By Revilo P. Oliver
Satanism, a recognition of the existence and power of the god of pure evil imagined by Christians, is best known today because it offers a pretext for motion pictures of spectacular pornography and horror, and a pretext for the crimes of sadistically insane degenerates. It is unlikely, however, that either the Jews in Hollywood or the degenerates actually believe in the reality of Satan.
In the late 1920s, young men of college age or near it who wanted to shock their elders often professed Satanism as an alternative to Communism, which they disdained because the Communists whom they knew were either vulgarians or perverts. That Satanism, was, of course, an extended jeu d’esprit, good fun at a time in which men could still be optimistic about our civilization.
Apparently serious consideration of Satanism belongs to more recent decades, and accompanies the astonishing increase of general ignorance and belief in the supernatural that is one of the most ominous manifestations of our race’s abdication from the future it once had. In the dwindling minority who are aware of our approaching doom, quite a few attribute our plight to the machinations of a conspiratorial continuation of Weishaupt’s Illuminati, and this opinion is commonly accompanied by a belief that the conspirators are Satanists, who worship the god of evil and are protected and abetted by him.
Although witchcraft is traditionally associated with worship of the Devil, he is conspicuously absent from the organized cults of witchcraft today, of which the most noteworthy and perhaps largest is oddly called Wicca, although that Anglo-Saxon term means ‘a wizard, warlock,’ while a witch (female) is wicce, witchcraft is wiccecraeft, and the body of persons practicing it is wiccedom. This cult, which is said to have a large number of True Believers, practices astrology and a kind of magic that is much older than Christianity and was until recently common among Anglo-Saxon and Celtic peasants, professes “a religion of joy and love,” and is perhaps best represented by The Witch’s Bible, by Gavin and Yvonne Frost (Los Angeles, Nash, 1972; paperback, New York, Berkeley, 1975). Among the plethora of other books on this kind of occultism, I shall mention only The Witch’s Workbook, by “Ann Grammary” (New York, Pocket Books, 1973), which is full of up-to-date talk about Psi-powers and other currently fashionable fads, and The Do-It-Yourself Witchcraft Guide, by “Luba Sevarg” (New York, Universal-Award, c. 1971), which you may find nearer your notion of witchcraft.
One hears astonishingly little these days about Black Masses, whether celebrated for fun, in the manner of Lord Francis Dashwood, or with faith in supernatural evil, as in Huysman’s well-known Là-bas. But an organized church of Satanism was established around 1969.
The issue of Christian News dated 17 April 1989 is devoted entirely to Satanism. The immediate occasion was a lecture given at Westminster College by a High Priest of the Satanist Church, which has already shown itself an authentic church in the Christian manner, since it has been split by a schism, on which it is needless to dwell here, since that would entail a long exposition of what the heresiarch did not know about Egyptian religion.
That naturally leads the editor and his several contributors to discussion of the crimes that are ostensibly or presumably occasioned by Satanism, and that in turn brings the writers to an estimate of the actual power of the Christians anti-god in the world today.
Since Christian News represents the authentic Lutheran Church, the editorials and numerous articles by contributors assume the existence of Satan as a mighty deity and adversary of their god. They thus differ radically from most of the Christian churches today, which have killed off Satan, thus repudiating the authority of the holy book that is the only basis for their creed and involving themselves in a theological muddle from which the only escape is to the Marxian Reformation of their religion, called “the Social Gospel” by dervishes who think that sounds better than “Communism.”
That brings us to a subject of great historical importance.
The theological dilemma was the subject of a book by a rather distinguished French theologian, Jean Turmel, who prudently concealed his identity under the pseudonym, Louis Coulange, when he published his work in an English translation, The Life of the Devil (New York, Knopf, 1930; the French original, which I have not seen, was later published under the title, Histoire du diable).
Father Turmel rightly attributes the eclipse of Satan in modern Christian sects to rejection of the belief in witchcraft and magic, and he wittily concludes that “Satan, cast out from the refuge which, formerly, he found with the possessed and the sorcerers, and the witches, is like the Son of Man, of whom the Gospel tells us that He had nowhere to lay His head.”
Father Turmel traces the history of belief in the Devil from the standpoint of Roman Catholic theology. What is now the fundamental work on the subject is the series of four volumes by Professor Jeffrey Burton Russell, published by the Cornell University Press: The Devil (1977), Satan (1981), Lucifer (1984), and Mephistopheles (1987). (If you are especially interested in the meaning of the Hebrew word, you may find one interpretation in Peggy Day’s An Adversary in Heaven, published by the Harvard Semitic Museum.)
Professor Russell writes in a time in which the Jews have made the facts of race as unmentionable as were the facts of sex in Victorian literature, and he even takes some illustrations from their vicious fictions about a “Holocaust” and assumes, as do well-trained Americans, that God’s Race are persecuted innocents, by definition incapable of the crimes they are known to have committed. This concession to the inculcated ignorance of the American public is a blemish that should not make us underestimate the authority of his historical scholarship.
He begins by identifying evil as the conscious infliction of unnecessary pain on sentient beings, including, of course, the animals to whose suffering Christians were made hard-hearted by the notion that Yahweh created soulless dumb brutes for the use of talking anthropoids.
The crucial point is that the infliction of suffering must be intentional, i.e., malicious — a point often obscured by a refusal to recognize that the suffering of beings whom we Aryans compassionately pity (e.g., a caribou pulled down by a wolfpack, a wounded wolf, a starving child in India) is simply a fact of nature, and that, if you, like sentimental “Liberals,” find that fact distressing, all that you can do is lament that you got yourself born in the wrong universe.
Evil, therefore, is limited to human beings, for no other species of animal inflicts unnecessary pain on the animals it kills to nourish or defend itself, or finds satisfaction in their suffering. And if Professor Russell had not been limited by the reticence imposed by our Jewish masters, he would doubtless have noted that the moral perception of evil is, for all practical purposes, limited to our race — not all persons of Aryan ancestry, but those whose genetic inheritance we, if intelligent, would strive to perpetuate.
The delight that Congoids and American Indians find in the suffering of persons of their own or other races is notorious. Mongoloids, although they recognize suffering as something an individual should avoid, except when demonstrating his superiority to it, as in choosing the most painful form of suicide, seem not to consider unnecessary infliction of pain on others as morally reprehensible. The same moral indifference is found in Semites; the atrocious cruelty of the Assyrian king, Ashnur-nasir-pal II (883-859 B.C.) is cited as a shocking example of evil by Professor Russell, but there is no indication that it ever excited reprobation from members of his race, and the ingenuity of Arabs in torturing prisospers in recent times is famous. The sadistic delight of Jews in the suffering of other races is obvious from the “Old Testament,” and both history and archaeology have shown they were equally ferocious toward members of their own race who were dissidents or suspected of sympathy for goyim.
The Aryans’ instinctive perception of evil is related to his equally distinctive compassion. Only Aryans, I believe, are capable of the rationality which shows them that mortal enemies must be destroyed, combined with regret, even sorrow, at their suffering. A concise illustration of this is a stanza by Mayura, an early Sanskrit poet, in honor of Siva, the terrible god of ruthless destruction. The short hymn is preserved in the Saduktikanamrta, a relatively late anthology. I quote my translation:
I sing the god of world-destroying might,
Siva, who smote with bolts of quenchless flame
The triple city of the anti-gods:
For when he saw the molten walls decay
And fall, the thund’ring bow fell from his hands.
In inner rooms the demon-women stood;
He saw the fire cut away the hems
Of their embroidered robes and lave their hair.
He saw the flame upon their bodiced gowns–
He saw its fingers stroke their girdled loins
And pluck the silver apples of their breasts.
The “anti-gods” of the poem are the Asuras, implacable rivals of the Devas, the gods of Hinduism. They had to be destroyed to give the gods of Indra’s Heaven security, but the terrible god weeps for the brave enemies whom he had to annihilate, and the poet emphasizes that pathos by describing the supernatural courage and dignity with which even the women perish.
In Mayura’s time, miscegenation was blighting irretrievably the civilization of the conquerors of India; his date is uncertain, but his race is not. The poem proves that he belonged to the race that many centuries before had, in the noblest of epics, treated the Trojan enemies of the Greeks with respect and admiration — the race that many centuries after Mayura produced the American naval commander who destroyed a hopelessly inferior and hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned Spanish fleet during the United States’ war of aggression against Spain in 1898. He understood enemies who, without possible hope of victory or escape, fought for honor, and as the Spanish ships sank or burned, he reproved his men, “Don’t cheer, boys; the poor devils are dying.” He belonged to the race from which the Jew-crazed Americans of today have defected as they stumble blindly and ignominiously toward the doom they have brought upon themselves.
Milton tried “to justify the ways of God to man,” but he was an Aryan, an accomplished Humanist, and a great poet, and therefore, despite the creed he professed, the hero of his Paradise Lost is Satan, a celestial being far nobler than the tyrant from whose despotism he has revolted.
What though the field be lost?
All is not lost: th’ unconquerable will,
And study of revenge, immortal hate,
And courage never to submit or yield.
No Aryan man can read or hear those lines without a thrill of admiration as he recognizes the spirit and glory of his great race. Milton’s Satan, indeed, is an Aryan of the Aryans and, whatever the poet may have intended, he will be the hero of the epic for all male Aryans who have not lost their manhood through narcotics, superstition, or degeneracy. He represents the peculiarly Aryan pride and self-mastery seen again, for example, in the imperious will of Byron’s Manfred, who, in his last moments, defies the infernal god of Christian belief:
I knew, and know my hour is come, but not
To render up my soul to such as thee
Away! I’ll die as I have lived — alone.
That characteristic of our race is one reason why we are the primary targets of the Jews’ unappeasable hatred, and why the religion with which they poisoned us perpetually admonishes its dupes to be humble — to have no more pride than earthworms. But even that degrading superstition could not change the nature of the Aryans who adopted it, as Landor, who understood the pious Christians of his time, recognized in the long and brilliant poem which he composed in Latin and of which he then made his own English version: “Humility,/ A tatter’d cloak that pride wears when deform’d.”
Evil is peculiarly and exclusively human, but what is bizarre, to our minds, at least, is a god of evil.
Although Professor Russell had to write within the limitations that the Jews impose on their subjects, two facts emerge clearly from the historical and almost philosophical discussion in his first volume.
1. No Aryan religion conceives of a god of evil. Our religions are relatively rational and polytheistic, recognizing the diversity of the forces that govern human life and are often in conflict with each other. There are gods who personify the forces of nature and, like storms and tidal waves and earthquakes, reck nothing of the convenience, safety, or wishes of human beings. There are gods who represent the tropisms that are inherent in human nature, such as sexual attraction and ambition, which are often opposed to each other. There are gods who, in their youth, exhibit children’s pleasure in mischievous sport. There are gods who, like mortal kings, protect and aid their favorites, and, when angered, strike down the insolent and insubordinate. But the Aryan does not conceive of driving malice and sadism, for their gods are not unnatural. Fire is not evil when it destroys a city and perhaps accumulated and irreplaceable treasures.
2. It is astonishing, therefore, that a god of pure evil was first created by a man who seems to have been an Aryan, the prophet whose name, of obscure etymology and variously spelled in the original texts, usually appears in English as Zarathustra or in the form it was given in the time of Hellenism, Zoroaster.
So far as is known, it was he who, probably while having hallucinations excited by the sacred mushroom (Amanita muscaria), invented the grotesque conception of a world dominated by two great gods, one of good and the other of evil, whose powers are equal as they fight each other for suzerainty over the world, for they as so evenly matched that each needs the trivial help that can be given him by puny mortals. The two gods are engaged in perpetual war for possession of the universe, although Zarathustra’s religion, with an almost pathological disregard of simple logic, absurdly knows that the ultimate victory of the good god is assured, no matter what happens.
Zoroastrianism may be the delusion most pernicious to our race ever excogitated by a human mind, but in the form presented by its prophet, it was, if one accepted the absurd premises of his “revelation” (i.e., hallucination), a coherent doctrine. As every impartial student knows, Christianity is basically a Judaized and vulgarly muddled rifacimento of Zoroastrian priests as is even symbolically shown by the myth that the terrestrial birth of its incarnate god was foreseen and attended by Zoroastrian priests.
These two facts have an odd corollary. The Jews’ adaptation of the Canaanite god Yah was not evil by Jewish standards, for he aided and abetted them in their thefts and depredations and pleased them by sadistically inflicting suffering and destruction on innocent peoples to appease his pets’ insatiable hatred of civilized mankind. But to Aryans, as is obvious to everyone who reads the “Old Testament” with a mind unnumbed by superstition, Yahweh is a vicious and repulsive being and the thought that such a deity could exist excites horror. Some early Christian sects, not dominated by Jews, logically concluded that the Jews’ savage god must be Satan under another name. But nevertheless, our race was somehow induced to worship and revere an alien and ineffably monstrous god, and acceptance of subordination to such a being necessarily blunted our race’s moral sense as well as intelligence. How can you explain that spiritual abasement?
Professor Russell’s thorough analysis of the concept of a god of evil makes it obvious that, as simple logic would teach you anyway, a bipolar religion depends on the existence of opposites. There could be no Ahura Mazda without Angra Mainyu (Ahriman), his great antagonist. And in Christianity, a tawdry Jewish imitation of Zoroastrianism, there can be no God without Satan, anymore than there can be a magnet with only one pole.
That, of course, is patent to any Christian who thinks about his religion, and the learned and honest editor of Christian News recognizes that fact, that the faith of Luther, as well as the doctrine of every Christian sect that is not a mere fraud, depends on the existence of Satan, without whom a belief in the existence of his divine adversary would be preposterous.
(I am reminded, by the bye, of the Anglican bishop who, when I was a youngster, back in the days when the Anglican Church was not a mere sham and device for subsidizing perverts (and vicious ape-men, such as the infamous Tutu), told me, “It is impossible to prove the existence of God, but easy to prove the existence of the Devil.” If you think about it, you will see his point.)
Recognition of Satan exposes, of course, the Christians’ pretense that their religion is a monotheism, a claim made possible only by the shabby trick of calling Yahweh “God,” to the exclusion of all the other gods, Mars, Jupiter, Venus, et al., in whose existence the early Christians firmly believed, and now even of Satan, whose existence is indispensable to a religion based on their “New Testament.”
Even if we accept the bizarre Christian claim that the three partners in Yahweh & Son, Inc., form one person, much as the three heads of Cerberus belong to one praeternatural canine, it is obvious from the “New Testament” that Satan is a mighty supernatural being, not only independent of Yahweh & Son, but an antagonist of that firm, with powers on earth so great that he could kidnap one-third of it, carry it to a mountain top, and try to bribe it by offering dominion over the earth, which, it is assumed, Satan could have delivered at once. Satan, therefore, is obviously a god opposed to the tripartite god Christians prefer to worship, and the equal, if not the superior, of that god, at least on earth.
The Jews, after they abandoned, in the fifth century B.C. or later, their original conception of Yahweh as chief among the five or more elohim they thought it expedient for their tribe to worship, and after, probably late in the second century B.C., they had the colossal impudence to claim that their tribal deity and accomplice was the animus mundi posited by Stoics, can claim to be monotheists, for, in the tale about Job, Satan appears as the bailiff of his cruel lord and torments the old Jew for the amusement of Yahweh and, no doubt, himself. There is no problem of theodicy, for Yahweh is the admitted source of evil.
Christianity, on the other hand, is, like its source, Zoroastrianism, necessarily a ditheism, for a theos is a superhuman and divinely powerful person, regardless of your attitude toward him. The world is a battleground between two theoi — and, indeed, one on which Satan seems to have achieved a victory, even if Christians hopefully believe it is temporary, for he is often recognized as the Lord of this World, Jesus and his allies having beaten a strategic retreat to their citadel in the stratosphere.
Christians, having chosen to worship and assist the god they disingenuously call God, can properly claim to be monolaters (granting their claim that 3 = 1 in their Trinity), but they cannot, without absurdity, deny the existence of the other god. Satanists are also monolaters, for they have elected to worship the other god, but at least they do not have the impudence to claim that they are monotheists.
No Satan, no Yahweh. Such is the dilemma of Christianity today, and the editor of Christian News has taken the only position that will preserve the religion as a faith instead of a racket.
One may regret the decline of Christianity, as one regrets the labefaction of any established and imposing structure, but the process is irreversible, except, perhaps, in the new Dark Ages planned for us. So long as our race retains rational minds, they will not indulge in opium to efface their perception of unpleasant realities. It is often said that Christianity as a viable religion was doomed by the De revolutionibus orbium caelestium of Copernicus and the ensuing discovery that the universe is so vast that the earth and all its inhabitants and history is far less than a drop of water and the animalcules in it. But the religion was equally and earlier doomed by the short and concise little work of Laurentius Valla, De libero arbitrio, which demonstrated, with irrefragable logic, that no god can be at once benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. An imagined god may have two of those qualities, but he cannot have all three, any more than he can be both round and square. And no matter which two of the possible attributes you select, no Christian will be content with such a deity. Vale, Jesu!
Source: Liberty Bell magazine, August 1989