Introduction: The Promethean Role of Satan
Satan, in the original Hebrew, means adversary. He is not the adversary of God (which would have earned him the name of Sataniel – literally “adversary of the Lord”), but rather he is an angel, a servant, who is the adversary of mankind. His adversarial behavior was to make us think for ourselves, for like Prometheus, he brought us some sort of flame.
The character in Job is not native to the Sand Religions, despite what Christian apologists might claim. Rather, the entire story of Job is borrowed from the religion of Zoroastrianism. And that is quite logical, as the Jews were, until the rise of the Persian Empire, enslaved to the Babylonians. There they would have been exposed to the myths of Ahura Mazda, Angra Mainyu, and Spenta Mainyu. Hence, the Satan seen in the Book of Job is actually Angra Mainyu, just as the Jehovah seen there is actually Ahura Mazda. And it was not Job's faith which was tested, but rather his devotion to goodness. The philosopher Spinoza delved more deeply into this, noting that no Jewish scholar had been able to uncover any Hebrew documents of the Book of Job, despite its being so embedded into the religion and its two offspring cults.
However, Angra Mainyu was retroactively implemented into the Jewish religions. As Satan, he is often seen as the spirit which possessed the snake in the garden. There is a lot of Orwellian doublespeak and doublethink when the myth of the Temptation of Eve is taught. Sometimes it is said that Satan possessed the snake and that's how the snake spoke, while other times humans were already able to speak to animals and it was this first sin that removed this ability from the human race. Quite comically, the religious fundamentalists who often demand that the Bible be interpreted literally, especially with its laws, will say that this part is symbolic and that Original Sin actually refers to sexual intercourse, and not to eating the fruit of some magical tree (it appears even they have a limit on the amount of ridiculousness they are willing to handle). Even this belief has its doublethink, as that many of these hardcore fundamentalists, who call the act of procreation the first sin, still take the time to fuck.
The danger of thinking is that it prevents doublethink and how that doublethink is forced into the minds of little children. In the original monotheistic religion, Ahura Mazda wants humanity to think, to become wise, for reason and wisdom lead to moral purity. In fact, the god of that religion does not demand to be worshipped, for he sees that logic and reason will reveal his will. However, the tree that Eve eats from and then convinces Adam to do the same is the Tree of Knowledge. Quite contradictory to the religion of Zarathustra, the Sand Religions establish themselves right away as the staunch opponents of thinking. It is Satan, the ultimate evil, who wants you to think for yourself.
This is what sets the Abrahamic faiths so far apart from other religions in the world. This is why Nietzsche found such fault with Judaism's “slave morality”. Whereas Prometheus is hailed in the Hellenistic cults as a hero who sacrifices himself to grant some knowledge to humanity, and in Asatru, Odin, the Allfather, suffers for nine days and loses an eye just to impart some wisdom onto the human race, it is the wicked ones in the Abrahamic religions who want mankind to be wise. And so the Promethean role of Satan is viewed not as a gift towards mankind, but rather a vile sin against our species. Even though the snake is banished from the Garden of Eden along with Adam and Eve, he is cursed and reviled for this. Prometheus and Odin are praised for their sacrifice, but Satan is damned to reign only in Hell.
Since Christianity took over the religious Zeitgeist in the West and the Middle East was dominated by Islam, the hatred for Satan has been directed against the philosopher. I hope to explain my reasoning as to why this is in the following writing.
The Philosopher as Satan
It is bragged about in literature and philosophy classes the world over, yet forgotten about everywhere else. Philosophy is the first science. Just as mathematics granted scientists a language to explain their theories, philosophy developed the framework to create those theories. It is to philosophers that we owe all our advancements. Even those scientists who we might not consider alongside Voltaire or Socrates found purely philosophical texts interesting.
And it is also known that every philosopher faced adversity and censorship. Whether it is Socrates being forced to die by his own hand or the Marquis de Sade being imprisoned for most of his life, or the burning of the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau by infuriated oligarchs, the philosopher has always somehow found himself as the opponent of the established political and religious forces. For this, they are hated. Not only are they hated by those they criticize, but they are hated by the public, whose consciousness is at any given time guided not by the reason hoped for by Ahura Mazda, but by the slave morality demanded by Jehovah.
Slave Morality is quite simple, despite the pages upon pages devoted to explaining it by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Perhaps it is his life's labor that has made it so easy to explain. Slave Morality essentially says that it is not the actions of one that makes one good or not, but one's position in life. The rich are inherently wicked and the poor are inherently good. The banker is a schemer while the indebted liberal arts student is a saint. The happy couple are examples of societal oppression while the emotionally lonely slut (or the involuntarily celibate male) are heroically resisting the evil overlords. Of course, this requires that one does little to no thinking on their own situation.
The poor are never asked why they do not invest in education. In fact, they devote a greater share of their earnings towards immediate gratification than to self-advancement. But mention this and it is at once condemned as both cruel and untruthful. They are the victims of others, not of their own decisions. Ask the indebted why they cannot pay what they owe and they will respond with how the interest rates are too high and they were cheated by the big banks. Not once will they admit they should not have pursued the loan. Rather, they deserved the money and the interest they owe, the price of the money, is immoral and wrong. Ask a lonely woman in her thirties about her situation, and she will exclaim how she is a victim of the patriarchy. She will never admit that her twenties were spent in drunken stupors and she was more easily impressed by suave speeches rather than honest affections. Ask an adult man who is still a virgin why he has never had sex, and you will be told about how all women are whores and they judge men only on appearances. Never will you hear from him about how he fails to be a provider or a lover. If you should run across one of these examples who does blame themselves, who tells you honestly their mistakes and urges you not to copy them, there you have a philosopher in the making.
History is littered with examples of the religious refusing to blame themselves and instead directing blame elsewhere. These examples are often paired with examples of those who point out the mistake being punished for philosophizing a little too much. During the Inquisition, pointing out the excesses of the Spanish Monarchy or the Libertinage within the Catholic Church was tantamount to declaring one's self to be a Satanist, or worse, a Jew. During the Italian Years Lead, any intellectual pointing out the flaws of totalitarianism, regardless if it was Communism or Fascism, marked one for death in the eyes of both Communists and Fascists.
Right now, in the Roman Catholic Church, there are those who are finally questioning Pope Francis' infallibility. They cite the lack of response pedophilia within the Church as a reason, as well as other counts of corruption and failures to remain faithful to Catholic doctrine. Yet do any of these Conservative Catholics reflect on the imbecility of the dogma of Papal infallibility? Of course not! It is only now, when some one they don't like is Pope, that Papal infallibility is wrong.
When the Boston Globe uncovered the pedophiles which led to a worldwide onslaught of investigations and revelations not only of pederasty within the Church, but also conspiracies to hide the pederasty that enabled the raping of children to continue, it was the media conspiring against the Church. So said John Paul II and so these faithful sheep repeated. Likewise, when Mother Theresa was found to be fraud, leaving many to suffer in her dens of misery without so much as a pill of morphine because she wanted them to be closer to God (by which she meant to say that donated money was being used to build convents and pay for her global PR tours rather than aiding the sick and dying), these same faithful exclaimed how immoral it was to accuse the saintly nun of such conduct and that the conversation would go no further.
Now that they cannot hide from the blatant corruption of their beloved Mother Church, now that the Catholic Church is the same as it is portrayed in the novels of the Marquis de Sade, now they come to act. They protest and they denounce Pope Francis. But do they at all consider that the wealth and the majesty in Vatican City alone might attract the corrupt and hedonistic? Do they take into account that the close relationships they foster with the parish priests and the trust they instill in their children for these priests might attract pedophiles? Of course not! What idiotic blasphemy! It is, as they will tell you, now that the media has been proven right about the Church's hypocritical immorality, a cabal of homosexuals. What a relief that these religious fanatics, who are so quickly riled up into a fervor about immorality but so easily controlled as to never question the very foundation of the organization which fosters that same immorality, what a relief they no longer have power.
Yet it was not overnight that control over the zeitgeist and the demos was wrested away from the Roman Catholic Church. First, there had to be a Protestant Reformation. Then philosophers had to question things, careful not to openly ask questions about religion. Then Spinoza wrote his treatises and his Ethics, which allowed Atheists to adopt his name as a worldview, thereby hiding their own lack of belief from the religious fanatics present in every corner of every country. Then slowly, the Enlightenment happened. All of these events, despite the brevity of this paragraph, took place over a period of time amounting to just under three hundred years. It took three hundred years to go from a Europe where the Pope was quite nearly the supreme authority (his power always kept in check by kings, with whom he was more often than not in collusion with) to when the people of France realized their fate was not in the hands of the King of the Pope, but was theirs to control.
It took these philosophers, from Diderot to Rousseau, from Voltaire to Sade, to develop this individualist mindset.
The forces resistant to the mental emancipation of the individual, most notably the established feudal governments, turned to religion to condemn the writings of these philosophers. Spinoza was at once accused of being both a Jew and an Atheist (even his own Jewish community expelled him for questioning too much). Rousseau was chased out of both kingdoms and republics, often it being cited that his writings – which were most often burned – upset the established order. This order, remember, according to the priests of the day, was mandated not by man but by God. Questioning the legitimacy of kings was equated to questioning the existence of God. So the philosophers became tempters, and thus they became labeled as Satanic. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church used to maintain a list of books that they deemed to be too blasphemous for the devout to read. I must comment here that any ideology which relies on censorship to perpetuate its existence is one that should not exist.
For the high crime of asking the people to think, of questioning the legitimacy of kings and of oligarchies, and even on the church, the philosophers were chased. Rousseau had to flee France and Switzerland, taking up residence in Prussia, under the protection of Voltaire (who may have had some damming evidence of Frederick the Great). The Marquis de Sade was imprisoned for spitting in the face of every government he lived under.
Thus we see that they are punished, in the same way the gods punished Prometheus. However, the people of the times were not led to view the philosopher in a Promethean role. Guided by an Abrahamic religion, people saw the philosophers as devilish, agents of the Prince of Darkness, and their books were burned. This trend even continues today, especially in the Islamic world. But even in the West, which owes so much to the Enlightenment thinkers, the idiocy of calling science and thought Satanic persists.
Far-Right is the New Satanic
Whereas the religious propagandists of the past proclaimed all dissidents as Satanists, today's equivalent to them see all opposition as neo-Nazis. The narrative has not changed much. The Catholic Church saw a conspiracy of a massive Satanic cult spreading radical ideas such as Secularism throughout Europe. The established mouthpiece of those in power today, that is, the Progressive Press, see a complex and capable network of neo-Nazis organizing against the creation of Utopia.
Preventing the establishment of the Feminist equivalent of New Jerusalem is apparently quite simple. Any time a Feminist's claim is debunked online, it's an army of trolls attacking her. Anytime there is dissent against something Don Lemon says, it's the reactionary mob of Far-Right nutjobs. And this is highly coordinated, make no mistake. The Progressive movement wants to label all dissenters, regardless of the true political origin of those who are not Intersectional Feminist Socialists in favor of mass migration, as adherents to the ideologies of the Third Reich.
First, we must understand why this is. To do that, must understand what the Progressive movement currently controls. It is not certain that they control the United States government, although that is only due to the presence of the Republican Party (more on that in a little bit). However, they dominate the European Parliament, the United Nations, and the American Democratic Party. Let me express that without any doubt: The Progressive movement controls the continent of Europe and the global body which oversees the application and enforcement of international laws.
Before continuing, I feel it is important to state I utilize the term “Progressive” with great regret. There are Progressives who value various Enlightenment principles – the freedom of speech, the right to property, and individualism – but do agree with the smaller organizations which are now nearly in complete control of the Democratic Party. However, those ideologies are held by the modern lovers of tyranny. They have decided to run the lives of individuals, the decide the fates of nations, and all of this done by their own personal morality – a morality, mind you dear reader, that many of them often fail to live up to. Take Alexendra Occasio-Cortes, who infamously wears expensive clothing (worth in the thousands of dollars) while decrying society as greedy. Could she not have purchased cheaper alternatives, and given to the poor?
Yet when she is criticized for her contradictory lifestyle and philosophy, she calls those detractors “alt-right”. They are internet trolls. They are racists. They are sexists. Their words are to disregarded on these grounds, and she never addresses the criticism, though she expects her critiques to not only be addressed, but to be heeded as though they were to orders of a dictator.
In this way, she does the same thing that Medieval tyrants did. The critics are Satanists, or in the modern case, Alt-Right. And with this comes a frightening fact for Americans; it is one with which Europeans have already had to reckon with. The reason the Progressive movement, as unpopular as it is with the common people, is winning because the alternative (in the case of American politics that is the Republican Party) is a proven evil from centuries ago.
The Republican Party currently operates on a platform which has been largely developed and dictated by the Religious Right. Although the Religious Right in its current form is not particularly old in the United States (they really began following the Second World War and before that both parties stood on largely semi-religious but politically and socially secular platforms), it has garnered a great deal of power. Much like the fact that the modern Progressive Feminist does not speak for the majority of Society, the die-hard Bible-Thumper has as much to do with the typical American as undiscovered lifeforms on Jupiter's moons do. They demand control over every aspect of American life. They want to control how we fuck, how we speak, and how we think. This is so eminent in their ideology that they often criticize all ideologies which advocate rebellion of any kind. Quite funny considering they are trying to indoctrinate a Nation born from a Revolution which prizes dissent and rebellion as the foundation of its ethos.
However, the reign of Christianity is well documented in the history books. The Middle Ages were full of uneducated serfs so indoctrinated into Catholic mythology that they refused to see the dreadful lives they lived. People don't want a preacher determining whether or not their specific kinks are in keeping with a clerical interpretation of the Bible. And they don't want to be told that word “fuck” should be banned because Jesus would shudder at it. And they certainly don't want to be told always have some dead carpenter on their mind, lest they be damned to eternal suffering. So, what appears to be an
untested agenda appears much more appealing.
So now I can move into why the term “Alt-Right” is the new “Satanic”. Satanism lost its edge in the early nineties, when it became chic with bands like Morbid Angel and Slayer, who made Satan another marketable good (something Jesus had been for quite some time). Now to call some one a Satanist is not to make those listening picture him as a child-sacrificing Libertine, but to portray one's self as a rabid moralist ready to ruin every one else's fun to satiate one's own hypocritical conscience.
A new term is necessary to label dissenters with.
Luckily, the modern boogeyman to have been embedded into the Western zeitgeist is Adolf Hitler. Or, if I am to be more precise, the concept of white supremacy is the new Satan, and adherents of one are adherents of the other. The word is no longer Nazi, for numerous reasons ranging from the inherent neo-Marxist elements of Hitlerism to the development of Godwin's Law (where the ad hominem of Nazi will eventually be used in any debate, and this means the user of the term has lost the argument). Likewise, for the Religious Right, the boogeyman of the Communists had worn out. People began to realize that while the Left does indeed harbor some Communists, the overwhelming majority of Democrat voters are not Stalinists, but rather, at their most extreme, democratic socialists. Regardless of the economic illiteracy of Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Occasio-Cortes, neither is a real Red Marxist-Leninist. They're just idiots.
But the term racists conjures up a very real and very near past. It carries not only a definition of one who treats races differently from one another, but also a connotation of hooded Klansmen. And by slandering the opposition as racists, under the umbrella of “Alt-Right”, the user of the term makes it seem as though the resurgence of Jim Crow is imminent. It is only the ambitions of the user of the term (usually a politician or a media personality, but this is also adopted quite often by “NPC”s who have surrendered their minds to what they have decided are the betters – what Albert Camus called philosophical suicide) which keep the dreaded Alt-Right at bay. Just as obeying the pope and the king kept the Satanists away seven hundred years ago, today obeying the politician and the activist-journalist keeps the racists suppressed.
So anyone who is even does a little of their own philosophizing are at once labeled as members of the Alt-Right. The word is not racist, because such a term has become so overused (especially over the course of the previous American presidential administration) and has a precise definition. Rather, the term Alt-Right is simultaneously ambiguous and ominous enough that it stimulates the primeval parts of the individual mind and creates a desire for a protector. It is quite unfortunate that because of such methods, which always succeed at appealing to the biological desire to survive with faux threats and phantom bogeys who are always in the shadows, that the political trend of human society is always bending towards tyranny.
The way this is done is by labeling all other ideologies, whether they be authoritarian in another way or libertarian, even slightly, as something that the general public finds to be distasteful. This is not done by the authoritarians themselves, though. Rather, it is done through propaganda outlets, what
George Orwell described as Ministries of Truth. In the age of the Inquisition, this organization was the Roman Catholic Church. Today, it is the mass media; and particularly, it is the old and established media.
There are obviously caveats. The propaganda arm is not a servant of the State, as it appears to be in George Orwell's 1984. Rather, it is an ally. The State has the power of physical force. Police and armies are what it has to compel the Nation to its will. But this also comes with risk, not least of which is overthrow, or mutiny (a coup d'etat). However, the propaganda arm has its own ability to compel the Nation to its will. Its control is over the mind of the populace.
The ordinary person has only one or two real specialties. These are the subjects at which they excel. The opportunity costs of excelling at these subjects is that they do not excel at others. In other words, we do not approach Tom Brady to ask for his economic insights just as we do not approach a master historian to ask him about pulsating quasars.
Yet there is a curse upon modern society that has been handed down from the ancients. And this curse has not only been inherited, it has evolved and grown stronger. There are some people who possess but one skill: they have the uncanny ability to come across as experts in all things, though they are expert in nothing. The ancients called these charlatans priests, and we have many names for them, though they should be called what they are: charlatans.
Let us consider two examples.
Katy Perry is a woman who was, at one point, much better suited for a life of prostitution than one doing as she does, insulting the arts. In the past few years she has even lost her abilities to whore. Still, in 224 AE (2016 for those of you still praise Caesar), this talentless bimbo was asked to give a speech at the Democratic Convention.
Why is this?
It is because she holds some influence over the minds of the demos. They see the tits and think “if I agree, she might fuck me”, they see the glamor and think “this is what the rich and famous think”. Hilary Clinton and the other politicians in the DNC know that Katy Perry is little more than a lucky bimbo. But they also recognize the power she held over the minds of the mass of commoners. And this is the root of the alliance between the bitch and the bimbo.
The other example is Don Lemon, a “journalist” who possesses absolutely no knowledge of any other topic and will not, under any circumstances, adhere to those established ethics of his own chosen field. Yet every evening, millions of Americans, tired from a long day's work and trying to keep up to date with current events, turn on Mr. Lemon and have his propaganda pumped through their eyes and ears into their brains. He, like the priests of old (who themselves were most often talentless idiots, just like the religious leaders of today), is a master of appearing to be a wise man when he is really just another fool.
The alliance between the media class, the propagandists, and the political establishment is not a friendship, but a mutual alliance. Should the political class ever decide to propose legislation which places strict regulations on the media (like legal enforcement of journalistic ethics), the media class will turn on them. Every politician who would support this enforcement of ethics on journalists would be demonized in the media as a potential tyrant. After all, how dare the king tell the bishop how to preach.
Should the reverse happen, and the media actually become critical of the political class, then the politicians would take swift action to punish them. The massive conglomerates that dominate the propagandist networks of CNN, Fox, and MSNBC would suddenly be seen as monopolies by the government. The legal protections would be removed from the celebrity class, not at all unlike the Cromwellian purges of the Catholic Church in England shortly after the Roundhead Revolution.
And the alliance itself not only seeks to praise both the First and Second Estates, but to prevent anything like the Jacobins from rising again. So all dissent is lambasted. Nationalists are labeled as Fascists. Anything remotely resembling the Jacobin movement is immediately compared the National Socialist German Workers' Party. (Don't believe me? Peruse the propagandists of the Republican Party's presses which depict the French Revolution as Communistic, as Fascistic, as every bogey man they can conjure up for the demos to be frightened by. Meanwhile, the priests for Progressivism are divided; half of them call the Jacobins Marxist – even though Robespierre himself stated he had no problem with capitalists making profits, that he was only opposed to artificial shortages, an economic policy taken straight from The Wealth of Nations – while the other half portray it as too radical and unmerciful). These dissenters, anyone who says the political class is too comfortable or that the journalistic class needs to be held to account for the most unethical behavior since Nero, are quickly labeled as Alt-Right.
The term is carefully chosen. With the advent of the Internet, people are more able to research, so the word Communist or Nazi are becoming less useful. If I advocate, say, for the abolition of gay marriage, that does not make me a Nazi, regardless of what Don Lemon will say. And a research into the subject will give anyone the understanding that the ideology of Nazism is far more extreme than just a belief in biblical marriage definitions. If I go in the opposite direction, and say that churches should marry homosexuals if they wish to keep their tax-exempt status, the accusation of Communist falters. A researcher will once again find that Communists are not users of Thaler's nudge but simply kill all who dissent. So, they settle on Alt-Right. It is a term that is still very vaguely defined. It conjures up the idea of radical racism. Thus, the propagandists and the politicians can convince the demos to dismiss the dissenter because they are “Alt-Right”, the new Satanic.
The Promethean Role of Dissent
There can be no doubt that outside of the Abrahamic religions, any character who resembles Satan is revered. Prometheus is praised as a hero on par with Heracles and Achilles. Ahura Mazda is the supreme god. It is only in the sand religions that one finds the demonization of philosophy (if I may make an assertion here: I believe that this hatred for philosophy originates with the Jews' resistance to Greek culture, which glorified thinking). And this has been a curse upon European Societies and Saracen Societies since Jewish morality took root in those Societies (and it still plagues the Saracen nations to this day).But the dissenter, the man who stands against all standards, moral or scientific, he is the true Prometheus. Whether he be correct or not doesn't matter. To be more exact and extreme in my point, it does not matter if he is a genius or an idiot. So long as his opinion is vastly different from that of the accepted norm, he is Prometheus.
John Stuart Mill's On Liberty covered the reasoning for this perfectly. But let me be more thorough in explaining his analysis (mostly because I do not wish to quote).
Let us consider that we have a genius who dissents. Truly, our example is that of a Jean-Jacques Rousseau or an Albert Camus. High Society thought very little of Rousseau in his lifetime; he was critical of the established order, a Catholic who believed that a good God would not dare to damn the Atheist, and the first man to see that Nature still ruled over humanity even with all our industrial hubris.
Even Voltaire, a friend a protector, saw him as an imbecile, and Frederick the Great pitied him for having a baboon's brain. But through is writings, he became the most prominent influence on Western Society. It is from him we derive our understanding of human rights, of the Nature of Man, of virtually every modern moral. Secularism would be devoid of morality if it were not for the insights of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Indeed, he was a Prometheus who taught us more about Society that every king and priest who preceded him.
Now, let us consider the idiot. Karl Marx was an idiot, as was Jesus of Nazareth. These men had no understanding of the world around them. They were neither scientists nor thinkers. But still they spoke, and in their idiotic ramblings, they still played Prometheus. This is because they force us to refute their arguments. Idiots will always gravitate towards idiots, and greedy idiots will gravitate towards greedy idiots. And there was something to be rejected, and to be argued against. Greed and naivete masquerading as philosophy always has to be rejected. That is why so many people are refuting the nonsensical ramblings of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes. And without the idiotic sayings of Jesus of Nazareth, we would have never had the wisdom of Christopher Hitchens. Without the imbecility of Karl Marx, we never would have had the economic insights of Friedrich Hayek. So it is proven, I think, that even the idiot, when he makes a radical claim, is Promethean.
So all dissent is Promethean, the idiot's and the genius'. The genius gives us the light, while the idiot makes us remember why the light is the light. And so all those in between are Promethean, as well.
Conclusion: Let Us Give Thanks and Praise to Satan
The Prometheus is not a dissenter because he challenges fashion or some other arbitrary opinion. Rather, he is a challenger of what we might call the status quo. The Marquis de Sade was a true Promethean figure. He demonstrated the falsehood of the Christian tenant of the sanctity of human life. He showed, through cold rationality, how Nature did not care for humanity and that any kind of god did not interfere, whether through nonexistence, incompetence, or indifference. He also makes us seriously question our own moral system. We take it for granted that rape and murder are wrong, but why do we so blindly accept that those things which bring pleasure, such as the guarantee of sex or the elimination of some opponent (or just the jollies of causing pain), are inherently wrong? Indeed, Sade makes us question our deeply held beliefs.
The truth is not learned by merely accepting. The first man who fooled with fire, the True Prometheus, must have been seen as an idiot by those around him. It was not until he demonstrated the usages of fire that his discovery was accepted as truth. Before that, the common practice might have been to pray for lightning to strike at a safe distance. Indeed, this is no different than laughing at the doctor and trusting in the faith healer. And this man resisted all the jeers, and it is upon him that the rest of our Societies were built.
The very concept of being Prometheus, or of being Satan, is vital to humanity. Without the Biblical Satan, Adam and Eve would have remained stupid animals, enslaved to some sociopathic god who later demanded a man cut his cock in two. So Satan, by merely suggesting that these people seek out knowledge for themselves, played the great role of Prometheus.
So our own Satans must be thanked. Those who either fill our minds with ideas, such as Hitchens or Sade, or those who we find it our duty to refute, such as Occasio-Cortes, these are the snakes who rescue us from the prison called Eden.