Essay One:
War Cry of the Vanquished
Might is Right? Or is it that RIGHT IS RIGHT?
By Ole Wolf
Many have said before, and repeatedly, that "might
is right!" is the war cry of the vanquished, that is, it's the cry of those
that fell victims of might. Outrageous as these words may seem at first to those
that read The Satanic Bible, they are the readers' truth. Although it
is long forgotten and suppressed, they have seen first hand since childhood
that regardless what seemed right, what became right was determined by might.
Throughout childhood and adolescence, they have felt the effects of might on
their own minds and bodies. But was it right to break their very instincts and
leave them broken? Was it right to leave these people virtually sensually dead
compared to a person who is not broken No, it was wrong; it was anti-human in
the extreme, and Christianity does this (along with many other religions that
do not dominate our culture in the West) from the moment of birth.
Ideally, upon recognizing this, they would deliver themselves
by their own minds and bodies by recognizing what was done to them and how it
was done, and then themselves determine right and wrong. They would possess
an inner quiet strength that rendered them too strong for the adversaries that
have oppressed them as long as they can remember. And yet, they are not content
with having won--or so they believe--the battle for their minds. Although they
should have become freed from their original oppressors, years of oppression
has become hardwired in their bodies and internalized, and they have become
their OWN oppressors. They will fight against oppression until the day they
die, never realizing that now the battlefield lies within themselves. As oppression
fights oppression within the same person, they are the bullied people become
bullies, or stalkees become stalkers. Unlike the person that destroys his oppressors
in retribution quickly and then stops, they want to become oppressors themselves
and continue the status quo, under a new name.
So you hear them, louder than ever, proclaim that "might
is right!," conjure grand theories about mutual preying, and consider themselves
wolves among sheep rather than humans among humans. Without considering whether
life negating and energy-draining competition for "right by the means of
might" is an advantageous form of interaction among human animals, they
fall prey to solipsism and believe that their own suppression naturally extends
to every human specimen. It is this solipsism that prompts them to repeatedly
postulate a philosophy that has long since been recognized as pseudo-science
and termed "vulgar-Darwinism:" the notion that the human animal must
prey upon its peers in order to survive. These "advocates of undefiled
wisdom" are not concerned by contradictory facts of biology, however. Neither
are they concerned about facts of history or sociology, which reveal how profoundly
Christianity has been secularized into all levels of society by means of sheer
might.
This should stand as a warning beacon to the Satanists who
advocate that might should continue to be right; but instead, they appraise
might, never realizing that might was the very technique that was used to oppress
them in the first place. Really! As self-proclaimed adversaries of the Christian
reign, they should have been crushed at birth per their own principles,
since only Christian mercy saves them from being persecuted and destroyed because
of their newly-gained philosophy. You'll also see that whenever any form of
might that they so highly cherish is used against them in the form of draconian
measures from influential Christians, their battle cries fade to desolate wailings
about unfair treatment. Unfair?
They never ask themselves the question if the sudden feeling
of "might" that they get upon reading The Satanic Bible, or
by calling themselves Satanists, could be a mere illusion. In fact, it is.
"We are the ones who change the world," they say. So? What are they
doing as physicists, chemists, or engineers to investigate new, lasting
energy sources that do not pollute the Earth? What are they doing as physicians
to find more effective ways to avoid or cure diseases? What are they doing as
economists to solve the problem of poverty? What are they doing as social workers
to ease the lives of the millions for whom society has become too complicated?
What are they doing as lawyers to devise laws that appeal to common sense and
are manageable by everyone? What are they doing as teachers to help children
learn and understand so that they will become able to think and act by themselves
and not be duped by religious fairy-tales? What have they done to please their
lovers that she or he may hold on to them for other reasons than the illusions
in the lovers' heads?
Okay, we know their standard answer: "We do not care
about poverty, ignorance, pollution, diseases, or others' lack of pleasures.
We only want our own indulgences," they state. Does this mean they're ignorant
of the fact that social disasters are the most fertile soil for all types of
religious oppression? Does it mean that they are ignorant of the fact that their
indulgences are only possible as long as there are people who feel responsible
to continuously attempt to fight the inequality and inhumanity of might?
Does it mean that they are ignorant of the fact that if might truly became right,
they would be completely crushed?
These people are those that can identify with Satan because
they're TOTALLY WITHIN the Christian mind-set, where Satan represents the LOSER.
That's how I and many others view them: people that lost the battle for their
minds; ultimate Christians who are still playing the Christian game.
With the exception of a few members, most of the members
I and many others have encountered are Christian morons who are either renaming
Jesus to "intellectualism" or people that think indulgence means porn
(which is essentially the same thing as intellectualism).
You feel the black flame within you, or you don't feel it.
Some don't have it, and they gravitate towards the Church of Satan and some
other Satanic organizations because it provides an identification with LOST
divinity, or so I'd imagine, it provides them with a "group wailing ground"
in which to make strong sounds and bolster up each others broken egos. Instead
of feeling divinity within them, they act like little Hitlers ("their own
gods"), which is completely superficial. That's them: nothing inside. They
aren't REAL so they have to be OTHER things (gods).
What Christian indoctrination does, even NON-RELIGIOUS Christian
CULTURAL indoctrination, is wrong, it is monstrous. We know of NO Satanist in
ANY organization, nor anyone in any Wiccan or Pagan organization, that would
disagree, especially if they are aware of how much "wrong" was done
to them by this entire 2000 year old tradition. Yet the Christians surely had
MIGHT. The Christians still have might, but their free-handed use of it has
been tempered by those who were TRULY against them: and none of those adversaries
who really pushed them back and won gains for the human condition ever thought
or said that might was right. They knew better. They had Undefiled Wisdom -
FOR REAL.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Essay Two
Analysis of "Might is Right" (MiR) by Jack
London, using only portions that Anton LaVey took. By Tani Jantsang
First off: Jack London was often a Hobo and a Bum in life
and he rejected civilization as it was. He was also a militant Socialist!
He took part in labor rallies. That's who wrote MiR! Anton LaVey only
took portions he liked. Anton LaVey did not write MiR.Let's put
some historicity into this and understand the author's intent. "The
writer/author" in this analysis refers to Jack London and NOT to
Anton LaVey unless specifically stated. This is an analysis that takes the
text back to the time it was written and within the context, and inside
the paradigm, of those times. LaVey, in the 1960's, took portions and
applied them solely to religion and as a semi-counter to the hippie movement.
And again, today in the realm of neo-Satanism it is again being misapplied and
taken wholly out of context. This was not an anti-religious diatribe at all
per se; it was a diatribe typical of the Social Revolutionaries, as they were
called back then. Social Revolutionaries were also called: REDS.
THE BOOK OF SATAN I
1. In this arid wilderness of steel and stone I raise
up my voice that you may hear. To the East and to the West I beckon. To the
North and to the South I show a sign proclaiming: Death to the weakling, wealth
to the strong!
Note: Jack London lives in the "wilderness"
of steel and stone (NOT a wilderness at all and, in fact, London loved the wilderness
and nature). He proclaims death to the weakling and wealth to the strong. He
PROCLAIMS this. Is he saying it should be this? Since he himself was
NOT wealthy or powerful in that sense, lived as a Hobo and was a Militant Socialist,
one has to question and analyze that: you see, in those days, physically fit
and strong people were workers: the sickly and weak were the aristocrats! London
was a hardy man, strong, fit: and he despised the weaklings that ruled! Is he
saying simply that it is this, that this is the status quo where
the steel and stone cities have killed the wildernesses? Or is he saying that
wealth should go to the strong who actually work and make that wealth, and not
go to the weak types who ruled when he wrote this? You have to understand that
these Socialists were tough as hell, and hell bent on violent revolution and
the extermination of the weak rulers of that time. 2. Open your eyes
that you may see, Oh men of mildewed minds, and listen to me ye bewildered millions!
3. For I stand forth to challenge the wisdom of the world;
to interrogate the "laws" of man and of "God"!
Note: He is questioning not just Christianity or religion.
He is ALSO questioning the laws (legal) of MAN. Remember, he was a Militant
Socialist! They ALL questioned the "laws of man" and wanted to write
new ones (often after a violent revolution).
4. I request reason for your golden rule and ask the
why and wherefore of your ten commandments.
5. Before none of your printed idols do I bend in acquiescence,
and he who saith "thou shalt" to me is my mortal foe!
Note: What have the 10 commandments to do with the laws
of man or labor relations which London was really involved with? Nothing. But
he who says "thou shalt" is my mortal foe? This is like what Aleister
Crowley talked about: Do as thou Wilt is the Whole of the Law! (RIGHT ON). The
"Golden Rule" is "do unto others as you would have them
do unto you." In other words, if you would want workers to exploit you
and rip you off, then do that to them! If you do not want them to do that, then
don't do that to them. The ruling classes preached the golden rule, but theysurely
did not practice it unless they were suicidal.
6. I dip my forefinger in the watery blood of your impotent
mad redeemer, and write over his thorn-torn brow: The TRUE prince of evil -
the king of slaves!
Note: This is a take off of "RELIGION IS THE OPIUM
OF THE PEOPLE" which was said by Karl Marx - the founder of ALL Socialism!
Religion was used to keep everyone else oppressed and induce them to tolerate
exploitation; note that religion had MIGHT back then. Socialism was dead against
this. They regarded the ruling class as evil and knew the ruling classes used
religion to keep everyone else down. Note clearly that London is calling Jesus
the True Prince of Evil; with Jesus being the one who is Lord and Master over
all slaves! The Master has the might, here Jesus is named as that mighty one:
the King of Slaves! If you want to dualize this: if Jesus is the true prince
of evil, then Satan is the prince of good! London, however, was not into
Satan. Note the lack of mention.
7. No hoary falsehood shall be a truth to me; no stifling
dogma shall encramp my pen!
8. I break away from all conventions that do not lead
to my earthly success and happiness.
Note: the hoary falsehoods are the laws of man, not
just "god." He believes, as all Socialists believe, that everyone
was born with the Natural Right to pursue life, liberty and happiness!
Even Felix Dzerzhinsky said this and he never heard of Jefferson!
9. I raise up in stern invasion the standard of the strong!
10. I gaze into the glassy eye of your fearsome Jehovah,
and pluck him by the beard; I uplift a broad-axe, and split open his worm-eaten
skull!
11. I blast out the ghastly contents of philosophically
whited sepulchers and laugh with sardonic wrath!
Note: Anton LaVey chose to pick out things focusing on what
is religiously oriented here. Anton LaVey never advocated taking up arms against
the government Socialists DID advocate this and so did London.
THE BOOK OF SATAN II
12. Behold the crucifix; what does it symbolize? Pallid
incompetence hanging on a tree.
Note: This is also how such revolutionaries regarded their
own ruling classes - who used religion to stifle the workers! Remember, London
was militant in the labor movement as a Socialist, he was not "just"
a Union guy. Christians in his time preached peace, but practiced war all the
time.
13. I question all things. As I stand before the festering
and varnished facades of your haughtiest moral dogmas, I write thereon in letters
of blazing scorn: Lo and behold; all this is fraud!
Note: Marx himself could have written this paragraph, he
wrote such things in personal letters.
14. Gather around me, Oh! ye death-defiant, and the earth
itself shall be thine, to have and to hold!
15. Too long the dead hand has been permitted to sterilize
living thought!
Note: this is classically against the ruling classes who
were regarded as conservative as opposed to progressive. This is a call for
progressive revolt.
16. Too long right and wrong, good and evil have been
inverted by false prophets!
17. No creed must be accepted upon authority of a "divine"
nature.
Note: No creed is NO CREED.
Religions must be put to the question.
Note: Now London includes religion.
No moral dogma must be taken for granted - no standard
of measurement deified. There is nothing inherently sacred about moral codes.
Like the wooden idols of long ago, they are the work of human hands, and what
man has made, man can destroy!
Note: he is NO LONGER speaking about religion. Standards
of measurement (regarding classes and etc.), moral codes (our laws), human laws.
He's calling for revolution as many other Socialists in the labor movement did.
18. He that is slow to believe anything and everything
is of great understanding, for belief in one false principle is the beginning
of all unwisdom.
Note: he says false principle. He is not talking
about religion here anymore!
19. The chief duty of every new age is to upraise new
men to determine its liberties, to lead it towards material success - to rend
the rusty padlocks and chains off dead custom that always prevent healthy expansion.
Theories and ideas that may have meant life and hope and freedom for our ancestors
may now mean destruction, slavery, and dishonor to us!
Note: Upraise new men (make the New Man) liberties, material
success, chains of dead custom that prevent healthy expansion (ruling classes
= dead customs of altar and throne). This is clearly a political-economic
statement here from London. It has nothing to do with religion AT ALL. There
is NOTHING in Christianity that is against pure Nazism OR pure Communism OR
Libertarianism, OR any other political system. The Christian Bible is VERY versatile
like that. This is not about religion.
20. As environments change, no human ideal standeth sure!
Note: again, ideals. He is trashing the current ideals,
as in IDEOLOGY. He is saying "Let's GET REAL and SMASH ideals."
21. Whenever, therefore, a lie has built unto itself
a throne, let it be assailed without pity and without regret, for under the
domination of an inconvenient falsehood, no one can prosper.
Note: Who dominated? The ruling classes, Kings, Empires
and yes, they were in cahoots with religious organizations or else they'd have
destroyed the religious organizations. The Catholic Church put both Muzzolini
and Hitler into power; but they regarded the Socialists as anti-Christs!
22. Let established sophisms be dethroned, rooted out,
burnt and destroyed, for they are a standing menace to all true nobility of
thought and action!
23. Whatever alleged "truth" is proven by results
to be but an empty fiction, let it be unceremoniously flung into the outer darkness,
among the dead gods, dead empires, dead philosophies, and other useless lumber
and wreckage!
Note: Again London speaks not just of dead gods, but of
dead empires and philosophies. The writer was a Militant Socialist. One might
get a gleaning of such rhetoric by reading Das Kapital by Marx for surely
Jack London, the writer of MiR, DID read it!
24. The most dangerous of all enthroned lies is the holy,
the sanctified, the privileged lie - the lie everyone believes to be a model
truth.
Note: Privileged lie. Told to the privileged classes at
the time and then told to the workers and serfs. People used to believe that
they were serfs and the Kings were Kings because "god ordained it."
It is the fruitful mother of all other popular errors
and delusions. It is a hydra-headed tree of unreason with a thousand roots.
It is a social cancer!
Note: See article Tree of Destruction on this
website. It's about the same kind of thing.
25. The lie that is known to be a lie is half eradicated,
but the lie that even intelligent persons accept as fact - the lie that has
been inculcated in a little child at its mother's knee - is more dangerous to
contend against thaan a creeping pestilence!
Note: again, think in terms of political-economic-social
realities here. That is where the writer was coming from.
26. Popular lies have ever been the most potent enemies
of personal liberty. There is only one way to deal with them: Cut them out,
to the very core, just as cancers. Exterminate them root and branch. Annihilate
them, or they will us!
Note: this is almost a quote from Lenin here. "Cut
them out, to the core, as a disease; exterminate them root and branch!"
He said such things about the bourgeoisie and compradores. As a Militant Socialist,
it is certain that London read Lenin's works! Lenin often argued against established
dogmas by using pure reason.
THE BOOK OF SATAN III
27. "Love one another" it has been said is
the supreme law, but what power made it so? Upon what rational authority does
the gospel of love rest? Why should I not hate mine enemies - if I "love"
them does that not place me at their mercy?
Note: he is speaking rhetorically - the serfs and exploited
workers did lovee their enemies, even fought wars to enrich their enemies and
got nothing in return. Keep in mind, the author was a Militant Socialist! They
were at the mercy of their enemies who were the ruling classes that everyone
looked up to and loved.
28. Is it natural for enemies to do good unto each other
- and WHAT IS GOOD?
29. Can the torn and bloody victim "love" the
blood-splashed jaws that rend him limb from limb?
Note: Again, he speaks to the serfs and workers who were
torn asunder and who continued to respect their tormentors! Can the slave
love the master? Remember, Jesus is the Prince of Slaves.
30. Are we not all predatory animals by instinct? If
humans ceased wholly from preying upon each other, could they continue to exist?
Note: As a matter of fact, YES, WE WOULD "CONTINUE
TO EXIST" - and we would be much better off at that! ALL Militant Socialists
advocated using either brute force, armed revolution or other less violent means,
or labor strikes (which were very violent back then) to smash and change the
system - but then they advocated replacing it or changing it with something
much more along the lines of how things were very long ago, without all the
Hobbesian strife and closed-hearted distrust of everyone. What was actually
accomplished in the USA was the New Deal (prior to that, the Bill of Rights!)
If you feel that this flies in the very face of "MIGHT
IS RIGHT," you are absolutely correct since you are not understanding
the person who wrote it and his life; you are not understanding
what it was like back then and you do not know the history. As said before,
the cry: "MIGHT IS RIGHT," is a social cancer, a LIE, a hydra-headed
tree of unreason with a thousand roots. ALL Socialist Movements, back when London
wrote this, DEBUNKED Might Is Right for the cancer that it was. Right
here, LaVey is either revealing London's true intent, knew exactly what London
was talking about, knew about the history of such struggles and used the same
intent; or he was just copying something he thought sounded anti-religious which
ended up misleading a whole lot of wannabes. I'd definitely assume LaVey took
this portion to apply it to Christianity and keep it on the religious level.
At the time LaVey wrote this, there were no ruling classes in this sense exploiting
him or anyone else. (In fact, no one ever exploited LaVey: if he died poor he
did so due to his own choices.) Those days of ruling classes and exploitation,
during LaVey's time, were gone: THANKS TO MILITANT LEFTIST LABOR ACTIVISTS LIKE
JACK LONDON! THANKS TO FD ROOSEVELT!
31. Is not "lust and carnal desire" a more
truthful term to describe "love" when applied to the continuance of
the race? Is not the "love" of the fawning scriptures simply a euphemism
for sexual activity, or was the "great teacher" a glorifier of eunuchs?
Note: Don't make the common mistake of taking the word "love"
or "sex" out of context here. Militant Socialists saw "romantic
love" as something decadent, a leisure activity engaged in and written
much about by the ruling classes while the toilers of the world had lives of
abject misery and probably never were loved and could not feel love since they
didn't have time to love anyone. They saw it rightly as glorified sex, nothing
more.
32. Love your enemies and do good to them that hate and
use you - is this not the despicable philosophy of the spaniel that rolls upon
its back when kicked?
Note: "that hate and use you." Christianity
doesn't "use" anyone, nor does it "hate" anyone. It's merely
a philosophy; "it" can't do anything and its philosophy can
literally be used for anything due to its versatile and contradictory nature.
People do things: things are not done by "-ianities" or "-isms."
Ruling classes used everyone, they had malicious contempt for the very people
who toiled and worked and made everything that these same ruling classes and
their spoiled-rotten children loved so much. And when kicked, the workers and
serfs did roll on their backs. That is, until London and people like him wrote
rants like this and WOKE THEM UP!
33. Hate your enemies with a whole heart, and if a man
smite you on one cheek, SMASH him on the other!; smite him hip and thigh, for
self-preservation is the highest law!
Note: again, taken with history and in context, this is
revolutionary talk. BUT: as far as LaVey taking this, does this say, "smite
people willy nilly, push them around and act superior?" If everyone adopted
this philosophy TODAY, how long do you think bullies would survive? No, it doesn't
say that at all.
34. He who turns the other cheek is a cowardly dog!
35. Give blow for blow, scorn for scorn, doom for doom
- with compound interest liberally added thereunto! Eye for eye, tooth for tooth,
aye four-fold, a hundred-fold!
Note: the Jewish people do preach this! It's a quote from
the Old Testament! I know Jack London knew it and so did the Social Revolutionaries,
many of whom were from Jewish backgrounds. But did LaVey realize he quoted from
the Bible here? And again, for our would-be neo-Satanist wannabes out there,
does this say: "Give blows for nothing, just be a bully and lord it over
anyone you can, be an asshole, give out scorn for scorn's sake, heap doom for
those inferior" (like the freaks in the movie Freaks for whom LaVey had
immense respect)? No, it doesn't say that. This is all talking about Lex Taliones
here, true individual culpability in action; and the Jews also meant it exactly
that way. But for the neo Satanists that abound these days, what is missing,
what often gets forgotten here, is the Fourth Satanic Statement: Kindness to
those that deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates (and here LaVey did
not mean lust!). With this in mind there is a whole different dimension to the
popular misconception attached to these words today. What happens today
is that people who have suffered as victims use this as their wail, as their
justification to bully others who never did anything to them (the abused become
abusers 99% of the time). Both LaVey's anti-religious intent and London's revolutionary
intent is wholly lost on them.
Make yourself a Terror to your adversary, and when he
goeth his way, he will possess much additional wisdom to ruminate over. Thus
shall you make yourself respected in all the walks of life, and your spirit
- your immortal spirit - shall live, not in an intangible paradise, but in the
brains and sinews of those whose respect you have gained.
Note: the Jewish people have done this, for the most part!
The Bolsheviks surely did this during the Revolution: it was called the Red
Terror! Felix Dzerzhinsky was the head of that. London knew all about this.
THE BOOK OF SATAN IV
36. Life is the great indulgence - death, the great abstinence.
Therefore, make the most of life - HERE AND NOW!
Note: again, this is thoroughly Marxist. They believed that
their day had come and this was their opportunity to either instill this knowledge
into the workers and serfs or die trying.
37. There is no heaven of glory bright, and no hell where
sinners roast. Here and now is our day of torment! Here and now is our day of
joy! Here and now is our opportunity! Choose ye this day, this hour, for no
redeemer liveth!
38. Say unto thine own heart, "I am mine own redeemer."
39. Stop the way of them that would persecute you. Let
those who devise thine undoing be hurled back to confusion and infamy. Let them
be as chaff before the cyclone and after they have fallen rejoice in thine own
salvation.
Note: again, London writes of persecution. The cyclone is
the revolution!
40. Then all thy bones shall say pridefully, "Who
is like unto me? Have I not been too strong for mine adversaries? Have I not
delivered MYSELF by mine own brain and body?"
Note: they did deliver themselves.
What would all this have meant to LaVey who lived during
the finest days of New Deal reforms, where any worker could make good money
and where 99% of the people here were thoroughly happy and content? He took
portions out of London's rant and applied them solely to religion.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Essay Three:
OH, but what if Arthur Desmond wrote Might is Right?
Tani Jantsang
There is no certainty as to who the author, Ragnar Redbeard,
was though a strong case has been made for Jack London being the real Redbeard.
The most likely other candidate is a man named Arthur Desmond
who was red-bearded, red-haired and whose poetry was very similar to that written
by Redbeard. Born in New Zealand of an Irish father and an English mother, his
actual date of birth is unknown, 1842 and 1859 being two of the years given.
Now listen to this - it only confirms my Jack London analysis
of the portions of text LaVey took:
While in New Zealand, Desmond stood as a radical candidate
for parliament, organized trade unions, championed the ideas of Henry George,
supported the Maori leader Te Kooti, and edited a radical paper called The Tribune.
He'd have had to champion the Maori against the ruling class Anglos! In case
you don't know it, "radical" means what came to be called "RED,"
Social Revolutionary type. It was a very common word used for this back then.
In 1892 Desmond left New Zealand for Sydney, Australia.
Here he continued his political activities, edited Hard Cash and The Standard
Bearer, wrote poetry which influenced the famous Australian poet, Henry Lawson,
joined the Labor Party, and associated with radical personalities like John
Dwyer who had known Marx and Bakunin; that's Karl Marx. His activities are notably
Hard Left Socialistic during this period.
Rumors: he left Australia in 1895, taking with him the unpublished
manuscript of Might is Right; he published Redbeard's Review in London; he lived
in Chicago where he co-authored a book called Rival Caesars with Will H. Dilg
(using the pseudonym "Desmond Dilg"); he edited the Lion's Paw under
the name of Richard Thurland. His date of death is not certain. One version
has him dying in Palestine in 1918 "while on service with General Allenby's
troops," another version claims he died in 1926, again in Palestine. On
the other hand, some say he had been running a bookshop in Chicago as late as
1927. And there are also weird stories such as that he was really Ambrose Bierce
and was shot during the Mexican Revolution. The fact is, there is no definite
evidence that Redbeard and Desmond were the same individual....
Some say that if Desmond was Redbeard, then his views must
have undergone a drastic change toward the end of his stay in Australia. Might
Is Right doesn't seem like a manifesto of a political radical intent on the
"emancipation of the workers." Oh no? OH YES IT IS! You can't use
an analysis based on PRESENT DAY behavior of "liberals" and not at
all on the REAL revolutionaries who behaved very differently.
If you cannot conceive of any contemporary saviors of the
working classes recommending Might is Right as required reading, (even
though it is claimed that it influenced some of the early Wobblies), then note
this: key word "CONTEMPORARY." The proletariat movement was one of
brute force and violent revolutionary take over - and subsequent purges! This
is something modern day pseudo-Marxists prefer to have amnesia about.
And if it has no appeal for those sentimental "Centralized
Government do-gooders" who profess care and love for ALL of mankind, then
note that they are the MODERN DAY, so-called "left wing," sick with
self-castrating liberalism, and in deep self-denial about, as Lenin would say
it: "What Needs To Be Done."
Redbeard sets the theme of his book in a note: "All
Else Is Error." "The natural world is a world of war; the natural
man is a warrior; the natural law is tooth and claw. All else is error. A condition
of combat everywhere exists. We are born into perpetual conflict. It is our
inheritance even as it was the inheritance of previous generations. The 'condition
of combat' may be disguised with the holy phrases of St. Francis, or the soft,
deceitful doctrines of a Kropotkin or a Tolstoy, but it cannot eventually be
evaded by any human being...it rules all things...and it decides all who imagine
policemanized populations, internationally regulated tranquility, and State
organized industrialism so joyful, blessed and divine."
LaVey chose to put in something about the traditions of
the past and how they become stifling NOW. Things must CHANGE. This was all
very true for revolutionary minded people back when Desmond lived - but it was
NOT true for people in the 1950's and 1960's living in the USA at all. FAR FROM
IT! Those were the GOOD DAYS, life was a wonder to be lived!
In this war of each against all (Pure Hobbes rubbish) there
are only a small number of victors. They alone conquer power and riches though
it is not THEY who actually DO the conquering; it is their obeying yes-sir mentality
soldiers who do it FOR them! And if the soldiers shoot their own generals and
execute their Kings? That's revolution.
He goes on to say that this is because "The great mass
of men who inhabit the world of today have no initiative, no originality or
independence of thought, but are mere subjective individualities, who never
had the slightest voice in fashioning the ideas that they formally revere."
The "average man...is a born thrall habituated from childhood to be governed
by others." That's exactly what Lenin said - which is why the masses had
to have a centralized revolutionary government to GUIDE them. He said that the
majority of the common people, the workers and serfs, can never become free
since they have no TIME to even THINK OF freedom. Felix Dzerzhinsky also wrote
of this situation. He also agreed that a Centralized Revolutionary Government
had to lead these masses and TEACH THEM!
Although Redbeard claims to scorn moral codes, stating that
"all arbitrary codes of right and wrong are insolent invasions of personal
liberty" and that greatness lies "in being beyond and above all moral
measurements," he is, still, a whopper of a moralist! He makes plain his
antagonism to Judeo-Christian morality, but his whole approach is shot through
with the perennial Christian moral desire to redeem the human race from "evil."
For him, what is "natural" is "right" and the further human
beings get away from "Nature," the further they depart from "right."
The question is how Redbeard would square his belief that "every breathing
being" is a differentiated ego with his demand that all these differentiated
egos accept the COMMON goal of being "natural"-as he defines it. If
you are unique, then what it is in your "nature to be" will not be
the same as what it is in the "nature of other individuals to be."
Indeed, what is natural" for you may well be "unnatural" for
others, and a collision unavoidable. Redbeard's interpretation of "social
Darwinism" clearly allows for this, but his morality of Nature equally
clearly negates it.
In fact, this contradiction is starkly illustrated by Redbeard
himself when he talks about his PURELY CHRISTIAN IDEAS OF sexual relations between
men and women. On the same page he proclaims that "moral principles...are
artificial human enactments, but not necessarily natural, honest or true. Moral
codes are the black terror of all dastards," and then goes on to state
that "readers must distinctly understand that sexual morality is nowise
condemned in these pages." WHY NOT? This is because "women are frail
beings at the best of times...they must be held in thorough subjection"
for "woe unto the Race if ever these lovable creatures should break loose
from mastership, and become the rulers or equals of Man." He follows this
warning with a denunciation of "sexual degeneracy," "promiscuity,"
and other "evils," in a language redolent of the SAME EXACT Christian
morality he IMAGINES he's so against! HA! "If our modern Sodoms,"
he writes, "were all razed to the ground, how Nature in all her perennial
purity would rejoice exultantly!" Substitute "God" for "Nature"
and what religious moralist would object? NONE.
Redbeard's dualistic and laughable view of "the nature"
of women" is in no way consistent either. In one paragraph of his chapter
on "Love, Women and War" he repeats his opinion of women as being
"incapable of self-mastership...mere babies in worldly concerns" (that's
because Christian Patriarchy tried to keep them that way!), but in the next
paragraph writes that "when their passions are stirred women have performed
deeds of heroism (and terror) that even a man with nerves of steel would hesitate
at...They have led armies and been criminals of the darkest dye." DARKest?
a PURELY Christian mind-set, thoroughly ingrained. Adam is good, bright, clean
and white. Eve is filthy and dark and dangerous: but sexy too. In claiming that
women are destined to be "subjects" and at the same time are capable
of being "rulers," Redbeard effectively destroys his own case for
male superiority and, what is more, seems oblivious of the fact that he is doing
it! Which proves MY: all Christians are oblivious of their dualism and their
contradictions. They are MORONS. Redbeard's view of women, the dualist view,
is IDENTICAL to that put forth by the Malleus Malificarum. The "good
ones" are frail and helpless; but the "evil ones" are 100 times
more dangerous and cunning than any males. Christian dualism all over again.
They can never escape this sickness.
Redbeard is also a racist but his racism undermines the
logic of his "philosophy of power." He writes of the capitalist that
he can 'do as he likes with his own,' as long as he has the power. He may own
the earth...if he wants to, and he may buy or sell men and nations if he feels
inclined to or thinks it profitable. There is in Nature no limit to his energies
or ambitions. All that is needed is power equal to his energies or ambitions.
All that is needed is power equal to the design. But the same principles may
be acted upon by any other man or association of men, and in the conflict that
ensues fitness is proved--absolutely and without doubt. The 'rights of the rich'
are what they can maintain and the 'rights of the poor' are not less. No bounds
are set to the accumulation of property, and none whatever to its re-distribution."
If, "all that is needed" for the survival of the fittest is "power
equal to the design" and "the same principles may be acted upon by
any other man or association of men," this must logically apply to all
human beings. If I can do as I like with my own as long as I have the power,
then it does not matter what race or color I am for I have shown that I am the
powerful one. Redbeard's racism, like his sexism, is completely inconsistent
with his own "philosophy of power" since he can only defend it by
using COLLECTIVIST notions that deny his individualist premise that there are
no "rights" outside the "might" of the individual.
Might Is Right is a work flawed by major contradictions.
Like the Christian bible, it can be used as a source for the most incompatible
views.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Essay Four:
If All You Have is Ragnar, Then You have Nothing!
By Comrade B and Kari Nevala
If all you have is Ragnar Redbeard, then you don't have
anything!
You don't have anything Satanic at all. You have an anti-Christian
wail that we Satanists are sick of hearing. Like hearing the wails of people
stuck in a fucking sickhouse. Get a clue: we aren't defined by Christianity,
for OR against. We are Satanists - something ELSE, something OTHER somethinng
OUTSIDE of Christianity. It is not for no reason that we speak of how gut deep
Christian childhood conditioning, cultural conditioning and indoctrination in
Christian values runs: we are aware of it (and sick of it). Like who wants to
hear wwaaaaa Jehova or wwhhaaaaa Jesus? No one I know.
Why are we sick of hearing this wail? I can hear that question
resounding in Satanic realms but only among the very few who didn't get a clue
yet. Why?
Because it is actually saying the damned pope is right!
That's why! It's saying that almost 2000 years of Christian idiocy is right,
too. They had might: ergo they were right? Bull fucking shit!
Ragnar, in the way LaVey used it and in the way neo-Satanists
gravitate toward it, is a WAILING SCREAMING person obviously very hurt in a
very deep way by the CHRISTIANITY that MIGHTILY conquered his own heart and
broke him forever more.
Ragnar doesn't even recognize that Jews and JHVH didn't
DO anything to his people. HIS OWN PEOPLE did it! They Christianized THEMSELVES!
Certainly there is no entity named Jehova that did it. Jews didn't do this at
all - in fact, Jews are NOT Christians! Jews DO NOT HAVE Jehova as their god!
They have ADONAI! OH, some Cruxtoid moron didn't know that? Ja Heve means "male/female."
It reads: "And then they began to call THEMSELVES male and female."
In the Cruxtoid version it reads "And then they began to call upon Jehova."
MORON CRUXTOIDS couldn't even get THAT right. And the wailing wannabes that
"like Ragnar" only like it because that is ALL they CAN identify with:
rebellion against their OWN PARENTS AND SICKENING CULTURE. They embody a twisted
broken creature filled with unreleased rage, fear, self-loathing and guilt.
SURE they hate it: they hate THEMSELVES.
Comrade Kari has interpreted or deconstructed "might
is right" in two different ways. These are not the usual ways Cruxtoids
think of or read things. They seem unable to really THINK in this sense.
The deconstruction of the dualist and Cruxtoid reading of
"might is right" gets flipped into the opposite one, and it also makes
it more brutal and real to piss off those who adore the brutality of the original
context. They love the brutality because they have BEEN BRUTALIZED WITHIN AND
WITHOUT! THUS do they only recognize brutality as being powerful!
The first interpretation deals with evolution:
Kari interprets "might" to mean "competence,
effectiveness -- that which works."
Kari interprets "right" to mean "that which
is justified." (The ENDS justify the MEANS?)
So here "might is right" is translated into "all
that works is justified," and further into "all that exists is justified".
A strong evolutionary statement, NOT as "survival of the fittest,"
but as the survival of all of that which works. It's even more brutal than the
original idea in a sense, and it's a great mockery against the "strength
adoring" ideals and idols (such as its original writer had). Yeah, "strength
idolizers" seldom HAVE strength. For if they HAD it, they'd not think about
it too much! (Only starving people think about food all the time....)
The second interpretation deals a bit more with ethics and
behavior, though it is very similar.
Kari translates "might" to mean "ability."
Kari translates "right" to mean "limitation". So "might
is right" becomes "ability is the only limitation". That is the
only real rule in the game of life. It's the denial of the what we are told
is of "importance and value" and even a denial of "laws and norms."
It is notably an anarchistic statement. It's a romantic reach out for the extreme
experience. A Dionysian feverish orgy. A repulsive horror for an Apollonian
mind.
These types of people will forever be BARRED from the Beauty
of that which is Satanic. Theirs will be as UGLY a landscape as the gray pretaloka
Stepfordesque world of the Cruxtoids. Skeletal people in a world with only shades
of dull grays, GRASPING and RAGING at their own existence: THAT is the only
world they inhabit. That is certainly NOT Satanic in any way, shape or form.
Copyright 1995-2003 Tani Jantsang, - wolf - , Proletariat , Kari Nevala Visit: Satanic Reds
