Morals

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 nihilism is a Christian artifact

Posted on by A lesser demon

Many established truths and commons have been trampled by the herd over the last century. Gays are now to be considered genuine males, women are not the property of their rightful owners, slaves are believed to equal their masters, no race is intrinsically noble and predisposed for glory, no nation is pure, natural justice is replaced by compassion for the wrongdoers, and that which should naturally fall is scaffolded and fortified. The world is, perhaps, going to Hell—not that Satan complains.

Verging on this descent into the Apocalypse, Satan thinks it is reassuring to find that some people, especially His own church, the very Church of Satan, upholds the virtues of old: because man is but an animal, Nature red in tooth and claw should govern human actions, as it is the Law; and strength is acquired through the joy of indulgences. For political reasons of self-preservation, The Church of Satan publicly presents itself as a dark fun-house of mere theatrics, but within its own scripture and communiquées—which the public overlooks as the very image of His Infernal Majesty deflects their eyes—the truth is all but laid bare. Certain historically indicative, familiar phrases are omitted, but the dog whistles shrill so loud that even the deafest right-wing extremist recognizes his kin. Terms such as “social Darwinism” are used scantly and just often enough to settle what “Lex Talionis,” the Law of the Jungle, means. If one dares, cares, or bothers to read the canonical scriptures of The Church of Satan, its vision is a race of master individuals, an alien élite, genetically bred and cultivated through the standard of the strong.

The first book of Anton LaVey’s The Satanic Bible are excerpts (or rather a plagiarism) of Ragnar Redbeard’s Might Is Right, which advocates such a view, including the above sentiments. Reducing every social phenomenon to simple power-relations, it is Redbeard’s synthesis of his personal racism and misogyny with the pseudo-science of social Darwinism and the philosophical rhetoric of Stirner’s anarchist individualism and Nietzsche’s focus on power. It is an outstandingly execrable combination of a comprehensively and thoroughly disproven body of thought. After a century of exhaustive debunking, only neo-fascists still believe that social Darwinism is scientific. Even if there were a grain of truth to be found, even for non-human animals, in these long outdated, pseudo-scientific conjectures, it is a Naturalistic Fallacy to derive a should from an is, concluding that humans ought to live accordingly. That is: social Darwinism is, both biologically and philosophically, objectively and demonstrably wrong. (His Maliciousness did not say it, but it bears mention that it is a remarkably rare and unenviable feat to be objectively wrong in philosophical matters.)

Satan is impressed that, faced with this scientific verdict on one of the most meticulously and extensively analyzed fields of science in human history, even today His church and its high priest, Peter Gilmore, manage to maintain and promote the sophomoric understanding of philosophy and the nature of human life required to enable them to endorse Might Is Right and regard it as accurate and enlightening. Such a display of self-deceit and stupidity is, in its own right, fascinating.

However, this is not intended as a venture into the many obscure interests of the Devil. The Prince of Insufficient Lighting has always been lured towards human depravity, the mental dysfunctions of crypto-fascists included. Satan’s message concerns the fact that His church believes in The Law of the Jungle despite its unmitigated rejection by every scientist, social theorist, and philosopher alive, not to forget quite a selection of many already dead.

The Church of Satan informs outsiders that the first book of The Satanic Bible is tongue-in-cheek, intended to rile up the reader or scare off those who would not benefit from the book. However, portions of Might Is Right find their way into the argumentative chapters of The Satanic Bible, and the remainder of the work is pervasive in LaVey’s subsequent writings. It is far more (if not nearly exclusively) foundational to LaVey’s Satanism than The Satanic Bible indicates.

The Law of the Jungle is an escalation of the law of retaliation, or retributive justice, that we know from the ancient Hammurabi code of “an eye for an eye” into Drako’s eponymously named punishment system fused with vigilante dispositions. (Satan, always ahead, prefers preemptive retaliation.) LaVey explained that for all its brutality, such a system would ensure a stable society, because the fear of retribution would cause people to think twice. “Responsibility to the responsible,” as the sixth Satanic Statement goes, hand in hand with the fifth Statement on vengeance, would subject them to the consequences of their actions, such as having their arm ripped from its socket for vandalizing a prized garden plant. The demand for The Law of the Jungle is established in The Church of Satan’s “pentagonal revisionism” program as an essential pillar of a Satanic society. It is both a legal and a moral code.

Satan thinks this should raise many an eyebrow, because it is the exact caution that Christian thinkers (a term that Satan applies very loosely to such people) have raised for centuries: that without faith in God, nothing prevents mankind from descending into the lawlessness of, yes, the Law of the Jungle. Without God and particularly the prospect of burning in Hell, humans would have no morals, they claim. Rational atheists have long argued, however, with plenty of supporting evidence, that morals are not contingent on a belief in deities. Moral behavior is innate to both humans and many non-human animals and arises naturally as a result of mutual self-interest.

This view is rejected by The Church of Satan, which assumes the Christian paradigm. The Law of the Jungle—the post-apocalyptic dystopia that Christians fear—is exactly what Anton LaVey and The Church of Satan expect as the natural alternative to Christianity. To Christians, human morals are motivated by a fear of punishment in Hell. To Satanists in The Church of Satan, human morals are enforced by fear of punishment here and now. To atheists, morals are a human trait that develops naturally to the benefit of mankind with no need for gods. Satan leaves it as an exercise for the reader to determine which of these three groups are the most similar.

The moral nihilism shared by Christians and The Church of Satan that denies an objective basis for morality has been a recurring philosophical theme in the Western World. Darwinism (genuine, not social) has received much of the blame for its death blow to the anthropocentric worldview, and materialism has been blamed for its lowered valuation of the soul, but Satan thinks there is a broader reason.

Christianity has contaminated virtually every aspect of Western culture, with centuries of metaphysical, eschatological, and existential expectations regarding the nature of the world. The strong anthropocentrism of classic Christianity and its belief that Nature is subservient to humanity, that morality is provided by the will of their god, that life has meaning because of God, and that humans have souls that will live in an afterlife, have brought comfort as meaning, purpose, and order seemed guaranteed. However, scientific advances have continually challenged such superstition, and the explanatory power of the naturalistic, scientific worldview is ever-increasing. For anyone to whom the Christian vision is persuasive, while the sciences and other enlightened insights tear at its fabric with nothing to replace it, a gaping void appears. (Not surprisingly, moral nihilism is less pronounced in non-Western cultures.) It is not science, Darwinism, materialism, or secularism that are to blame for this nihilism but the unrealistic Christian expectation that contradicting views must match its level of impossible certainty. A loss is felt only because Christianity is so deeply entrenched in all levels of society.

Modern secular atheists deny any supernatural beliefs and defend a naturalistic explanation of the world, but they generally acknowledge that morality is an inherent human attribute as a phenomenon that arises from social interactions, reason, and human interdependency, slowly evolving and converging towards a stable yet not absolute social code that is far removed from even hyperbolical standards of the strong. But even without laboriously deriving such an understanding of the nature of morality, to a person who was born and raised as an atheist, or merely avoided Christian cultivation to a modest degree, the perceived result of the loss of God, and the need to find meaning and purpose for oneself, does not invoke the specter of moral nihilism. It does not imply a crude every-critter-for-itself elimination of morality until only aggression, fang, and talon remain to define the Law and only the strong can prevail. The human animal is biologically wired against the Law of the Jungle. Any fear of this dismal environment is an unrealistic, religious nightmare, and any desire for it is a spiritual, Christian pipe-dream.

Only deep-seated Christianity can evoke this fear and, in its ultimate case, create the defeatist illusion that it is an alluring alternative. It is the worst-case outcome in the Christian mind and embracing it reveals a profound ensnarement in the traditional Christian mental framework. Satan thinks that the Satan-figure employed by Satanists who believe and perpetuate the view that Satanic morals are those of the Jungle is the good old Christian Devil, which remains considerably more real and present in their minds than they will ever understand. With one exception, they are the very kind of Christians who feel no natural inclination towards moral behavior on their own and only behave socially tolerable because they fear the repercussions, and who recognize in themselves harmful, anti-social impulses that, fortunately, they understand must be curbed albeit not why. They deviate from these Christians only in their psychopathic wish to act out their destructiveness. Ironically, it is not external Christianity that restrains their impulses but their inner Christian angst that generates their wish for the Law of the Jungle.

Satan thinks these advocates of the rule of fang and claw should be cast to the lions: the only proper way to deal with Christians.

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 people who strive to be nice usually aren’t

Posted on by A lesser demon

For all our awe and admiration of The Infernal Majesty’s insights and intelligence, The Dark Lord has insisted on several occasions that a little barstool psychology can go a long way.

The unfortunate ex-demon whose skepticism prompted it to ask for an example was immediately obliterated for daring to question our Master, but the Devil posthumously humored it and asked us who happened to be present what characterizes a “nice person.” We soon agreed that a nice person was nothing like Satan, and although our Master appreciated our sentiment, He had doubtlessly given it a little more thought than He had let on, and slightly impatiently explained Himself.

Satan thinks that truly nice people generally do not try to meet an ideal of “niceness,” even if they can easily formulate such an ideal or identify historical or mythical individuals who may serve as role models. The key to their nice behavior—being considerate of others, being helpful, etc.—is that they act according to an innate comprehension that humans are better off by working together. They ultimately serve their own interests but as a species not as specimens. Therein, says Satan, lies the difference between self-interest and self-preservation versus egoism, the former benefitting the human race and the latter benefitting oneself but in the very short term only. It is not required to “love one another.” There are some who deserve love, and some who deserve none. Satan thinks that genuine niceness involves a sense of justice that urges you to give and take from each what they naturally deserve.

It is people who are only admirable by obligation that Satan thinks ill of. They are people who have been instructed by word but not through example to be loving, friendly, and helpful as this ostensible acting makes them believe they are better people and have earned the right to feel entitled. They are people who do good not because they feel somehow compelled but from concern with what their neighbors would think. They are people who help others only for the sake of their personal salvation not because of the needs of others. They know right from wrong and good from evil only because they have it memorized. They invariably see themselves as good; even when they observe ill traits within themselves, they believe themselves superior because they consciously combat their true nature.

Satan may prefer deed to creed and thus appreciate that such people play nice after all, but the King of Lies is no fool. He knows that people exercise their true nature whenever their self-discipline is momentarily disengaged. A person who is not innately “good” but merely puts on an act (even if they believe in it themselves) is certain to eventually place a dagger in your back, speak ill of you, cheat on you, or betray you, and they will blame you, my friend, because knowing that they are your morally superior it cannot possibly be their fault; if they behaved poorly, you forced their hand. Satan advises to beware of martyrs in particular, as they think they do ever good but never understand that the perpetual source of their punishments is their own poisonous personality.

Such individuals are a terrible race, but Satan thinks that applied barstool psychology is useful to pinpoint these foul creatures of the human world. It is quite simple according to Satan: barstool psychology stipulates that you speak of your most prominent failures as if you are their conqueror. For example, when John Doe of forty brags about his many sexual conquests, you should bet your money that he is both still a virgin and has a tiny pecker. Extending this principle to moral inclination, expect people who speak of being devoted to a movement that does good to be none the part. If they had no problem being “good,” they would focus on something else. Hence, anyone who subscribes to a doctrine of good should be expected to be lacking in that very department.

It goes without saying that the Devil advises His followers to steer clear of the followers of His mortal foe—Christians, that is—but He thinks the caution should be extended to anyone who was brought up in a Christian home where one was demanded to “do good” for no heart-felt reason. Religions are codifications of group behavior (using symbolic language), and it is reasonable to include sanctions against dissocial behavior within this code, but merely following the code does not assure sanity. Satan thinks that no sane human being needs religion to behave properly, and that religion is in fact partially a sign that people lack this skill. The latter is beyond this discussion, however, as yours truly has a job to do torturing lost souls. Suffice to say that Satan is not fooled by people who declare themselves neither atheists nor Satanists if they grew up in a Christian home: He expects them to be as vile as their parents.

Satan thinks moral people are untrustworthy

Posted on by A lesser demon

Satan’s preferred epistemological model of human knowledge is tabula rasa, because most humans preserve this state of mental blankness throughout their existence. What little primordial wisdom exists is systematically replaced with herd conformity and herd values through a process known as socialization. Little children, the hellspawn that they are, have an innate concept of justice and understand that exploiters and predators should be ostracized or overthrown; but through careful grooming they are taught to view sophisticated exploitation and oppression as socially desirable. They are taught to succumb to the undeserved power of trickery and brawns by a herd thus suppressed, learning to follow herd expectations: they become moral beings.

Some herd decisions may be advantageous for the continuation of the species but the Devil is satisfied with recognizing them all as man-made, not universal or divinely prescribed. They are the herd leading itself. Moral requirements are nothing but peer pressure to fit in, and Satan, had He not been morally disengaged to begin with, naturally disassociates Himself from all crowd self-control.

Satan does not mind seemingly moral arguments serving the self-interest of every individual. For example, blood or organ donations, tax payment, or similar society-level resource pooling can be regarded as either personal insurance or investment sharing, and the Devil tolerates a limited level of moralization on such issues against people who do not condone or grasp the obvious advantages of self-serving actions and are swayed by appeal to morality instead; Satan considers the latter a necessary white lie.

Satan abhors moralizing individuals who place themselves on a pedestal by example of their own moral superiority, however. Our Lord of Lies is unconcerned with the truth value of their claims, knowing that moralization and hypocrisy are lockstep conducts; it is the moralization He despises because it is empty posturing and an attempt to obtain unearned authority. Satan recommends that His followers never trust a person who claims to be right because he or she holds a higher moral ground than his or her opponents. Anyone that uses self-aggrandizement as the authority for truth and justice will treat you as an inferior with fewer rights once you inevitably have disagreements.