Why Satanism?

There exists in philosophy a concept called “social contract theory,” which supposes that individuals in a group surrender some of their freedoms for the protection of their rights.

I believe this surrender is implicit once we are born. We never signed a contract, after all, and there are no concessions in place by which we can exit society without incarceration or death. We are born, and expected to ingratiate ourselves in whatever cultural customs are thrust upon us. To that culture, we are an investment – an investment in its continuation for generations to come – and it starts with indoctrination at a young age that authority is to be respected without question. This is particularly true in Western culture, whose Judeo-Christian roots add a metaphysical level of submission to our thrall.

On the whole, people are content to adhere to these customs, because it services them meaningfully in every way they require. It feeds them, it clothes them, it places a roof above their head, it protects them from harm (or at least does not cause any), and it gives them an avenue of meaningful contribution so that they may enjoy the fruit of their own labor, such as a job. However, there are also those with whom society’s pre-designated avenues are incompatible. Our culture adds a racial, gender, sexual orientation, religious creed, and income level disclaimer to who it allocates its resources to, and although it adheres to this archaic appraisal of the value of its citizens, it still expects those to whom it does not cater to follow its orders. We are still, after all, under contract.

In the absence of a means by which these individuals may exit this society, they must turn to alternative sources of fulfillment. For instance, when a person must steal to provide their family when society has denied them the means to do so legitimately, they have acknowledged that they are better off without. In its anger over its mounting obsolescence within this person’s life, society lashes out in the form of arrest, imprisonment, or even death. If it can’t have you, no one can.

This, ultimately, is the goal of a society – not to service people, which is merely its ostensible purpose, but to survive. It is an organism, like any other, albeit a macro-scale one.

In that way, society is a lot like the universe. We are constituent parts of that universe; the decision to participate was not ours, but we are expected to carry it through to its end regardless, and our only means of omission is suicide. Though we are still deducing the purpose for our existence, the short-term goal seems apparent: survival and procreation. Not of individuals in particular, but the larger human collective, and sentient life in general. “The greater good.”

However, like society, the universe’s parameters are arbitrarily drawn by agents beyond our influence. If we suppose there is a God – let’s say the Judeo-Christian monotheistic variety – then we can assume he is the one drafting these limitations. He wants to see his creation survive, so he provides two choices: eternal damnation, or assimilation. Suicide, or monotony.

This duality is a chimera, for there exists a third route: mastery.

Consider the virus, a “non-living” entity capable of destroying ordered systems with fortuitous timing and perseverance. It, too, wants to survive, but not in the system it was borne to. It changes it on a small scale, affecting larger change to cater the universe it lives in to better suit its specifications. If it possessed the faculties necessary to contemplate its existence, it may understand that this process is killing its host. Would that stop it? Would it commit suicide so that the host could survive?

Would you?

The virus is not one of God’s creations; it is “non-living.” It does not follow his rules. It is their very antithesis. It exists not to support, but to destroy, and it does so with no greater intention in mind but its own happiness and survival. It does not need a “greater good” to validate its existence; existence alone is comfort enough for it.

If this concept has resonance to you, you have glimpsed into the black heart of Satan.

Ave Satanas!

For more on my personal beliefs, read my article on metaphysics.

Advertisements

10 responses to “Why Satanism?

  1. Pingback: Satanism on Suicide | Encyclopedia Satanica

  2. You write well and have some very interesting views. I enjoyed reading about your personal metaphysics; fascinating food for thought.

  3. Self-ishness is a demonstration of immaturity, not character development. Satanists, like Wilde, can resist anything except temptation of course, but while humans will always clutch at any available straw to justify the high opinion they have of themselves it’s a bit rich to hear radical egotists reaching for the threadbare collectivist dogmas of human rights and equalitarianism, and no less odd to come across the same crowd chaffing about racial, sexual and other ‘cultural biases’. What really takes the biscuit here though is a believer in reincarnation, a proposition that in many formulations pre-supposes birth as an act of free will, denying an obligation to a society that fails to accord them the recognition and status they feel they deserve in spite of acknowledging – as you acknowledge here – the pre-existing nature and indispensable status of the social contract itself to any stable, functioning society.

    I hope I haven’t misread your intentions – since I write from England it’s possible your use of language differs from mine somewhat – but I fear yours is not so much a ‘philosophy’ as an expression of adolescent resentment. The forces you criticise and whose behaviour justifies your current pose have objectives no different from your own even if you are unaware of that fact. It amounts to a vision of consumerist detachment and cultural neglect that will make the world a borderless playground for international corporations and god-like plutocrats and – here’s the best bit – their work is almost done. Soon they won’t need to ‘liberate’ the ‘oppressed’ anymore, or get people like you to do it for them. That’s when the gloves will really come off. When you mature you will see the tension between individual desire and the requirements of conformity as an inescapable part of life the effects of which we can only hope to mitigate at best, negotiating obstacles with as much sensitivity as circumstances permit and, naturally, with the expectation of varying degrees of success. The obligations are real and should be defended nevertheless, as indeed should the need to deal accordingly with anyone who doesn’t like them. As that great philosopher Gene Hackman once said [in ‘Wyatt Earp, 1993]: ‘All you have is blood. The rest are just strangers.’

    Hail, er….quite…

  4. At the heart of your theory are terms such as ‘Satan’, ‘Heaven’, ‘Hell’. These terms have been crafted by the establishment(!), especially the church. Not by minds like yours (I must admit: Of course I don’t really know your mind). By embracing their concepts and words you are promoting their point of view of people like you, not that of your own kind. Don’t be surprised when their definition is negative (like hell or satan obviously is). By including these concepts in your theory you get lots of unnecessary problems, like “is there really a heaven or hell?” or “how can I prove it?”. By using words like ‘Satan’, ‘Hell’ your thoughts may become more like a train on the rails of the church. You may not want this. These rails may lead to places where there are not the best conditions for consciousness and personal development, two positive things you say your corrected picture of satan has. Because they make you cut off ties with society, something on which every human being depends. They turn you into an enemy. In addition to that, you have to ask yourself all the time ‘Would I embrace this or that of what the church said about satan?’. Don’t waste your time. If I was you I would perhaps try to learn from what the church said about satan an hell, but I would not adopt the terms. I would not shape my own idendity around what they said what satan is. Just don’t use ‘Satan’, ‘Heaven’, ‘Hell’. Find different words that have not been shaped by entities you are not comfortable with!

    About your metaphysics: Don’t try to justify it with physics. It doesn’t make it true. In fact, the opposite. It makes it vulnerable to critizism by almost everybody who thinks he has some knowledge about physics (read: everybody with a tv set). You are obviously trying to use the credibility physics has in some fields to make your theory sound true. (Which doesn’t automatically mean everything in your theory is wrong, of course)

    About the virus:
    Quote: “[…] Consider the virus, a “non-living” entity capable of destroying ordered systems with fortuitous timing and perseverance. […]”

    The virus looks to human beings as something that is very deterministic and driven by rules. It looks like a simple machine that just copies itself as often as it can. From our point of view It doesn’t fit with terms like conciousness or personal development, right? But why do you think it looks like a soulmate or a friend? Perhaps, because the church of the middle ages equaled “free mind” with “destruction” and by adopting their language you feel like your idendity is that of something that must destroy? Again: By adopting their terms you mind may become a train on their rails.

    I want to express that I find your blog very interesting! I’m sure you don’t mind my attemt to expose your theory to some chaos, and I admit I don’t have the feeling I have already understood everything I have read so far on this site.

    • Wolf,

      Thanks for your critique. I always appreciate a thorough critical examination of my work by my readership.

      I understand people are bringing their own cultural background into an understanding of terminology like Satan, heaven, Hell, and the like. But that’s not something I can help. As you no doubt already know, the concept of Satan — that is, a deity who behaves against the wishes of the Supreme deity — is as old as spiritual thought, which goes far further than the Biblical era. Consider the Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Akkadians, etc. who lived as far back as 10,000 BC.

      I’d like to clarify that I don’t introduce physics into my theory “to lend it credence.” I believe that both science and religion are subject to their own varying pitfalls when it comes to analyzing the truth, and that it’s really somewhere in the middle; I’m not sold on the automatic credibility of science to begin with, so I am certainly not inserting it for argument fluffing. Rather, as an amateur (albeit active) reader of all things quantum mechanics and cosmology, it naturally integrates into my metaphysical view of the world. Again, I believe you’re bringing your own implications into my explanation that have been in no way inferred by me.

      The important thing to take away from this blog, and Satanism in general, is this: no one’s opinion is going to matter for anyone else but its owner. My metaphysical explanation suffices to explain my behavior, my personality, my disposition, my politics, my attitude, and maybe even my destiny; it reflects more about me than it does about any objective truth about how the universe runs. The exact same can be said for you, or a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Jew, or literally any other human being on earth: our experiences are subjective, and they count for only us.

      As I mentioned in my introductory essay on the home page, this blog’s intention is not to convert anyone, or convince anyone of the validity of my claims. It’s a research and educational tool.

      Thank you for your compliments. I hope you enjoy the posts to follow.

      – Allison

  5. Re physics: Ability to fully understand this science, especially its modern branches of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and general relativity, requires a working knowledge of calculus-based mathematics, among other skills usually acquired only after years of intense university study and perhaps only accessible to gifted students. I don’t claim such knowledge, but fortunately the basic purpose of physics can be explained in plain English. It is to explain the measurable results of observations and experiments. So, general relativity predicts that light, which normally travels in straight lines, should bend if passing through a strong gravitational field. Arthur Eddington found this happened with starlight passing near the sun on its way to earthbound telescopes during a 1919 solar eclipse. This and other experiments are why general relativity is accepted by the scientific community. Physics cannot answer normative questions about people and their societies, leaving formulation of social contract to John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Nor holds it any opinions about spiritual questions or about the ultimate nature, meaning, cause, or purposes of the universe as a whole. The big bang cosmology, for example, explains the microwave sky background radiation Arno and Penzias discovered while working for AT&T Bell Labs in 1964, as well as the apparent red shifts of galaxies that Edwin Hubble studied in the 1920s. So, we “accept” the theory in the sense that it explains these things, but we don’t believe that it tells us WHY the universe came to be. We also realize that any theory on the origin of the cosmos, an event very remote in time, assuming there even was such a definite starting point, is necessarily speculative. Physics is hardly omnipotent, despite contrary assertions by Steve Hawking and a few other scientists who have succumbed to hubris. Scientific theories are never proven true; they can only be shown false. A thing is considered explained only until a better explanation becomes available, and scientists in AD 2500 will no doubt laugh at the crude level of our sciences, the way we do at Aristotle. Therefore, a physicist cannot tell you whether your ideas are correct, only that they are untestable. I am not indicting your webpage so much as decrying a shallow educational system which doesn’t make the provisionality of scientific knowledge clear to its compulsory pupils.

    Re viruses: Although unable to reproduce themselves without the aid of cells, it appears that a substantial part of eukaryotic genomes, including those of birds and people, consists of “fossil” viral DNA which gets reproduced with each new bird or human, but otherwise doesn’t “do” anything but sit there in the chromosomes. See Katherine Harmon in Scientific American, Sept. 2010, at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fossil-virus-bird-genome/

    The history of heresy and inquisition, say publication of Malleus Malificarum, a witch-hunter’s manual advising examiners regarding whom “upon such an accusation may be put to the torture,” suggests that Satan enjoys little monopoly on evil—quite contrarily, Satanists limited to magic have done much less damage than Christians with arquebuses and dungeons. Best of luck to your writing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s