Four essays of interest and insight on the notion of might being right, on the original writer and his intentions, and on what it has become.


Essay One:

War Cry of the Vanquished
Might is Right? Or is it that RIGHT IS RIGHT?
By Ole Wolf

Many have said before, and repeatedly, that "might is right!" is the war cry of the vanquished, that is, it's the cry of those that fell victims of might. Outrageous as these words may seem at first to those that read The Satanic Bible, they are the readers' truth. Although it is long forgotten and suppressed, they have seen first hand since childhood that regardless what seemed right, what became right was determined by might. Throughout childhood and adolescence, they have felt the effects of might on their own minds and bodies. But was it right to break their very instincts and leave them broken? Was it right to leave these people virtually sensually dead compared to a person who is not broken No, it was wrong; it was anti-human in the extreme, and Christianity does this (along with many other religions that do not dominate our culture in the West) from the moment of birth.

Ideally, upon recognizing this, they would deliver themselves by their own minds and bodies by recognizing what was done to them and how it was done, and then themselves determine right and wrong. They would possess an inner quiet strength that rendered them too strong for the adversaries that have oppressed them as long as they can remember. And yet, they are not content with having won--or so they believe--the battle for their minds. Although they should have become freed from their original oppressors, years of oppression has become hardwired in their bodies and internalized, and they have become their OWN oppressors. They will fight against oppression until the day they die, never realizing that now the battlefield lies within themselves. As oppression fights oppression within the same person, they are the bullied people become bullies, or stalkees become stalkers. Unlike the person that destroys his oppressors in retribution quickly and then stops, they want to become oppressors themselves and continue the status quo, under a new name.

So you hear them, louder than ever, proclaim that "might is right!," conjure grand theories about mutual preying, and consider themselves wolves among sheep rather than humans among humans. Without considering whether life negating and energy-draining competition for "right by the means of might" is an advantageous form of interaction among human animals, they fall prey to solipsism and believe that their own suppression naturally extends to every human specimen. It is this solipsism that prompts them to repeatedly postulate a philosophy that has long since been recognized as pseudo-science and termed "vulgar-Darwinism:" the notion that the human animal must prey upon its peers in order to survive. These "advocates of undefiled wisdom" are not concerned by contradictory facts of biology, however. Neither are they concerned about facts of history or sociology, which reveal how profoundly Christianity has been secularized into all levels of society by means of sheer might.

This should stand as a warning beacon to the Satanists who advocate that might should continue to be right; but instead, they appraise might, never realizing that might was the very technique that was used to oppress them in the first place. Really! As self-proclaimed adversaries of the Christian reign, they should have been crushed at birth per their own principles, since only Christian mercy saves them from being persecuted and destroyed because of their newly-gained philosophy. You'll also see that whenever any form of might that they so highly cherish is used against them in the form of draconian measures from influential Christians, their battle cries fade to desolate wailings about unfair treatment. Unfair?

They never ask themselves the question if the sudden feeling of "might" that they get upon reading The Satanic Bible, or by calling themselves Satanists, could be a mere illusion. In fact, it is. "We are the ones who change the world," they say. So? What are they doing as physicists, chemists, or engineers to investigate new, lasting energy sources that do not pollute the Earth? What are they doing as physicians to find more effective ways to avoid or cure diseases? What are they doing as economists to solve the problem of poverty? What are they doing as social workers to ease the lives of the millions for whom society has become too complicated? What are they doing as lawyers to devise laws that appeal to common sense and are manageable by everyone? What are they doing as teachers to help children learn and understand so that they will become able to think and act by themselves and not be duped by religious fairy-tales? What have they done to please their lovers that she or he may hold on to them for other reasons than the illusions in the lovers' heads?

Okay, we know their standard answer: "We do not care about poverty, ignorance, pollution, diseases, or others' lack of pleasures. We only want our own indulgences," they state. Does this mean they're ignorant of the fact that social disasters are the most fertile soil for all types of religious oppression? Does it mean that they are ignorant of the fact that their indulgences are only possible as long as there are people who feel responsible to continuously attempt to fight the inequality and inhumanity of might? Does it mean that they are ignorant of the fact that if might truly became right, they would be completely crushed?

These people are those that can identify with Satan because they're TOTALLY WITHIN the Christian mind-set, where Satan represents the LOSER. That's how I and many others view them: people that lost the battle for their minds; ultimate Christians who are still playing the Christian game.

With the exception of a few members, most of the members I and many others have encountered are Christian morons who are either renaming Jesus to "intellectualism" or people that think indulgence means porn (which is essentially the same thing as intellectualism).

You feel the black flame within you, or you don't feel it. Some don't have it, and they gravitate towards the Church of Satan and some other Satanic organizations because it provides an identification with LOST divinity, or so I'd imagine, it provides them with a "group wailing ground" in which to make strong sounds and bolster up each others broken egos. Instead of feeling divinity within them, they act like little Hitlers ("their own gods"), which is completely superficial. That's them: nothing inside. They aren't REAL so they have to be OTHER things (gods).

What Christian indoctrination does, even NON-RELIGIOUS Christian CULTURAL indoctrination, is wrong, it is monstrous. We know of NO Satanist in ANY organization, nor anyone in any Wiccan or Pagan organization, that would disagree, especially if they are aware of how much "wrong" was done to them by this entire 2000 year old tradition. Yet the Christians surely had MIGHT. The Christians still have might, but their free-handed use of it has been tempered by those who were TRULY against them: and none of those adversaries who really pushed them back and won gains for the human condition ever thought or said that might was right. They knew better. They had Undefiled Wisdom - FOR REAL.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Essay Two

Analysis of "Might is Right" (MiR) by Jack London, using only portions that Anton LaVey took. By Tani Jantsang

First off: Jack London was often a Hobo and a Bum in life and he rejected civilization as it was. He was also a militant Socialist! He took part in labor rallies. That's who wrote MiR! Anton LaVey only took portions he liked. Anton LaVey did not write MiR.Let's put some historicity into this and understand the author's intent. "The writer/author" in this analysis refers to Jack London and NOT to Anton LaVey unless specifically stated. This is an analysis that takes the text back to the time it was written and within the context, and inside the paradigm, of those times. LaVey, in the 1960's, took portions and applied them solely to religion and as a semi-counter to the hippie movement. And again, today in the realm of neo-Satanism it is again being misapplied and taken wholly out of context. This was not an anti-religious diatribe at all per se; it was a diatribe typical of the Social Revolutionaries, as they were called back then. Social Revolutionaries were also called: REDS.


1. In this arid wilderness of steel and stone I raise up my voice that you may hear. To the East and to the West I beckon. To the North and to the South I show a sign proclaiming: Death to the weakling, wealth to the strong!

Note: Jack London lives in the "wilderness" of steel and stone (NOT a wilderness at all and, in fact, London loved the wilderness and nature). He proclaims death to the weakling and wealth to the strong. He PROCLAIMS this. Is he saying it should be this? Since he himself was NOT wealthy or powerful in that sense, lived as a Hobo and was a Militant Socialist, one has to question and analyze that: you see, in those days, physically fit and strong people were workers: the sickly and weak were the aristocrats! London was a hardy man, strong, fit: and he despised the weaklings that ruled! Is he saying simply that it is this, that this is the status quo where the steel and stone cities have killed the wildernesses? Or is he saying that wealth should go to the strong who actually work and make that wealth, and not go to the weak types who ruled when he wrote this? You have to understand that these Socialists were tough as hell, and hell bent on violent revolution and the extermination of the weak rulers of that time. 2. Open your eyes that you may see, Oh men of mildewed minds, and listen to me ye bewildered millions!

3. For I stand forth to challenge the wisdom of the world; to interrogate the "laws" of man and of "God"!

Note: He is questioning not just Christianity or religion. He is ALSO questioning the laws (legal) of MAN. Remember, he was a Militant Socialist! They ALL questioned the "laws of man" and wanted to write new ones (often after a violent revolution).

4. I request reason for your golden rule and ask the why and wherefore of your ten commandments.

5. Before none of your printed idols do I bend in acquiescence, and he who saith "thou shalt" to me is my mortal foe!

Note: What have the 10 commandments to do with the laws of man or labor relations which London was really involved with? Nothing. But he who says "thou shalt" is my mortal foe? This is like what Aleister Crowley talked about: Do as thou Wilt is the Whole of the Law! (RIGHT ON). The "Golden Rule" is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In other words, if you would want workers to exploit you and rip you off, then do that to them! If you do not want them to do that, then don't do that to them. The ruling classes preached the golden rule, but theysurely did not practice it unless they were suicidal.

6. I dip my forefinger in the watery blood of your impotent mad redeemer, and write over his thorn-torn brow: The TRUE prince of evil - the king of slaves!

Note: This is a take off of "RELIGION IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE" which was said by Karl Marx - the founder of ALL Socialism! Religion was used to keep everyone else oppressed and induce them to tolerate exploitation; note that religion had MIGHT back then. Socialism was dead against this. They regarded the ruling class as evil and knew the ruling classes used religion to keep everyone else down. Note clearly that London is calling Jesus the True Prince of Evil; with Jesus being the one who is Lord and Master over all slaves! The Master has the might, here Jesus is named as that mighty one: the King of Slaves! If you want to dualize this: if Jesus is the true prince of evil, then Satan is the prince of good! London, however, was not into Satan. Note the lack of mention.

7. No hoary falsehood shall be a truth to me; no stifling dogma shall encramp my pen!

8. I break away from all conventions that do not lead to my earthly success and happiness.

Note: the hoary falsehoods are the laws of man, not just "god." He believes, as all Socialists believe, that everyone was born with the Natural Right to pursue life, liberty and happiness! Even Felix Dzerzhinsky said this and he never heard of Jefferson!

9. I raise up in stern invasion the standard of the strong!

10. I gaze into the glassy eye of your fearsome Jehovah, and pluck him by the beard; I uplift a broad-axe, and split open his worm-eaten skull!

11. I blast out the ghastly contents of philosophically whited sepulchers and laugh with sardonic wrath!

Note: Anton LaVey chose to pick out things focusing on what is religiously oriented here. Anton LaVey never advocated taking up arms against the government Socialists DID advocate this and so did London.


12. Behold the crucifix; what does it symbolize? Pallid incompetence hanging on a tree.

Note: This is also how such revolutionaries regarded their own ruling classes - who used religion to stifle the workers! Remember, London was militant in the labor movement as a Socialist, he was not "just" a Union guy. Christians in his time preached peace, but practiced war all the time.

13. I question all things. As I stand before the festering and varnished facades of your haughtiest moral dogmas, I write thereon in letters of blazing scorn: Lo and behold; all this is fraud!

Note: Marx himself could have written this paragraph, he wrote such things in personal letters.

14. Gather around me, Oh! ye death-defiant, and the earth itself shall be thine, to have and to hold!

15. Too long the dead hand has been permitted to sterilize living thought!

Note: this is classically against the ruling classes who were regarded as conservative as opposed to progressive. This is a call for progressive revolt.

16. Too long right and wrong, good and evil have been inverted by false prophets!

17. No creed must be accepted upon authority of a "divine" nature.

Note: No creed is NO CREED.

Religions must be put to the question.

Note: Now London includes religion.

No moral dogma must be taken for granted - no standard of measurement deified. There is nothing inherently sacred about moral codes. Like the wooden idols of long ago, they are the work of human hands, and what man has made, man can destroy!

Note: he is NO LONGER speaking about religion. Standards of measurement (regarding classes and etc.), moral codes (our laws), human laws. He's calling for revolution as many other Socialists in the labor movement did.

18. He that is slow to believe anything and everything is of great understanding, for belief in one false principle is the beginning of all unwisdom.

Note: he says false principle. He is not talking about religion here anymore!

19. The chief duty of every new age is to upraise new men to determine its liberties, to lead it towards material success - to rend the rusty padlocks and chains of dead custom that always prevent healthy expansion. Theories and ideas that may have meant life and hope and freedom for our ancestors may now mean destruction, slavery, and dishonor to us!

Note: Upraise new men (make the New Man) liberties, material success, chains of dead custom that prevent healthy expansion (ruling classes = dead customs of altar and throne). This is clearly a political-economic statement here from London. It has nothing to do with religion AT ALL. There is NOTHING in Christianity that is against pure Nazism OR pure Communism OR Libertarianism, OR any other political system. The Christian Bible is VERY versatile like that. This is not about religion.

20. As environments change, no human ideal standeth sure!

Note: again, ideals. He is trashing the current ideals, as in IDEOLOGY. He is saying "Let's GET REAL and SMASH ideals."

21. Whenever, therefore, a lie has built unto itself a throne, let it be assailed without pity and without regret, for under the domination of an inconvenient falsehood, no one can prosper.

Note: Who dominated? The ruling classes, Kings, Empires and yes, they were in cahoots with religious organizations or else they'd have destroyed the religious organizations. The Catholic Church put both Muzzolini and Hitler into power; but they regarded the Socialists as anti-Christs!

22. Let established sophisms be dethroned, rooted out, burnt and destroyed, for they are a standing menace to all true nobility of thought and action!

23. Whatever alleged "truth" is proven by results to be but an empty fiction, let it be unceremoniously flung into the outer darkness, among the dead gods, dead empires, dead philosophies, and other useless lumber and wreckage!

Note: Again London speaks not just of dead gods, but of dead empires and philosophies. The writer was a Militant Socialist. One might get a gleaning of such rhetoric by reading Das Kapital by Marx for surely Jack London, the writer of MiR, DID read it!

24. The most dangerous of all enthroned lies is the holy, the sanctified, the privileged lie - the lie everyone believes to be a model truth.

Note: Privileged lie. Told to the privileged classes at the time and then told to the workers and serfs. People used to believe that they were serfs and the Kings were Kings because "god ordained it."

It is the fruitful mother of all other popular errors and delusions. It is a hydra-headed tree of unreason with a thousand roots. It is a social cancer!

Note: See article Tree of Destruction on this website. It's about the same kind of thing.

25. The lie that is known to be a lie is half eradicated, but the lie that even intelligent persons accept as fact - the lie that has been inculcated in a little child at its mother's knee - is more dangerous to contend against than a creeping pestilence!

Note: again, think in terms of political-economic-social realities here. That is where the writer was coming from.

26. Popular lies have ever been the most potent enemies of personal liberty. There is only one way to deal with them: Cut them out, to the very core, just as cancers. Exterminate them root and branch. Annihilate them, or they will us!

Note: this is almost a quote from Lenin here. "Cut them out, to the core, as a disease; exterminate them root and branch!" He said such things about the bourgeoisie and compradores. As a Militant Socialist, it is certain that London read Lenin's works! Lenin often argued against established dogmas by using pure reason.


27. "Love one another" it has been said is the supreme law, but what power made it so? Upon what rational authority does the gospel of love rest? Why should I not hate mine enemies - if I "love" them does that not place me at their mercy?

Note: he is speaking rhetorically - the serfs and exploited workers did love their enemies, even fought wars to enrich their enemies and got nothing in return. Keep in mind, the author was a Militant Socialist! They were at the mercy of their enemies who were the ruling classes that everyone looked up to and loved.

28. Is it natural for enemies to do good unto each other - and WHAT IS GOOD?

29. Can the torn and bloody victim "love" the blood-splashed jaws that rend him limb from limb?

Note: Again, he speaks to the serfs and workers who were torn asunder and who continued to respect their tormentors! Can the slave love the master? Remember, Jesus is the Prince of Slaves.

30. Are we not all predatory animals by instinct? If humans ceased wholly from preying upon each other, could they continue to exist?

Note: As a matter of fact, YES, WE WOULD "CONTINUE TO EXIST" - and we would be much better off at that! ALL Militant Socialists advocated using either brute force, armed revolution or other less violent means, or labor strikes (which were very violent back then) to smash and change the system - but then they advocated replacing it or changing it with something much more along the lines of how things were very long ago, without all the Hobbesian strife and closed-hearted distrust of everyone. What was actually accomplished in the USA was the New Deal (prior to that, the Bill of Rights!)

If you feel that this flies in the very face of "MIGHT IS RIGHT," you are absolutely correct since you are not understanding the person who wrote it and his life; you are not understanding what it was like back then and you do not know the history. As said before, the cry: "MIGHT IS RIGHT," is a social cancer, a LIE, a hydra-headed tree of unreason with a thousand roots. ALL Socialist Movements, back when London wrote this, DEBUNKED Might Is Right for the cancer that it was. Right here, LaVey is either revealing London's true intent, knew exactly what London was talking about, knew about the history of such struggles and used the same intent; or he was just copying something he thought sounded anti-religious which ended up misleading a whole lot of wannabes. I'd definitely assume LaVey took this portion to apply it to Christianity and keep it on the religious level. At the time LaVey wrote this, there were no ruling classes in this sense exploiting him or anyone else. (In fact, no one ever exploited LaVey: if he died poor he did so due to his own choices.) Those days of ruling classes and exploitation, during LaVey's time, were gone: THANKS TO MILITANT LEFTIST LABOR ACTIVISTS LIKE JACK LONDON! THANKS TO FD ROOSEVELT!

31. Is not "lust and carnal desire" a more truthful term to describe "love" when applied to the continuance of the race? Is not the "love" of the fawning scriptures simply a euphemism for sexual activity, or was the "great teacher" a glorifier of eunuchs?

Note: Don't make the common mistake of taking the word "love" or "sex" out of context here. Militant Socialists saw "romantic love" as something decadent, a leisure activity engaged in and written much about by the ruling classes while the toilers of the world had lives of abject misery and probably never were loved and could not feel love since they didn't have time to love anyone. They saw it rightly as glorified sex, nothing more.

32. Love your enemies and do good to them that hate and use you - is this not the despicable philosophy of the spaniel that rolls upon its back when kicked?

Note: "that hate and use you." Christianity doesn't "use" anyone, nor does it "hate" anyone. It's merely a philosophy; "it" can't do anything and its philosophy can literally be used for anything due to its versatile and contradictory nature. People do things: things are not done by "-ianities" or "-isms." Ruling classes used everyone, they had malicious contempt for the very people who toiled and worked and made everything that these same ruling classes and their spoiled-rotten children loved so much. And when kicked, the workers and serfs did roll on their backs. That is, until London and people like him wrote rants like this and WOKE THEM UP!

33. Hate your enemies with a whole heart, and if a man smite you on one cheek, SMASH him on the other!; smite him hip and thigh, for self-preservation is the highest law!

Note: again, taken with history and in context, this is revolutionary talk. BUT: as far as LaVey taking this, does this say, "smite people willy nilly, push them around and act superior?" If everyone adopted this philosophy TODAY, how long do you think bullies would survive? No, it doesn't say that at all.

34. He who turns the other cheek is a cowardly dog!

35. Give blow for blow, scorn for scorn, doom for doom - with compound interest liberally added thereunto! Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, aye four-fold, a hundred-fold!

Note: the Jewish people do preach this! It's a quote from the Old Testament! I know Jack London knew it and so did the Social Revolutionaries, many of whom were from Jewish backgrounds. But did LaVey realize he quoted from the Bible here? And again, for our would-be neo-Satanist wannabes out there, does this say: "Give blows for nothing, just be a bully and lord it over anyone you can, be an asshole, give out scorn for scorn's sake, heap doom for those inferior" (like the freaks in the movie Freaks for whom LaVey had immense respect)? No, it doesn't say that. This is all talking about Lex Taliones here, true individual culpability in action; and the Jews also meant it exactly that way. But for the neo Satanists that abound these days, what is missing, what often gets forgotten here, is the Fourth Satanic Statement: Kindness to those that deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates (and here LaVey did not mean lust!). With this in mind there is a whole different dimension to the popular misconception attached to these words today. What happens today is that people who have suffered as victims use this as their wail, as their justification to bully others who never did anything to them (the abused become abusers 99% of the time). Both LaVey's anti-religious intent and London's revolutionary intent is wholly lost on them.

Make yourself a Terror to your adversary, and when he goeth his way, he will possess much additional wisdom to ruminate over. Thus shall you make yourself respected in all the walks of life, and your spirit - your immortal spirit - shall live, not in an intangible paradise, but in the brains and sinews of those whose respect you have gained.

Note: the Jewish people have done this, for the most part! The Bolsheviks surely did this during the Revolution: it was called the Red Terror! Felix Dzerzhinsky was the head of that. London knew all about this.


36. Life is the great indulgence - death, the great abstinence. Therefore, make the most of life - HERE AND NOW!

Note: again, this is thoroughly Marxist. They believed that their day had come and this was their opportunity to either instill this knowledge into the workers and serfs or die trying.

37. There is no heaven of glory bright, and no hell where sinners roast. Here and now is our day of torment! Here and now is our day of joy! Here and now is our opportunity! Choose ye this day, this hour, for no redeemer liveth!

38. Say unto thine own heart, "I am mine own redeemer."

39. Stop the way of them that would persecute you. Let those who devise thine undoing be hurled back to confusion and infamy. Let them be as chaff before the cyclone and after they have fallen rejoice in thine own salvation.

Note: again, London writes of persecution. The cyclone is the revolution!

40. Then all thy bones shall say pridefully, "Who is like unto me? Have I not been too strong for mine adversaries? Have I not delivered MYSELF by mine own brain and body?"

Note: they did deliver themselves.

What would all this have meant to LaVey who lived during the finest days of New Deal reforms, where any worker could make good money and where 99% of the people here were thoroughly happy and content? He took portions out of London's rant and applied them solely to religion.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Essay Three:

OH, but what if Arthur Desmond wrote Might is Right?

Tani Jantsang

There is no certainty as to who the author, Ragnar Redbeard, was though a strong case has been made for Jack London being the real Redbeard.

The most likely other candidate is a man named Arthur Desmond who was red-bearded, red-haired and whose poetry was very similar to that written by Redbeard. Born in New Zealand of an Irish father and an English mother, his actual date of birth is unknown, 1842 and 1859 being two of the years given.

Now listen to this - it only confirms my Jack London analysis of the portions of text LaVey took:

While in New Zealand, Desmond stood as a radical candidate for parliament, organized trade unions, championed the ideas of Henry George, supported the Maori leader Te Kooti, and edited a radical paper called The Tribune. He'd have had to champion the Maori against the ruling class Anglos! In case you don't know it, "radical" means what came to be called "RED," Social Revolutionary type. It was a very common word used for this back then.

In 1892 Desmond left New Zealand for Sydney, Australia. Here he continued his political activities, edited Hard Cash and The Standard Bearer, wrote poetry which influenced the famous Australian poet, Henry Lawson, joined the Labor Party, and associated with radical personalities like John Dwyer who had known Marx and Bakunin; that's Karl Marx. His activities are notably Hard Left Socialistic during this period.

Rumors: he left Australia in 1895, taking with him the unpublished manuscript of Might is Right; he published Redbeard's Review in London; he lived in Chicago where he co-authored a book called Rival Caesars with Will H. Dilg (using the pseudonym "Desmond Dilg"); he edited the Lion's Paw under the name of Richard Thurland. His date of death is not certain. One version has him dying in Palestine in 1918 "while on service with General Allenby's troops," another version claims he died in 1926, again in Palestine. On the other hand, some say he had been running a bookshop in Chicago as late as 1927. And there are also weird stories such as that he was really Ambrose Bierce and was shot during the Mexican Revolution. The fact is, there is no definite evidence that Redbeard and Desmond were the same individual....

Some say that if Desmond was Redbeard, then his views must have undergone a drastic change toward the end of his stay in Australia. Might Is Right doesn't seem like a manifesto of a political radical intent on the "emancipation of the workers." Oh no? OH YES IT IS! You can't use an analysis based on PRESENT DAY behavior of "liberals" and not at all on the REAL revolutionaries who behaved very differently.

If you cannot conceive of any contemporary saviors of the working classes recommending Might is Right as required reading, (even though it is claimed that it influenced some of the early Wobblies), then note this: key word "CONTEMPORARY." The proletariat movement was one of brute force and violent revolutionary take over - and subsequent purges! This is something modern day pseudo-Marxists prefer to have amnesia about.

And if it has no appeal for those sentimental "Centralized Government do-gooders" who profess care and love for ALL of mankind, then note that they are the MODERN DAY, so-called "left wing," sick with self-castrating liberalism, and in deep self-denial about, as Lenin would say it: "What Needs To Be Done."

Redbeard sets the theme of his book in a note: "All Else Is Error." "The natural world is a world of war; the natural man is a warrior; the natural law is tooth and claw. All else is error. A condition of combat everywhere exists. We are born into perpetual conflict. It is our inheritance even as it was the inheritance of previous generations. The 'condition of combat' may be disguised with the holy phrases of St. Francis, or the soft, deceitful doctrines of a Kropotkin or a Tolstoy, but it cannot eventually be evaded by any human being...it rules all things...and it decides all who imagine policemanized populations, internationally regulated tranquility, and State organized industrialism so joyful, blessed and divine."

LaVey chose to put in something about the traditions of the past and how they become stifling NOW. Things must CHANGE. This was all very true for revolutionary minded people back when Desmond lived - but it was NOT true for people in the 1950's and 1960's living in the USA at all. FAR FROM IT! Those were the GOOD DAYS, life was a wonder to be lived!

In this war of each against all (Pure Hobbes rubbish) there are only a small number of victors. They alone conquer power and riches though it is not THEY who actually DO the conquering; it is their obeying yes-sir mentality soldiers who do it FOR them! And if the soldiers shoot their own generals and execute their Kings? That's revolution.

He goes on to say that this is because "The great mass of men who inhabit the world of today have no initiative, no originality or independence of thought, but are mere subjective individualities, who never had the slightest voice in fashioning the ideas that they formally revere." The "average man...is a born thrall habituated from childhood to be governed by others." That's exactly what Lenin said - which is why the masses had to have a centralized revolutionary government to GUIDE them. He said that the majority of the common people, the workers and serfs, can never become free since they have no TIME to even THINK OF freedom. Felix Dzerzhinsky also wrote of this situation. He also agreed that a Centralized Revolutionary Government had to lead these masses and TEACH THEM!

Although Redbeard claims to scorn moral codes, stating that "all arbitrary codes of right and wrong are insolent invasions of personal liberty" and that greatness lies "in being beyond and above all moral measurements," he is, still, a whopper of a moralist! He makes plain his antagonism to Judeo-Christian morality, but his whole approach is shot through with the perennial Christian moral desire to redeem the human race from "evil." For him, what is "natural" is "right" and the further human beings get away from "Nature," the further they depart from "right." The question is how Redbeard would square his belief that "every breathing being" is a differentiated ego with his demand that all these differentiated egos accept the COMMON goal of being "natural"-as he defines it. If you are unique, then what it is in your "nature to be" will not be the same as what it is in the "nature of other individuals to be." Indeed, what is natural" for you may well be "unnatural" for others, and a collision unavoidable. Redbeard's interpretation of "social Darwinism" clearly allows for this, but his morality of Nature equally clearly negates it.

In fact, this contradiction is starkly illustrated by Redbeard himself when he talks about his PURELY CHRISTIAN IDEAS OF sexual relations between men and women. On the same page he proclaims that "moral principles...are artificial human enactments, but not necessarily natural, honest or true. Moral codes are the black terror of all dastards," and then goes on to state that "readers must distinctly understand that sexual morality is nowise condemned in these pages." WHY NOT? This is because "women are frail beings at the best of times...they must be held in thorough subjection" for "woe unto the Race if ever these lovable creatures should break loose from mastership, and become the rulers or equals of Man." He follows this warning with a denunciation of "sexual degeneracy," "promiscuity," and other "evils," in a language redolent of the SAME EXACT Christian morality he IMAGINES he's so against! HA! "If our modern Sodoms," he writes, "were all razed to the ground, how Nature in all her perennial purity would rejoice exultantly!" Substitute "God" for "Nature" and what religious moralist would object? NONE.

Redbeard's dualistic and laughable view of "the nature" of women" is in no way consistent either. In one paragraph of his chapter on "Love, Women and War" he repeats his opinion of women as being "incapable of self-mastership...mere babies in worldly concerns" (that's because Christian Patriarchy tried to keep them that way!), but in the next paragraph writes that "when their passions are stirred women have performed deeds of heroism (and terror) that even a man with nerves of steel would hesitate at...They have led armies and been criminals of the darkest dye." DARKest? a PURELY Christian mind-set, thoroughly ingrained. Adam is good, bright, clean and white. Eve is filthy and dark and dangerous: but sexy too. In claiming that women are destined to be "subjects" and at the same time are capable of being "rulers," Redbeard effectively destroys his own case for male superiority and, what is more, seems oblivious of the fact that he is doing it! Which proves MY: all Christians are oblivious of their dualism and their contradictions. They are MORONS. Redbeard's view of women, the dualist view, is IDENTICAL to that put forth by the Malleus Malificarum. The "good ones" are frail and helpless; but the "evil ones" are 100 times more dangerous and cunning than any males. Christian dualism all over again. They can never escape this sickness.

Redbeard is also a racist but his racism undermines the logic of his "philosophy of power." He writes of the capitalist that he can 'do as he likes with his own,' as long as he has the power. He may own the earth...if he wants to, and he may buy or sell men and nations if he feels inclined to or thinks it profitable. There is in Nature no limit to his energies or ambitions. All that is needed is power equal to his energies or ambitions. All that is needed is power equal to the design. But the same principles may be acted upon by any other man or association of men, and in the conflict that ensues fitness is proved--absolutely and without doubt. The 'rights of the rich' are what they can maintain and the 'rights of the poor' are not less. No bounds are set to the accumulation of property, and none whatever to its re-distribution." If, "all that is needed" for the survival of the fittest is "power equal to the design" and "the same principles may be acted upon by any other man or association of men," this must logically apply to all human beings. If I can do as I like with my own as long as I have the power, then it does not matter what race or color I am for I have shown that I am the powerful one. Redbeard's racism, like his sexism, is completely inconsistent with his own "philosophy of power" since he can only defend it by using COLLECTIVIST notions that deny his individualist premise that there are no "rights" outside the "might" of the individual.

Might Is Right is a work flawed by major contradictions. Like the Christian bible, it can be used as a source for the most incompatible views.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Essay Four:

If All You Have is Ragnar, Then You have Nothing!

By Comrade B and Kari Nevala

If all you have is Ragnar Redbeard, then you don't have anything!

You don't have anything Satanic at all. You have an anti-Christian wail that we Satanists are sick of hearing. Like hearing the wails of people stuck in a fucking sickhouse. Get a clue: we aren't defined by Christianity, for OR against. We are Satanists - something ELSE, something OTHER something OUTSIDE of Christianity. It is not for no reason that we speak of how gut deep Christian childhood conditioning, cultural conditioning and indoctrination in Christian values runs: we are aware of it (and sick of it). Like who wants to hear wwaaaaa Jehova or wwhhaaaaa Jesus? No one I know.

Why are we sick of hearing this wail? I can hear that question resounding in Satanic realms but only among the very few who didn't get a clue yet. Why?

Because it is actually saying the damned pope is right! That's why! It's saying that almost 2000 years of Christian idiocy is right, too. They had might: ergo they were right? Bull fucking shit!

Ragnar, in the way LaVey used it and in the way neo-Satanists gravitate toward it, is a WAILING SCREAMING person obviously very hurt in a very deep way by the CHRISTIANITY that MIGHTILY conquered his own heart and broke him forever more.

Ragnar doesn't even recognize that Jews and JHVH didn't DO anything to his people. HIS OWN PEOPLE did it! They Christianized THEMSELVES! Certainly there is no entity named Jehova that did it. Jews didn't do this at all - in fact, Jews are NOT Christians! Jews DO NOT HAVE Jehova as their god! They have ADONAI! OH, some Cruxtoid moron didn't know that? Ja Heve means "male/female." It reads: "And then they began to call THEMSELVES male and female." In the Cruxtoid version it reads "And then they began to call upon Jehova." MORON CRUXTOIDS couldn't even get THAT right. And the wailing wannabes that "like Ragnar" only like it because that is ALL they CAN identify with: rebellion against their OWN PARENTS AND SICKENING CULTURE. They embody a twisted broken creature filled with unreleased rage, fear, self-loathing and guilt. SURE they hate it: they hate THEMSELVES.

Comrade Kari has interpreted or deconstructed "might is right" in two different ways. These are not the usual ways Cruxtoids think of or read things. They seem unable to really THINK in this sense.

The deconstruction of the dualist and Cruxtoid reading of "might is right" gets flipped into the opposite one, and it also makes it more brutal and real to piss off those who adore the brutality of the original context. They love the brutality because they have BEEN BRUTALIZED WITHIN AND WITHOUT! THUS do they only recognize brutality as being powerful!

The first interpretation deals with evolution:

Kari interprets "might" to mean "competence, effectiveness -- that which works."

Kari interprets "right" to mean "that which is justified." (The ENDS justify the MEANS?)

So here "might is right" is translated into "all that works is justified," and further into "all that exists is justified". A strong evolutionary statement, NOT as "survival of the fittest," but as the survival of all of that which works. It's even more brutal than the original idea in a sense, and it's a great mockery against the "strength adoring" ideals and idols (such as its original writer had). Yeah, "strength idolizers" seldom HAVE strength. For if they HAD it, they'd not think about it too much! (Only starving people think about food all the time....)

The second interpretation deals a bit more with ethics and behavior, though it is very similar.

Kari translates "might" to mean "ability." Kari translates "right" to mean "limitation". So "might is right" becomes "ability is the only limitation". That is the only real rule in the game of life. It's the denial of the what we are told is of "importance and value" and even a denial of "laws and norms." It is notably an anarchistic statement. It's a romantic reach out for the extreme experience. A Dionysian feverish orgy. A repulsive horror for an Apollonian mind.

These types of people will forever be BARRED from the Beauty of that which is Satanic. Theirs will be as UGLY a landscape as the gray pretaloka Stepfordesque world of the Cruxtoids. Skeletal people in a world with only shades of dull grays, GRASPING and RAGING at their own existence: THAT is the only world they inhabit. That is certainly NOT Satanic in any way, shape or form.

Back to Satanic Reds index