The Sinister War of the Sexes

9a0794c0c5c13618677bdce96cdea2cd--dominatrix-mistress

I find most of the blogs and articles about “sinister feminine” pretty nauseating. Wouldn’t it be better to admit that one sucks at writing stories and creating complex characters? If some alien who knew nothing about the Earth laid his hands on some piece of sinister fiction, he would think we have matriarchy here and all the males are forsaken by nature and evolution troglodytes born only to serve some clique of female chauvinists.

When one reads Deofel Quartet or other ONA tales, one can see that nearly all the male characters are pretty shallow and one-dimensional, incredibly stupid and naive, devoid of free will, thinking with their dicks, not heads, which inevitably leads them to being abused by their female superiors. An example of such a male troglodyte can be Thorold, ensnared and manipulated by Lianna, who plays the role of the Black Widow, seeking the male to impregnate her and then (when his task is complete) probably sacrifice him to ensure that her crops will grow. That would certainly improve her finances. Business is business. But I’m not really interested in victims. The depiction of a sinister initiate is what I find intriguing.

No Room 101 or Falcifer Unproven

To those not well-versed in modern British literature, let me explain that in Orwell’s “1984”, the room 101 was Winston’s final stage on his way to self-degradation or self-liberation if one prefers the interpretation of the scene by Dr Mikey Aquino. Therein Winston faces his greatest fear – the fear of rats – and under its pressure he breaks his most important principle, his biggest life taboo; he betrays Julia. Only in this way can he be reborn with a new identity, that of the loyal servant of his tormentors. He can either choose this or die eaten up by rats – his greatest nightmare. In either case he loses. It seems Orwell doesn’t free his protagonists from facing the most crucial choices… but I’m getting ahead of myself.

So let’s come back to our “hero”, Falcifer. Much like the main character of “Gruyllan’s Tale”, who is ready to have half of London blown up in order to get laid (talk about desperation), Conrad is largely bewitched by a hot-burning pussy. As an archetypal Anti-Christ, he’s a rather disappointing and dull figure. Throughout the tale, he’s constantly led by the hand, as he realizes himself, the events happen through him rather than by him. That means he’s less doing the magic himself than the magic is done through him, with Aris, the Master, being the agent, the Magician, and Conrad being merely his magic wand. His passive role of a vessel for the forces of chaos is even visible in a way he does sex. He doesn’t fuck, he is fucked. Note the passive.

Susan kissed him as they lay on the ground and Tanith kneeled beside them to caress Conrad’s buttocks and back. In the excitement of the ritual and Tanith’s touch, Conrad’s task was soon over, and he slumped over Susan, temporarily exhausted from his ecstasy. He did not resist when Tanith rolled him over, and watched, as the dancers danced around them still chanting and the light pulsed with the beat of the drum, while Tanith buried her head between Susan’s thighs. Then she was kissing him with her wet mouth before she stood to kiss each member of the congregation in salutation.

So why there is no room 101 in “Falcifer”?

Because Denise escapes.

The whole story should get a prize for its wasted potential. If Denise hadn’t managed to flee, Conrad would have faced his most arduous ordeal. He would have had to decide whether to commit real evil and kill an innocent woman who saved him (which is much different than harming the villains who well deserve it) or ruin his wedding ceremony, disappoint his mentors, possibly waste his promised destiny and be forced to leave the group he so desired to be part of. To his credit, he refuses to rape her but never makes an effort to free her. How would he behave if ordered to sacrifice her during his marriage ceremony? In which case would he get a cookie from the Devil? Should an Anti-Christ set some limits to the Evil or not?

That would complicate the whole story, right? So I started with sex and finished on conformity and the nature of good old evil. After all, they are connected.

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?