Russian strongman Vladimir Putin has incorporated a new trope in his discourses: the invasion of Ukraine is justified because the West is “moving toward open Satanism.” His political entourage echoes similar statements. For example, Dmitry Medvedev recently said that the purpose of the war is to “stop the supreme ruler of Hell, whatever name he uses – Satan, Lucifer or Iblis.”
It is unlikely that Putin is endorsing QAnon-style conspiracy theories about secret cabals of devil worshippers wearing black gowns while they sacrifice babies and drink their blood. He is merely appealing to an old trick in Russian conservatism: using religious language to rally support in the cultural confrontation with the West. “Satan” is simply a code word for liberalism.
In all his brilliance, novelist Fyodor Dostoevski tried to pull something similar in the 19th Century. His novel Demons is a critique of revolutionary groups in Czarist Russia, coated in religious language. As Richard Pevear explains in the foreword to this novel, demons are:
that legion of isms that came to Russia from the West: idealism, rationalism, empiricism, materialism, utilitarianism, positivism, socialism, anarchism, nihilism, and, underlying them all, atheism.
In our times, Alexander Dugin — sometimes styled as “Putin’s philosopher”— has expressed similar views:
Everyone who sympathizes with liberals, [Russian punk rock band] Pussy Riot and the West belongs to Satan. This is the army of hell.
Ironically, these reactionaries may not be far from the truth. There is a very Satanic aspect to Western civilisation — if we understand the word “Satan” accordingly—, and that is all for the better.
For the past two millennia, we have come to embrace the dualist approach of Satan. As Zoroastrians would have it — and hence their influence was extended to Judaism, Christianity and Islam— there is a spirit that represents absolute evil (Ahriman, in the old Iranian language), in constant cosmic confrontation with Ahura Mazda, the divine personification of absolute good. It is highly likely that when the Israelites encountered Persian religious ideas during the Babylonian exile, they assimilated this concept and called it “Satan”.
But originally, Satan was something else. It was not even a person, but merely a verb in Hebrew (שָׂטָן) that denoted being an obstacle. Eventually, the word was used to refer to specific persons, but only insofar as their role was to be obstacles to something or someone else. Thus, in the book of Job, Satan is an obstacle in the celestial court, but only in the way a prosecutor presents obstacles to the judge or defense attorneys. By the time of the New Testament, the dualist transformation of Satan had advanced, and in the apocalyptic musings of the early Christians, Satan was pure evil.
In modern times, various prominent authors have reexamined what Satan may represent, going back to the original meaning. John Milton’s masterpiece Paradise Lost portrays Lucifer as a charismatic rebellious leader who rallies demons and rises up in defiance of God’s dictatorship. Milton offers a cautionary tale about the risks of vanity and pride that ultimately lead to Lucifer’s fall, but it is hard to argue against William Blake’s famous observation: Milton was “of the Devil’s party without knowing it.”
In the 20th Century, Anton LaVey embraced Satanic imagery with buffoonish purposes. But he did have in mind some deeper philosophical intentions. For him, Satan represents freedom and defiance to authoritarianism. As he explained, Satan is:
the spirit of progress, the inspirer of all great movements that contribute to the development of civilization and the advancement of mankind. He is the spirit of revolt that leads to freedom, the embodiment of all heresies that liberate.
If Satan is an obstacle, then Westerners ought to embrace that label. For all its faults, the West has been an obstacle to authoritarianism. Western democracies have systems of checks and balances that, by and large, impede dictators and strongmen from capriciously invading sovereign nations. Western societies have come to understand that, provided there is consent, you may engage in sexual practices as you best see fit; in so doing, they have become an obstacle to neurotics who want to control what goes on in your own bed. The key to the West’s success has been innovation, yet another obstacle to the stagnation of the established order. Being an obstacle can be a very good thing.
If Putin wants to call this libertarian approach “Satanic”, so be it. I, for one, will be glad to wear the horns and the pitchfork to my upcoming costume party, while I continue to celebrate freedom.
