by the year 2000, Christ would have become a “well-known folk myth.” Satan was delighted by LaVey’s optimism back in 1972 when the book was published but thinks that today it is safe to suggest that the black pope’s optimism was unwarranted. The Devil is not certain why Anton LaVey made such a bold forecast. Perhaps he overrated the importance of his newly established The Church of Satan with unbridled disregard of the Balance Factor, but LaVey may have genuinely believed that the contemporary zeitgeist heralded a new age of reason and human-centered progress.

After all, Anton LaVey explained in some detail in The Satanic Bible that he had evidence of a new, Satanic age: Anton LaVey had observed that modern Christianity is unlike Christianity of old and that Christians today largely revel in the Seven Deadly Sins, think of themselves, are materialist, and otherwise behave as Anton LaVey claimed “the Satanist” does. His logical conclusion was that Christianity was dying, and that the very name “Christianity” should therefore be abandoned. People should recognize that they had already found a name for their modern practices: Satanism.

Satan is flattered that His name was proposed as the denomination for this new age but my Master had rather hoped for a little more. His Infernal Majesty does not feel content that all that is ostensibly asked is to say “Satanism” instead of “Christianity” and to admit it. In fact, the Devil is offended by Anton LaVey’s recommendation. Satan disagrees with Anton LaVey’s very premise that there is any evidence of a “Satanic age” and refuses to have His infernal name sullied by being assigned the followers of His mortal enemy.

It is true that Christianity today is nothing like the original cult, and even early Christianity evolved quickly. Had someone decided to better call Saul of Tarsus back from the dead after two or three centuries, he would probably not have recognized the religion that he founded. Yet, it would nonetheless be Christianity, in a form that had followed the times. Religions always follow the times. They do not replace themselves with something else as they evolve. Religions are not static phenomena. They stay “alive” by changing, not in a desperate attempt to survive but as a root component of society. However Christianity has manifested itself throughout its two millennia, at any random point in time this would be just how and what Christianity was. It never ceased to be Christianity, nor did it become more or less “true” Christianity over time. Less authentic, perhaps, but not necessarily “less Christian.” Like a monster that keeps sprouting new limbs and developing new abilities until eventually it is irreconcilable with its original form, it is nonetheless the same organism, and so are religions.

Had Anton LaVey’s request that Christianity shelve its name for having evolved had any merit, all religions would have changed their names numerous times throughout History. Satan thinks that Anton LaVey’s demand that religions either stick to their original form or die (by renaming themselves) reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of religion, which he so often criticized.

What Anton LaVey observed was fully legitimate Christianity that was no less deserving of the name than during its original teachings. The only evidence Anton LaVey found was that Christianity was still very much alive and well. When Anton LaVey realized that Christians did not behave “like Christians,” hence being “Satanists,” he did not think to first question his own standards of measurement as would any researcher: if only few Christians matched his personal interpretation of Christianity, the obvious conclusion would have been to conclude that his definition of Christianity was too exclusive, not that Christians had become a rare breed and Christianity was dying.

The Devil is not much for enveloping Himself in Christian theology but He knows to study His enemy, and He thinks LaVey made an additional mistake when he described Christians and Christianity. Satan thinks that in addition to the above, Anton LaVey missed another key element.

There are literally tens of thousands of Christian groups and organizations who all disagree and each considers themselves to be the best kind of Christianity. They are so diverse that no catch-all definition encompasses them all. Anton LaVey spent a little less than 2,000 words describing Christianity before leaving the topic to rail against “white” witchcraft in order to distinguish his take on occultism from the already widespread interest in it in the 1960es. If one truly wishes to describe Christianity as a singular structure, 2,000 words involve far too much detail. One can say little more than that the religion has some concept of a “God,” usually incorporates some idea of Jesus, and often applies some interpretation of the Bible; and that is all. It is impossible to make a sweeping definition of how their god (or gods) and their scripture is being perceived, interpreted, and used.

Anton LaVey may have witnessed nuns who satisfied his fetish by deliberately revealing a piece of thigh, but in his indulgent observation he forgot that other nuns would never permit such perversion. For all the Devil knows, Anton LaVey might have stumbled upon a precursor to the Children of God‘s use of “flirty fishing,” which on the one hand was Christian behavior (according to the Children of God), and on the other hand did not exemplify Christians as a whole. It is not valid to conclude, as he did in The Satanic Bible, that Christianity is taking one direction or another based upon such an observation.

There is no such thing as true Christianity, or even anything that comes close. In fact, there is no such thing as false Christianity. Christianity is as Christians do, no more, no less, and there are literally billions of different Christians. Only God can judge which of the between 30,000 and 40,000 Christian groups is “right,” if any, but alas: God does not exist, leaving no arbiter of Christian correctness. One can observe how Christians within different groups tend to behave but one cannot state with any certainty that one or another “is Christianity.” It is possible to evaluate degrees of authenticity compared with the original, Jewish cult or to evaluate representativeness—for example, the aforementioned Children of God are not particularly representative of Christians—but such evaluations do not express what Christianity is, nor can they propose which kind of Christianity is “true.” Paul the Apostle may have been the original Christian but perhaps the much later Calvinists better understood the will of God? The Catholic Church sports 1,3 billion members but perhaps the about 50,000 Christadelphians got closer to the truth, had there been a god to decide?

Anton LaVey’s first mistake was to think there is such a thing as “true” Christianity—and that it obeyed his personal interpretation—and to conclude that it was being abandoned because he viewed Christians through a lens where he saw what he wanted to see and ignored everything that contradicted his beliefs. His second mistake was to consider Christianity a monolithic entity, leading him to erroneously conclude that Christianity was waning because to him it appeared internally inconsistent. He failed to understand that there are many kinds of Christianity, many of which thoroughly disagree with each other, and that secular behavior in one Christian group neither indicates a general Christian trend nor that Christianity is somehow breaking apart.

This all makes The Evil One a little worried about Anton LaVey’s ability to define Satanism, because whatever Anton LaVey recognized as “Satanism” among Christians turns out to be bona fide Christianity. Satan has only too often heard Christians accusing each other of succumbing to the Devil for not being adequately pious, and finds LaVey playing this age-old Christian shame-game, too. Granted, this is how the Devil was constructed to begin with, but my Master prefers to be the master of His own raison d’être, thank you very much.

Satan originally explained the above in much shorter terms, but we lesser demons must sometimes digest His infernal wisdom and consequently churn out lengthy commentaries before we grasp it ourselves. The crux of the matter is that my Master regrets to inform His followers that He rejects the portion of His bible that discusses “evidence” of a Satanic age. He wants His followers to understand that when they believe that Christians behave “Satanically,” often they have one of two reasons: at best, the follower is observing entirely generic human behavior that is shared across all and no religion and thus neither non-Christian nor Satanic. At worse, this follower is still a Christian who does not realize that when he or she approves of other Christians, it is not because other Christians behave Satanically but vice versa.