Love is the Law

* A response to two now deleted articles written by a certain neurotic and obsessed internet user who goes by the nym Kerri Scott and who regularly posts on Wyrd Sisters WordPress blog.

Oh my God, I’ve just realized Christmas is coming. And what is the better time for showing your love not only to your loved ones but also enemies? Now, there are some people here who I kept quarrelling with, on the forums and on WordPress, and who apparently keep reading every fucking post I make not only on my blog but also in the comment sections of other people’s blogs. Recently, it was Darryl’s blog.

I’m really flattered by some claims that my posts or the discussions with me helped to move the O9A from one phase to another and helped Papa Myatt and his buddies to recruit at least a few new members. I don’t know what Darryl’s opinion re all of his debates is but I’m personally honored. In the not so distant past I was quite a dedicated member of Satannet forum and I never heard from Magistra Nadramia, who was its admin, a compliment that I helped her Church of Satan flourish or that she attracted new candidates thanks to my rants on her forum.

Now, all comedy aside, and in all seriousness, I don’t even have a glimmer of hope that this time I will manage to get my point across to the brick wall since I couldn’t do that for more than three years. Some people will not understand you because they do not want to understand you. And no persuasions or explanations will help. But I know that some readers stumble upon this blog, accidentally or  not, especially on those O9A related posts, so here are a few words of explanation.

All of my posts here and in the forums present my personal opinions and my view on various topics. I have never claimed otherwise. Others can agree or disagree with my pespective or ignore it altogether or laugh it off or whatever.

Contrary to what some maniacal people have been saying for years, I have never claimed being an expert on the O9A. In fact, I’m not an expert on anything. However, I believe that if one has doubts about the claims of others, one can or even should question them, no matter the credentials the people making claims present. That concerns discussions in general. Confrontation is the way to unmask the bullshit, not necessarily to  feel like a winner but also to learn by interaction and by questioning things. Some people are liars, some are trolls, and even seemingly or actually intelligent people can talk out of their asses on several occassions. Moreover, there is not even one human being who didn’t talk out of his or her ass more than once. So take everything you hear or read with a pinch of salt.

I aint proud. I freely express my views because this is what we have forums and blogs for. But I consider myself an ordinary user of those venues and nothing more. I have the same attitude to other users. I admire nobody. I can consider someone smart but that doesn’t mean I regard them as free of bullshit. Nobody is free of bullshit. If you’re convinced by your opponents’ arguments in a discussion and you admit you were wrong, kudos to you. If you simply break under the emotional pressure, consider yourself spineless. You’re probably one of those people who are afraid to ask the employer for a day off, not to mention a pay-rise. The society will appreciate your humble attitude. Just avoid Russians. They will kill you. And don’t go on a trip to North Korea because you won’t be coming back.

That’s all for today. And Merry XMas everybody.

The Satanic Icons And The Question Of Evil

 

The propaganda war between the Order of Nine Angles and other forms of Satanism resembles the epic marketing war between two famous brands: Coca Cola and Pepsi. Both sides of the “conflict” tried to emphasize their uniqueness and prove to the populace that one was better than the other. The point was not only to brag about one’s superior qualities but also put down the competition. So Coca Cola tried to convince the market that Pepsi tasted like shit and vice versa. When one recalls that legendary war, it’s then easier to understand why the Old Guards of the ONA keep bashing Anton LaVey and blowing their own trumpet at the same time. It’s also easier to understand why the Church of Satan keeps denigrating its competition like Aquino or the Satanic Temple.

The cult of personality is amusing when it comes to Satanism but it’s also understandable given human nature. Charismatic individuals and visionaries (such as Anton LaVey , David Myatt and any individuals who could use the pen name of Anton Long) tend to attract followers and fanboys, often unimaginative ones. It’s also the aim of those in business to make the pasture for the sheep greener by providing more and more bullshit; building the mythos and spreading gossip.

So on one side we have the Church of Satan and Anton LaVey’s fanboys who take all of what he wrote uncritically. If you want to be a true Satanist, follow LaVey’s teachings. The CoS priesthood builds LaVey’s mythos deliberately and spreads such nonsense like that he put a curse on Sam Brody, who died because of that, or that he played the Devil’s part in “Rosemary’s Baby.” Half of Anton LaVey’s life is shrouded in mystery and subject to rumors and speculation and it’s in the interest of the Church of Satan as an organization to perpetuate the mythos.

It’s not much different in the case of Anton Long and the ONA. It’s not known for sure who Anton Long is and the life of David Myatt, himself, is also shrouded in mystery. Some of his deeds are documented but there are also rumors, speculations and conspiracy theories. Myatt’s friends denigrate LaVey and try to replace the cult of Anton LaVey with the cult of David Myatt, at the same time perpetuating the legends and rumors about him. One of such rumors is that Myatt inspired the bomber, Copeland. Perhaps, he did. Perhaps, he didn’t. All we have is the gossip of the leftist morons from Searchlight.

It’s quite amusing how the ONA Old Guards keep accusing Anton LaVey of not being evil and creating a “philosophy of a rapist and a bully.” It’s hilarious not only because Satanism according to Anton LaVey has nothing to do with rape or bullying but also because it’s a contradiction. Bullying and rape are evil or, at least, they seem to be evil according to the popular understanding of evil as “morally depraved, bad, wicked, vicious, harmful, malicious, unlawful, dangerous, deadly.” This is the pop culture definition of evil and Satan embraced now by the ONA polemicists, slightly revised since “Geryne of Satan” was written. According to this brand new definition (taken straight from the horror movies and criminal stories) Mallam from “The Giving” is an embodiment of evil and a true villain since he breaks the ultimate social taboo – pedophilia. He and his comrades rape young girls and virgins on the altar of Satan. Deprived of any moral scruples, he resembles libertines as described by Marquis de Sade and as such he is antinomian, breaks the status quo, thus being the very embodiment of Satan and the left hand path.

This brings us to this great overwhelming question. What is evil? What does Satan really stand for? Isn’t there more to the antinomian evil than its cliche definition? The devil in Greek means a slanderer, a person who spreads false accusations. In Hebrew Bible Satan means a political or military opponent. In the Book of Job, Satan is a member of God’s council. He’s an adversary to Job, his accuser. He’s the one who doubts his virtue and wants to test him subjecting him to suffering. The adversity that Satan stands for shows what Job is made of. Only later in the Bible Satan becomes a tempter, an evil creature leading people to sin.

The concept of sin exists in every religion. It also existed in the ancient pagan religions; the judgement of Osiris, the torment of sinners in Tartarus, to name just the few. Though the Greek gods had all the human faults and weaknesses, a “sin” seems to be going against gods’ will. Prometheus, Sisyphus, Niobe and Arachne were all guilty of the sin of hubris; fancying themselves greater than gods and being able to outwit them. The “sin” of Prometheus is very similar to the original sin the first humans committed in Eden. Also Milton’s Satan was guilty of excessive pride.

In Xenophon’s “Memorabilia of Socrates” the goddess κακία appears who represents vice as opposed to arete (virtue). She offers Heracles an easy life full of indulgence and free of suffering and labor:

In the first place, you shall take no thought of wars or state affairs, but shall pass your time considering what meat or drink you may find to gratify your appetite, what you may delight yourself by seeing or hearing, what you may be pleased with smelling or touching, with what objects of affection you may have most pleasure in associating, how you may sleep most softly, and how you may secure all these enjoyments with the least degree of trouble.

That vision of vice is quite similar to the interpretation of vice/sin by Anton LaVey. Anton LaVey’s Devil also resembles a bit Slavic devils, Lukhavi and Chort, who embody the material/carnal world as opposed to the spiritual one.

Anton LaVey’s Satanism was a reaction to Christianity. It is evil because it opposes the Christian morality and embraces that which is regarded as sinful by the contemporary Christian society. The ONA goes much further in its antinomianism as it supports killing and the incitement to murder. However, the ONA heresy is tempered by its ethics (sinister honor) which somehow doesn’t go that far from the ethics of the modern society. Wouldn’t the majority of people applaud Lianna’s disposal of that bastard Mallam? There were a few cases in my country, when the angry mob of “decent citizens” wanted to lynch a murderer or a child abuser. It seems that the ONA repeats after Anton LaVey: “Do not harm little children.”

Does the Devil have any boundaries?