Satan thinks His followers should soak their heads

Satan appreciates an attentive student and favors followers who pick up His teachings. It is seldom a poor idea to read a book, and in the case of His usual followers, often any book would probably broaden their horizons. But, there are times when one of His devotees combines Anton LaVey’s teachings and musings with a herd following instinct and uncritical orthodoxy. That is when Satan thinks that the result stinks worse than our sulfurous fumes here in Hell.

Satan is, of course, thinking about those churchgoers in His Church of Satan who heed Anton LaVey’s advice to stop bathing.

Anton LaVey had good reason to find bathing unpleasant. The heating in his house on California Street in San Francisco was broken, and for either lack of initiative or income he never had it fixed. The home was cold in the winter, and the water ran cold all year. LaVey therefore opted for the solution chosen by most humans who live in denial of their situation: he rationalized his situation into a personal choice. Unable to crank up the thermostat or enjoy a soothing long hot tub bath, he found that he liked the coldness of the wintertime, reasoned that bathing was unhealthy until he could no longer tolerate his own bodily odors, and found immersion in a cool bath pleasant only when temperatures were too high.

Hell is the epitome of all central heating systems, and the Devil settles for temperatures nowhere below the melting point of rock under the Earth’s gravitational pressure. He nonetheless understands that the benign winters of the coastal climate of San Francisco in Northern California are mainly a question of bad clothing, not bad weather, and Anton LaVey could ignore the unsolicited heads-up Mother Nature would otherwise have offered had he stayed in his birth town of Chicago.

Environmental choices were easily defended as a matter of preference, but unhealthy and socially problematic poor hygiene decisions required elaboration, perhaps even more so to LaVey whose sexual preference involved practices that incur additional demands on cleanliness.

LaVey concluded that because bathing masks the natural scents of a human being, it is dishonest and therefore liked by only the worst people. (Satan never checked but presumes LaVey must have been a completely honest person.) Based on his knowledge of animals as a cage hand in a circus in the times when animal welfare had yet to receive public attention, LaVey believed that a reduced bodily odor would confuse an animal. Satan believes this may have been LaVey’s experience with animals in such environments, but in trusting relations between humans and unstressed animals, a shower and some soap do not introduce unfamiliarity. When The Prince of Darkness emerges in all His splendor from a contemplative hour in a fiery lake and His pet Baphomet rubs its territorial glands against His marvelous unspeakables, it is not confusion but a reaffirmation of trust and belonging, for example.

True to his misanthropy, LaVey considered bathing to be nothing short of treason against the eugenics that he advocated, in that undesirable women (just women), through cloaking their scent, would thereby mask their undesirableness and coerce males into helping produce genetically inferior offspring. LaVey did not mention the genetic impact of males, but Satan is sure that was just an oversight, as He would not accuse LaVey of male chauvinism now that LaVey cannot defend himself. No, seriously, we had to tie him up and gag him after Diane Hegarty died a little less than a year ago and joined us as a proud citizen of Hell; and the recent premature arrival of his grandson did not improve the situation. If LaVey had males in mind, it would be his belief that his stench kept them at bay.

It is not entirely incorrect that humans react to each others’ pheromones, but the diminished senses of humans compared with many animals (although humans senses seem generalized and balanced compared with, say, the keen eyes but poor sense of smell of the eagle, or the extraordinary hearing of the nearly blind bat) are the likely evolutionary result of a significantly improved cognitive skill: to find a mate, the human animal relies on the many additional, often visual, cues of complicated social interaction patterns enabled, and recognized, by its brain beyond the mere smell of an opposite-sex fellow specimen in heat. A human being so horribly poorly socially inept that it had to rely foremost on its snout to identify a mate would not qualify for one in the first place. The smell of a human in heat would be rather uninformative anyway, as the human animal is a species that may have minor hormonal fluctuations influencing its sexual interest but is always in heat compared with the either-or periods of many animals. Humans have sex for pleasure and important social bonding, not only to procreate, and any biological traces of heat periods are counterproductive evolutionary artifacts. What you experience is vestigial heat as you chase vestigial tail.

LaVey’s need to explain his poor personal hygiene turned resistance to bathing into an accolade. He believed that he was an emancipated being by contrasting habitual bathing as the habit of the pious, the guilty, and the frightened—that is, it was the attempt of the religious to escape their animal nature. His Infernal Majesty recalls that His sworn enemies and followers of God entertained some attitudes toward bathing, indeed, but remembers the details somewhat differently.

If anything, traditional Christian focus on spiritual purity was paid with physical asepsis. Monks would abstain from bathing to show their spiritual strength over the physical body, not because hygiene was fundamentally sinful or animal-like, but because it was hard on the body and thus proved their mental fortitude and “superiority” over the physical needs of an average individual. And contrary to popular belief, Medieval Europe was not characterized by filth and grime although the sanitation of growing cities left plenty to be desired. Medieval people bathed often, but because public bathhouses were also gathering places, spas, brothels, and otherwise provided extra-sanitational activities, Christian officials discouraged going to baths and bathhouses; again not because bathing itself was sinful, but because it tended to involve a role in the tub occupied by a maid or a man-servant.

Christianity left literal stains on sanitary practices. Satan thinks His followers should understand that their true human animal selves are far more complex than meets the nose, and that Anton LaVey’s non-scents belief is the misguided excuse of a person who could not maintain his own personal hygiene. Satan thinks that the least His followers can do to leave the Christian mindset behind is to bathe regularly.

Satan thinks nihilism is a Christian artifact

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.