|
|
Given the premise that there is, indeed, a natural aristoc-
racy at work in the population, the question must be raised: how
should this aristocracy comport itself? By what strictures should
it govern its own behavior?
At the onset, it should be remembered that it is unreasona-
ble to assume the natural aristocracy would act according to the
same restrictions and under the same assumptions as the Masses.
Being possessed of abilities, inner drives, and creative forces
totally beyond the ken of the ordinary masses, the natural aris-
tocrat cannot be expected to lower himself to the level of the
ordinary citizen. Indeed, it is the aristocrat who is called upon
by society to engage in the grandest acts of self-sacrifice by
being forced into the role of leader and driving impetus for
society as a whole.
No rational person, and certainly not the Satanic aristo-
crat, would think of engaging in such self-sacrifice (or indeed,
in self-sacrifice of any kind) without expecting to receive some-
thing in return. Whether the rewards for such endeavors are
material or psychic, they should be forthcoming. For the most
part, the economic system built into Western society provides the
means for such rewards to be attained; power and wealth are
usually quite readily attainable by anyone with the drive, abili-
ty, and desire of the Satanic aristocrat.
This, then, becomes the motive for the Satanic aristocrats
selfless actions of leadership and innovation. Bearing the brunt
of economic, scientific, and cultural progress, the members of
the aristocracy can naturally assume they will bear the chief
portion of its output. The masses of humanity, lacking the spe-
cial instincts and abilities of the members of the natural aris-
tocracy, are merely drawn along in the currents thus created;
going along for a free ride, as it were, on the coattails of the
aristocracy. It is not too much to ask of the Masses that they
contribute in some gross material way to the successes envisaged
by the aristocracy. In this way, the interaction between the
aristocracy and the Masses can be seen as a symbiotic relation-
ship; the Satanic aristocrats provide the vision and the drive,
while the herd-like masses provide the labor and gross raw mate-
rials required to bring about the realization of these visions.
The Satanist, in his role as natural aristocrat, creator,
and visionary leader, must comport himself in a partial dichoto-
my. On the one hand, individual effort and self-reliance is the
key which unlocks the creative drive which defines the Satanist.
The greatest doom that a Satanist can bring upon himself is to
adopt the herd mentality of the Masses; in so doing, the creative
impulses are stifled and the very aristocratic qualities become
numbed. It is quite possible for a Satanist to betray his own
self and one day awake to find himself numbered among the herd.
On the other hand, the Satanist must act in concert with the
other members of the Aristocracy, providing a consistent and
coherent vision for the Masses to follow. Conflict between the
members of the aristocracy, when they arise, must be dealt with
swiftly and with a minimum of divulgence to the masses; the
aristocracy must at all times appear as a monolithic, comforting,
and stable institution. In order to maintain the malleability and
complacency of the Masses, their feeling of comfort and stability
must never be threatened by perceived internal dissension among
the aristocracy. This is one reason why civil wars in particular
strike such a distasteful chord in the mass psyche. Ordinary wars
can be understood and even tolerated, but civil wars, where the
leadership is seen to be at odds with itself, are intolerable.
Note too that, despite all protestations to the contrary, and all
the different -"isms" and ideologies at work in the world, there
is still a subconscious perception that, whatever side they
purport to represent, a leader is a leader, and ultimately all
leaders are on the same side.
This necessary confluence of the aristocracy is mirrored on
the individual level. Not only must the different members of the
aristocracy act in concert, but so too the individual Satanist
cannot be at odds against himself. This is important for a varie-
ty of reasons, magical and mundane, but it comes down to the fact
that the Will is the key to the success of the Satanist, and the
Will cannot be effectively employed and directed as long as the
mind is divided against itself.
The Satanist, then, must possess great stores of self disci-
pline. At all times, the mind of the Satanist must be clear and
unmuddled, free from exterior and internal factors that might
serve to disrupt the flow of both the intellect and the Will.
Specifically, this includes the use of psychotropic drugs, exces-
sive use of alcohol, etc. The very idea of a Satanist being
addicted to drugs or alcohol is self-contradictory: the Satanist
by definition is a master of his own Will. How can one be the
master of his own Will when he cannot even control an impulsive
craving for a certain substance, especially a substance which
limits, slows, and eventually destroys the very intellectual
process that separates Satanists from the masses in the first
place? No, the answer must lie in self-control at all times for
the Satanist. It is impossible to achieve consistent, conscious
acts of the Will when the Will itself is clouded.
The necessary individualism, when combined with the neces-
sary self-discipline required of the Satanist, creates an essen-
tial dichotomy within each and every true member of the natural
Satanic aristocracy. This inner tension is quite important to the
creative process as well, and it can be said that it is these
contradictory impulses which make an individual great. It must
also be remembered that in no way does one impulse outweigh or
negate the other. It is certainly possible, for instance, to
achieve inner self-discipline without sacrificing individuality.
So too is it possible to accept a certain amount of exteriorly
imposed regimentation, as long as such is done by a conscious
choice of the Will, and as long as the modes of individual ex-
pression and choice are not utterly extinguished in so doing. By
way of an example, a Satanist could certainly join the military,
which imposes a great deal of exterior order on the individual,
without sacrificing all individualism. However, it would not be
acceptable for the Satanist to, for example, join a group which
practices overt psychological conditioning ("brain washing",
"love bombing", "leader worship"), for the very nature of such
procedures destroys the individual's ability to make unbiased
conscious decisions. The Satanist must never allow any force,
psychological, chemical, or otherwise, to exert control over his
Will.
The Satanic aristocracy sees the masses as tools; means by
which the ends envisioned may be achieved. To this point of view,
it must be added that individual suffering, as such, is irrele-
vant. The ends are all that matter to the Satanist; the means are
chosen based on totally utilitarian and logical decisions.
Does this mean that the Satanist should go around eliminat-
ing people merely because it happens to be expedient? Certainly
not. Do you throw a brick through a window because it would be
easier than opening that window? Of course not. Why, then, would
the Satanist think so little of the tools that nature has provid-
ed that they would be squandered for a mere moment's pleasure, or
merely to shave a few minutes off the completion of a task.
On the other hand, this should not be taken to mean that the
Satanist will go out of his way to sustain the life of any indi-
vidual, merely for its own sake. If one of the masses must be
sacrificed in order to achieve a worthwhile goal, then the Satan-
ist should have no qualms about doing so. For example, consider
some of the great autocratic leaders of history; Ramses, Alexan-
der, Caesar, Napoleon, and Hitler. All of them have three things
in common. First, they were all autocratic tyrants who were
directly responsible for the deaths of millions of people. Sec-
ond, they lost; their empires were destroyed around them, usually
in a vast Gotterdammerung. Lastly, all will live for aeons beyond
their physical bodies, in the minds of the men that live after
them. Given enough time, the barbarity of their deeds fades, and
only their glory remains. This process is called remainfestation
by some; the achievement of immortality through one's impact on
history. Living beyond one's years in the hearts and minds of
others.
True, these are extreme examples of the principle, but still
valid ones. No price is too great to pay for such immortaliza-
tion. And, truth be told, the masses on whom those leaders built
their reputations are also vicariously immortalized as well;
where would Napoleon be without his armies? What would Ramses
have done without the vast ranks of slaves to create his monu-
ments? Whether you are a leader or a follower, immortality has a
heavy price.
This idea also precludes the killing of an individual merely
for personal pleasure, or for sport (unless, of course, that
individual is fully cognizant of what is happening, and agrees to
the process. There is nothing inherently wrong with suicide, if
it makes the individual happy, free of a life of pain and an-
guish, truly happy, perhaps, for a brief moment, for the first
time in a long and miserable life). This stricture is not based
on any arbitrary and facetious respect for life, as such, but
rather on very sound and concrete bases.
First, to have the aristocracy go around and slay members of
the masses with impunity would clearly and immediately undermine
the position of power of the aristocracy. Such freedoms would in-
stantly destabilize the social situation and would probably lead
to a bloody revolt on the part of the masses aimed at the aris-
tocracy. This was certainly a factor in the French Revolution.
Such an upheaval would certainly lie squarely contrary to the
interests of the aristocracy as a whole and its individual mem-
bers. Such behavior on the part of the aristocrats would destroy
the sense of complacency enjoyed by the masses, which is neces-
sary for the smooth continuation of the path of societal evolu-
tion, and as such should be banned. To allow it would run counter
to every goal of the aristocracy.
Too, such a squandering of the lives of the masses would
represent, ultimately, a sacrifice of material resources on the
part of the aristocrat in question. Once more we are left to
consider the question of the window; but in this instance you
don't even want the window open; you merely want to hear the
glass break. Is that worth the expense of a new window? Probably
not.
Once more, however, we must reiterate the relativity of
every decision. There is no way that every circumstance can be
foreseen, and thus there is no way that any code of behavior can
be totally applicable to every situation. In the end, the value
of each individual life must be decided individually, bearing in
mind that some lives are definitely worth more than others.