the morally good as what one ought to do according to prevailing passionate custom. Hume
denied that the good could be ascertained by dispassionate reasoning. Reason, he said, is useful
only to discover the most practical or sensible approaches to problems. Hence virtue and vice are
products of sentiment. Virtue is not approved because it is “intrinsically virtue”; it is
considered to be virtue because it meets with passionate approval.
The point of this brief tour through certain key concepts in the evolution of ethics is simply
to show clearly what all too many people perceive only dimly and imprecisely - how the United
States has developed its “official ethics”. If this background is not understood, Setians cannot
clearly understand why certain ethical norms are expected in this country - or understand why
some foreign cultures “mysteriously/unreasonably” reject those norms ... often on what they
consider to be ethical grounds!
The science of ethics is not peripheral or incidental to the Temple of Set; it is central to it.
Whether people hold a certain opinion or behave in a certain way is critically influenced by
whether or not they believe themselves justified in so doing. Once “rightness” or “wrongness” is
established, specific LBM workings will be interpreted accordingly. In order to be effective, a
magician must first recognize and consciously appreciate the ethical components of his
designs that are particular to their cultural point of origin.
- 221 -
Earlier in this chapter it was demonstrated that Western civilization’s efforts to apprehend
“truth” - and to answer the integral question of whether “truth” and “the good” are inseparable -
have been arduous and frustrating. The United States emerged at a moment in history - the
Enlightenment - when reason reigned supreme, and so the values of the Enlightenment’s most
optimistic and practical political philosopher, John Locke, were incorporated into our
Constitution.
Lockean values have served us reasonably well these past two centuries, but what of those
countries who have “worshipped strange gods”? What do they know of “the good”, and in what
respect - if any - do they hold “the truth”?
The principal social contract theorists - Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau - saw the state as a
human construct, justifiable only as it might serve the interests of its citizens. The first of two
great challenges to this preeminence of the individual came from Georg W.F. Hegel, who insisted
that the state is prior to man.
Hegel conceived of the universe as the manifestation of God’s mind seeking complete self-
realization through a process called dialectic idealism. As applied to our particular planet, it is
the notion that the history of the world consists of part of the spirit of God, manifesting itself
through the collective spirits of mankind, moving onwards through logic (the dialectic) towards
completion. An existing idea (thesis) is criticized and partially refuted by its opposite
(antithesis), resulting in a more perfect product (synthesis). Hegel felt the organic state to be
the manifestation or reflection of the dialectic of God’s mind in the world. Accordingly it might
well proceed in ways and towards goals which are not necessarily the sum total of the ways and
goals of the individual human minds within it.
The task of national leaders, according to Hegel, is thus to apprehend the “spirit of the
state” ( Volksgeist) and to make their decisions in support of its furtherment rather than for the
citizens who may chance to populate it at a given point in time. The Enlightenment values of
individualism and rights against a government were considered by Hegel to limit freedom:
Since they reduce the scope and power of the whole, they serve to restrict possibility.
Hegel plus a heavy dose of 19th-century Wagnerian Romanticism pointed the way to the
state-cults of National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy. Germany in particular sought to
redirect the sense of life-consciousness from the individual human being to the state. Most
Germans were able to achieve this only in a mundane sense - in a kind of ecstatic selflessness
created and sustained by propaganda. But the “monk-knights” of the prewar SS could disdain,
even willingly embrace the death of the individual human body according to the doctrine that
disciplined personal consciousness could be transferred to a larger life-form - that of the
Hegelian state - and that individual sacrifice towards the strengthening of that life-form would
actually contribute towards one’s greater immortality. In a very real way incomprehensible to the
mundane mind, therefore, all of the individual-death references in the SS - such as the
Totenkopf insignia and ritual pledges of “faithfulness unto death” - were in fact arrogant
affirmations of immortality. To Dr. Rauschning Hitler remarked:
To the Christian doctrine of the infinite significance of the individual human soul and of
personal responsibility, I oppose with icy clarity the saving doctrine of the nothingness and
insignificance of the individual human being, and of his continued existence in the visible
immortality of the nation. The dogma of vicarious suffering and death through a divine savior
gives place to that of the representative living and acting of the new Leader-legislator, which
liberates the mass of the faithful from the burden of free will.
Both National Socialism and Fascism are now ghosts of history, but the principle which
underlay their phenomenal power and impact - the organic state as prior to its citizens - remains
very much a force in the contemporary international environment.
- 222 -
In the United States, social and political truth is arrived at via the methods specified in the
Constitution, all of which are based on some combination of direct or representative voting. Our
national perception of truth is thus democratic - an approach which John Locke would consider
eminently reasonable, but one which would affront Plato and Hegel. To them, truth was/is an
absolute principle - not something to be determined by whim, much less by the masses. Plato
held that truth could be attained through the dialectic of human philosophical enquiry; Hegel
insisted that only God could consciously employ such a dialectic, and that the most humanity
could hope for was to sense its reflection through the dynamics of the state.
What is it we see when we look at the many “democracies” and “republics” of the world and
perceive them to be behaving not as vehicles for the benefit of their individual citizens, but
rather as cultural amœbæ of ethnocentric, even xenophobic passion which contemptuously
sweep aside appeals to reason? A few are relics of ancient theocratic systems, but most have shed
this worn-out skin only to regenerate it under the guise of the Volksgeist.
One may indeed communicate with the citizens of such cultures as individuals, but to
influence the culture as a whole one may not appeal just to the citizens’ individual desires.
Rather one must speak to the interest of whatever it is that they perceive their “national spirit” to
be. To seek to “Westernize” it - to alter citizens’ conception of the state into a social-contract
model - is to attack not a set of rational opinions, but an article of faith which is pe
rceived to
be the very fountain of truth and ethics.
The second great challenge to social-contract individualism came, of course, from Karl
Marx. Marx was strongly influenced by Hegel, but believed that Hegel had made a fundamental
mistake in using nations as the basis for his dialectic and in relating it to a divine manifestation
or purpose. Marx considered the dialectic to be a function of economic struggle between social
classes, and he denied the existence of any supernatural intelligence, calling all religion “the
opiate of the people”.
Marxism, sometimes called dialectic materialism to distinguish it from the dialectic
idealism of Hegel, is a theory of socialism that identifies class struggle as the fundamental force
in history. Increasing concentration of industrial control in the capitalist class and the
consequent intensification of class antagonisms and of misery among the workers will lead to a
revolutionary seizure of power by the proletariat and the subsequent establishment of a classless,
utopian society.
Marx, like Hegel, premised his ideas on a necessary, inevitable process of history.
Thus communism would eventually come to pass, no matter what capitalism tries to do to stop
it. The other side of this coin is that there is nothing Marxists can do to speed it up; their society
must first evolve to the “last stages” of decadent capitalism. This didn’t suit V.I. Lenin, who
wanted to accelerate social evolution a bit. His prescription for doing so was the so-called
“dictatorship of the proletariat”, under which a communist elite would force-march the masses
towards their eventual paradise. The state apparat would then “wither away”.
As in the case of Hegelian state-preeminence, communism cannot simply be challenged or
refuted by appeals to individual self-interest. To a serious Marxist, history is again moved by far
greater forces than the wills of individuals who may chance to inhabit it at a given point in time.
Marxist states view the advanced capitalist cultures as social bombs collectively approaching
critical mass; their desire is accordingly to avoid being caught up in the desperate external
adventurism, including apocalyptic warfare, which they expect deteriorating capitalist nations to
employ in an effort to stave off their inevitable communist revolutions.
Communism [to use the label by which modern Marxism is generally known] incorporates
two attitudes towards the truth. The “greater truth” - the materialist dialectic - is considered to
be absolute, and adherence to it is once again supra-rational: an article of faith. Why an article
of faith? Because the people, if given the sole power to determine the government, might revolt
- 223 -
against it again - particularly if it is not [as per Locke] designed to facilitate their pursuit of
personal interests. The option of further revolution must therefore be removed - by representing
the Communist Party as the “priesthood” of a “god” higher than that of the people themselves. In
service to this “god”, lesser ethical issues are unimportant - and indeed heretical if they confuse
or inhibit the greater truth.
When capitalists seek to “reason” with communists, they fail to realize that they are
regarded as ignorant, corrupt, or deluded by their very inability to see and accept the
“great truth” . A sincere communist does not reason with such an opponent any more than
with a child; he seeks rather to placate, deceive, or otherwise control him.
To communicate with a communist theoretician is thus a difficult task. One must first
establish basic rapport by displaying an understanding of, if not an agreement with Marxist
theory. Immediate goals of mutual interest may then be pursued jointly insofar as they do not
intrude into ideological realms where the communist’s position must necessarily rigidify.
A curious and paradoxical picture emerges from this examination of communist vs.
capitalist ethics. In the West we are accustomed to regard the United States as a “religious”
society, and to condemn communism for its “godlessness”. In communist countries theorists
disdain Western adherence to religion and take pride in communism’s “state atheism”. But is
this picture borne out in practice?
Locke advocated a national structure in which supreme wisdom lay in the will of the
citizenry and in which organized religion played only a symbolic and ceremonial role: in his
words a “reasonable Christianity”. Our governments have since approached our national and
international problems under the presumption that the free will of the human beings
directly involved will order the course of events. This is vintage Enlightenment-thinking,
and to date the United States has seen no reason to subordinate it to any “higher authority”. In
terms of its political decision-making processes, the United States behaves atheistically.
On the other hand, communist leaders do not consider themselves able to control or
influence the passage of events as free agents. They may make minor adjustments here and
there, but the basic course of the future is above and beyond their control, locked in place
according to Marx’ principles of historic determinism. Like the ancient Mesopotamians, they
perceive themselves as the incidental tools of a “god” - whose name just happens to be Dialectic
Materialism instead of Baal or Marduk. In terms of its political decision-making processes,
communism behaves theistically.
Where ethics are concerned, therefore, capitalism holds itself fully responsible for its own,
while communism considers any and all “minor” ethical abuses automatically justified if in
through such persistent agonies of self-criticism while communist countries such as China and
the late Soviet Union shrug off far more horrendous excesses.
[At the conclusion of the 20th Century CE, the Soviet Union dissolved into constituent
quasi-capitalist states. Communism as a political and economic phenomenon has revealed its
fragility. It will be interesting to see what happens to communism as a “religion”.]
The Black Magician contemplating a particular LBM working must therefore determine not
only whether that working will be ethical in his eyes, but also ethical according to the cultural
mindsets of all other parties to the working: participants, objects, catalysts, witnesses. To label a
working “good” or “evil” by some knee-jerk, propagandistic formula is entirely inadequate.
[Formula “good/evil” values are merely appropriate for the profane masses, who can’t - and
don’t want to - understand anything more precise.]
There is thus no easy answer to the question of whether a given magical act is “good” or
“evil”. In itself it is ethically neutral. As Machiavelli so clearly observed, it is the result it
produces which will be judged - and then it is up to the magician to determine what judgments
- 224 -
- by which judges - will be important. Successfully conducted, such an assessment will not only
reinforce the success of a given working; it will also ensure that the magician correctly
anticipates the actual consequences of its immediate results.
This chapter was intended to achieve two goals: First, to alert yo
u to the fact that everyone
in the world is practicing LBM on everyone else, usually unconsciously and usually extremely
unskillfully. Second, to advise you that, as you become sensitive to its use on you - and skilled in
your own use of it on others - you can accomplish a great deal.
You will now have to go out and study the aforementioned subjects, practice them, and
become fluent in them before they will be of any real use to you. Just reading this chapter and
assuming that you “get the message” is not sufficient.
It is perhaps appropriate to conclude with a brief but necessary warning: As an association
of Adepts in LBM, the Temple of Set could not function cooperatively if its Initiates practiced
this particular Art on one another, no matter with what good intentions. You are trusting the
Temple and its sages to enhance and Recognize your self-initiation - not to mislead or
exploit you for lesser/ulterior purposes. You must reciprocate in turn. So remember this point
and remember it well:
Do not - ever - attempt to control another Setian through LBM.
Because he trusts you not to, his usual guards will be down, and you may think him easy to
influence in this way. Nevertheless it is just a question of time before either your “victim” or
another Setian realizes what is happening, whereupon you will find yourself facing probable
expulsion.
In all contacts and communications within the Temple, be straightforward, direct, and
open. In profane society you might be pounced upon as a “mark” or “sucker” for such behavior,
but within the Temple of Set you will find yourself trusted and respected as a fellow Initiate and
magician.
- 225 -
20: Greater Black Magic
There are two sharp distinctions between the Temple of Set’s principles and those of other
religions, philosophies, and occult doctrines. The first is that, while we do not consider logical
positivism as being sufficient to explain the universe, we do consider it a necessary foundation
upon which to build such an explanation. Sound metaphysics must be in keeping with what is
known about related subjects in physics, else the metaphysics are simply articles of faith. “Faith”
is how one excuses a belief he cannot justify through any rational or logical criteria.