Marxism & Satanism

1,320 words

^[1]Edited by Alex Kurtagić 

Editor’s Note: 

The Following is an excerpt from Blood, written between April and May 1992. The text has been lightly edited, mainly for punctuation, spelling, and capitalization. [Additional paragraph breaks were introduced by Counter-Currents. — Greg Johnson]

The distinction that is given to banality in all socialist discourse, its fascination with failure—true failure, not a grandiloquent attempt at success that has failed . . . , but a worship of inadequacy in and of itself . . . was the extent to which Marxism, without realizing it, was the triumph of empty materialism over spiritual pretensions.

Even though it took on the spirit of a warrior psychology in terms of class, it always remained debased. It was always shallow, manufactured, drossy—the doctrine of ‘psychologised’ matter, the materiality of the fart and belch, the self-satisfaction of the belly. In short, it was a blasphemy against God, against the prospect of deliverance—hence, its great hatred for all forms of religion—and its desire to reduce humanity, despite its mock-heroic demeanor, to a meaningless absurdity. Where man would reduce itself to a mere lumpen; an average or quotidian element, a Massenmensch—the mass man—huddled together, middling and stupid, without culture and bereft of dignity.

In a sense, its ultimate aim was a form of shallowness in relation to the spirit, in so far as it understood the spirit as well. It was a form of Satanism in reverse, when we mean that Satanism is a doctrine of hierarchy, will, “freedom” (i.e., libertinage), and order, but that decks itself out in degradatory colors of heedlessness and anti-spirituality. If you like, Satanism, a religion of power (as Christians perceive it), is the triumph of the material over the spiritual when this takes place in the spiritual world, whereas Marxism is the triumph of materialism over spirituality in the general world, the world of society as well as the void—hence, its similarity with a doctrine of material pleasure and enjoyment, of epicurianism, in the religious world—a world it altogether scorns!

Satanism deals with the freedom to be degraded by a higher power, namely the Master, either the Devil (in the abstract) or the “master” of the lodge, temple, or coven in contemporary time, whereas Marxism affects to liberate, but actually degrades and imprisons in the concept of the material, to the extent to which it denies the spiritual outlet to human beings.

In any event, Satanism is a very complicated phenomenon—as I have made clear elsewhere—and there are many different versions, all of which clash with one another. What interests us, however, is the degree to which it represents a religion of power—of dexterity and force, of unrelieved suffering and renewal, when we have to remember that such religions, such faiths of power and abandonement, seek to accentuate the actual; they prepare individuals for their coming delapidation and loss.

It is as if they exaggerate what is already there—the fact that all forms are based on victimization to a certain extent. So they take up the abject and inhospitable elements of power and seek to project them on a larger screen. In a sense, therefore, Satanism—rather like sado-masochistic sexuality (which it resembles)—attracts towards it two sets of people: namely, those who wish to obey and those who wish to issue commands. As a consequence, it tends to resemble certain features of “mainstream” life and existence; although, it exaggerates them, it reduces them to a form of theater—at the very least, it seeks to put on a type of performance.

The difficulty arises when we have to ask ourselves whether the people concerned with this type of ritual actually believe in it. Do they consider themselves to be participating in acts that truly occur? In events that exist, given the prevalence of such things to dabble in the abnormal, at the very least the paranormal?

Satanism is partly a reaction against Christianity—Christian mores, with their humanitarianism and false sanctimony, as Luciferians conceive it—and an attempt to link with a pagan past. Hence, we see the attempt, even the wish-fulfillment, to have something to do with the God Pan, the Panseatic urge, and the desire to rebel against something, no matter what. Yet there are contradictory tendencies at the heart of the Satanic urge—namely, the desire for a type of health without humanism, but also a form of meaningless destructivity—sheer nihilism—as is evidenced by the case of those individuals who use the image of Lucifer as a prop to commit minor sordid crimes, such as the maltreatment of children, cruelty to animals, and so on.

There is also a major contradiction between the assertive and the submissive elements, often residing within the psyche of the same individual (as has already been noted). Also, a large number of Satanists—so it appears from the outside—are primarily concerned with abandonement, delusion, and self-abasement—particularly with a type of masochism, a defoliation that is reminiscent of the Exegesis cult.

This is particularly so in relation to a cult of damnation and renewal, whereby the scum and flotsam and jetsome of existence is piled on top of the individual. He essentially wallows around in his own filth, his own destructive propensities, whether self-inflicted or induced from without. In that, like Céline’s novels, an enormous amount of detritus—of inner filth—can pour forth over existence.

In a world where there is no pity, no joy, save Satanic joy, all is ardor, force, leadenness, and the commingling of arrested ecstasies. Nevertheless (as was the case with Milton’s Satan in Paradise Lost), this presentation of the facts can become heroic, at least anti-heroic, in that it posits the possibility of some sort of heroic (if not tragic) glamor at the base of derangement.

This is always the principle behind the Master, the dominator, in any such scenario, the master or wizard—warlock—who holds court over the coven, real or imaginary. Hence, we see the element of forced transgression—with echoes in the direction of the liberary subculture that calls itself “transgressive”—in such rituals. This is the degree to which they can be tied up (no pun intended) with the sexual dialectic of domination and withdrawal. As was the case with Kenneth Grant, widely commented on in Colin Wilson’s The Occult, particularly in relation to his fascination with sado-masochism and the fact that many of his covens, his so-called ‘black magic’, was just a cover for orgies, possible drug-taking, and spanking parties. This is what we might call the perversities, the Sunday-supplement jitter-bugging of the depraved bank clerk, the under-taker’s assistant, who is in need of counseling (if anyone needs it!), the sexual perversion of the C2 mind.

One thing we have to remember about Satanism, however, is its fascination with evil, with what we might call moral destructiveness; in other words, a situation where man knows that evil is “‘wrong.” All of which presupposes that some form of ethical system actually exists, where rival articulations of morality can be brought forward and made to do battle. Satanism itself, of course, is fascinated by the constructive use of destruction, the degree to which it is a harbinger of degeneration and renewal. Although, as already mentioned, Satanism does have a two-track ideology, an estimation of what it is to be “free” and human—anti-Christ-like—as well as decadent.

One factor that is often forgotten, however, is the connection that is made, particularly in the popular mind, mass journalism, et cetera, between Nazism and Satanism. At first sight, the two seem to have nothing in common, but they do share a rival lexicography, a fascination with destruction, despondency, and renewal. Ultimately, of course, the connection between the two of them melts and merges in the realm of “transgressive” fantasy: namely, the acts some “satanists” wish to achieve and those that were committed by the National Socialists—never mind the individual version of these acts committed by various “intellectual” killers, such as Myra Hindley (more accurately, Ian Brady), a woman who was able to give an ideological subtext to her actions.

Source: http://www.wermodandwermod.com/newsitems/news180220131431.html ^[2]