This file is an exerpt from The Book of Darkness, an official work of the Ordo
Templi Satanis, P.O. Box 1093, Atwater, CA 95301. It is copyright 1991. All
persons are hereby given permission to make copies and/or distribute this
exerpt, so long as in so doing the contents of this work is not altered in any
way, including this paragraph.
The Satanic Aristocracy (From the Book of the World)
Given the premise that there is, indeed, a natural aristocracy 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 unreasonable 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
aristocrat 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 aristocrat, 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, ability, 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
special instincts and abilities of the members of the natural aristocracy, 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 relationship; the Satanic
aristocrats provide the vision and the drive, while the herd-like masses
provide the labor and gross raw materials 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 dichotomy. 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 variety 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 discipline. 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, excessive
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 necessary self-discipline
required of the Satanist, creates an essential 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 expression 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 irrelevant. 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 eliminating 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
provided 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 individual, merely for its own sake.
If one of the masses must be sacrificed in order to achieve a worthwhile goal,
then the Satanist should have no qualms about doing so. For example, consider
some of the great autocratic leaders of history; Ramses, Alexander, 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. Second, 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 immortalization. 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 monuments?
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 anguish, 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 instantly destabilize the social situation and
would probably lead to a bloody revolt on the part of the masses aimed at the
aristocracy. 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 members. Such behavior on the part of
the aristocrats would destroy the sense of complacency enjoyed by the masses,
which is necessary for the smooth continuation of the path of societal
evolution, 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.
