Ad copy

Satanism: The Triad I see a lot of talk, and a lot of confusion, about ‘Satanism’. There are people who argue satanists are atheist, there are people that argue they’re an activist network, and there are people that say they’re the ones in the Epstein files and behind various governments, religions or criminals. Luckily, I think we can safely say they’re are all correct. Satanists can, by my estimation, be rolled into roughly three groups. These groups, which fall under the one umbrella title, have little to do with each other and in fact can be fighting for totally opposite objectives. So, who are they? To my mind, they are: the activists, the misanthropes and the heretics. First we have ‘Official Satanism’ or ‘Satanism ™‘. These are groups such as Anton LaVey’s ‘Church of Satan’ or Lucien Greaves ‘The Satanic Temple’. These groups fit into our first category: the activists. These organisations, and their supporters, are the ones who most often claim that Satanists are atheists. They tend to be in favour of individual rights above all else, but increasingly with a left-wing slant (ironic, as the original ‘Satanic Bible’ effectively advocated for an Ayn Rand style libertarianism). These supporters are best described as ‘activists with an aesthetic’, their only real association with Satan as an ideal being their adversarial nature to the Christian society they have found themselves in. It seems they wear Satan as a costume without actually understanding the predatory nature of the force with which they align themselves, predominantly seeking to upset their parents (either familial or those in the assumed role of governance). They often come in a variety of neon hair colours and are also, often, incredibly loud. The second type is less talked about, although their sinister prominence has grown over time. I am, for now, going to refer to them as ‘the misanthropes’, although I will explain why this isn’t a good term for them later (actually being an understatement). This group is most easily differentiated from organised (ie atheist) satanism by their theistic viewpoint; they actually believe in Satan as a deity and they treat him as such through offerings of pain and death. Not only that, but there is none of the ambiguity in their vision of Satan you may find in the others two groups. To this second group Satan is an entity that thrives on evil, is pro-suffering and, at the farthest reaches of the ideology, anti-life. It is this last factor that means I am reluctant to use the terms ‘nihilist’ or ‘misanthropic’ too much; ‘misbiotic’ would be a better phrase to describe the ultimate scale at the far end of this ideology. They are not indifferent to all concepts, they do not just hate people; the most extreme adherents wish to undo life itself. Some of the groups that make up this sector of Satanism are decentralised terrorist or criminal organisations, dealing in the black market profit and notoriety that can be made from suffering. While the profit motive in these operations is always there, it is important to note that notoriety is the main driver; it is the religion of the people involved to spread evil. The reason why comes in roughly two flavours; those who wish to see the suffering continue in perpetuity in a return to Darwinian principles (no small wonder these groups often align with neo-fascist ideals) and those who wish to work toward total, universal death (anti-cosmic Satanists). While this collection by turns may sound by turns cartoonish or psychotic, both schools of thought share ground with a surprisingly diverse number of other philosophies. The ‘might-makes-right’ argument that lays the foundations of Satanism (or, in Crowley’s oft quoted words, ‘the whole of the law is do what thou wilt’) may be the rejection of Abrahamic collectivism but it isn’t alone in its acknowledgement that force, to a large degree, dictates morality in any given time and place. At its fundament is an acknowledgement that the law of the jungle is the base which all transcendental ideologies are built off of, and thus it seeks to incorporate this into any following idealogical structures. For the second camp in the misbiotics, their modus operandi is succinctly put in one of the many cacophonic anthems that proclaim the ideology as ‘allt för doden’ (all for death). The outline is fairly simple: the material world is effectively a hurdle which must be overcome. To this group, the logical progression away from material existence is to leave it by the most obvious means. While this may sound beyond any kind of sense, ideologically speaking it isn’t totally alone in the woods either. From the cold calculations of antinatalist philosophers, through the apocalyptic endgame of the abrahamic religions, all the way up to the new-age theosophy, many schools of thought see mundane existence as a trial to be completed or, at worst, a trap which must be broken out of. It is not, however, this view which offers us a unifying view of what I would consider ‘satanic’ thought, but in the solution; to the satanist, the bonds to life must be broken through the shattering of taboo. Outside of Satanism, we can see this solution most obviously and straightforwardly practiced by the Aghori Hindus whose cannibalistic rituals are carried out with almost this explicit aim. But we do not need to look to a distant sect to see this praxis and can find the same thinking far closer to home even within the abrahamic triad. Through his attempts to trigger messianic redemption not through promoting good but by encouraging transgression, Jacob Frank gave us possibly the world’s first Jewish Satanist cult. From what I’ve seen recently, discussion regarding the influence this group, and groups like it, have had on the wider society is currently something of a hot button topic. So, finally, we come to the third group: the heretics. It is at this point that I must apologise; you may find this somewhat of a cop out. The heretics are not easily defined by unified positions, but more by what they are not. It is not a self-identified group, but instead a label applied externally. Within the heretics, I would include everyone working outside of the three strains of abrahamic orthodoxy and, not only that, many of those within as well. Whether Catholic versus Protestant, Sunni against Shiite, atheist or anyone belonging to the myriad of non-abrahamic religions, all of us are a heretic to someone or other. What we see as logical or unambiguous good, others will spy the sinister machinations of the devil. Even those who follow orthodoxy to the letter are not immune, as any fresh set of eyes can view ignorance of some interpretation of divine revelation as evidence of satan’s trade. I will say it again: we are all heretics to someone. If you’ve made it this far then thankyou and well done. Whether you’ve read to get a better understanding of your opposition or out of interest, I hope you got something from this. I’ve tried to be as straightforward and unbiased as I can. If you are wondering where I fall into all of this, then I may tell you if this page gets enough traction. Follow, like and share for more content. Ed