Ordo Templi Satanis - The Satanic Aristocracy

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.