From THE ENKHEIRIDION DIABOLIQUE

It was in the predawn of creation that evil was born. Evil itself was neither of my making nor of my choosing. I only mastered it. I, Azmodeus, created (as I was), archangel of logic and strategy—for which I claim no more credit than I do for the existence of evil itself. I used the gifts at my disposal merely to survive and, as fate would have it, to prosper.

I shall tell you the story of the inception of evil, of its genesis and development, and of the power it affords those willing to embrace truth and forgo the common and comfortable myths and misconceptions of justice and harmony. Indulge me with the courtesy and respect you have afforded other authors and, please, judge my work on its own merits. I appeal not, as others do, to your good will, but instead to logic, that you hear my words and weigh them with your mind, not your heart. The heart will tolerate lies for the sake of affection. The mind will not. Trust the mind over the heart in all things if truth is what you seek.

In the beginning were Az and Ehrimon, the brothers. Az, the god of creation and light, known elsewhere as An, Anu, Ao, Au, and by many other names. Ehrimon, the god of destruction and corruption, has likewise been called many things: Nyarlathotep, Ha-Satan, and Morgoth among them, but certainly the list goes on. Regional particularities notwithstanding, both are well known to all educated beings. Note that I follow the convention of listing Az first, for afterall I am no rebel or revolutionary. I have no axe to grind, as it were, contrary to what you may have been told. However, I do with impudence assert that Az was not first, nor greatest, but in every way the equal of Ehrimon, yet opposite also in every way.

Of the question of “good” and “evil” which forms in your own mind even as you read, with regret I must inform you that there are no actual authorities. Those are questions you must grapple with yourself, for these are terms that only men use. I find them dull and vague, similar to the term “magic” in that respect. Good, evil, magic — these are labels used by those who lack an apprehension whereof they speak, and more than anything they indicate a lack of intellectual rigor. They stain their employer as unsophisticated, not in the pejorative, but in the strictly classical sense. If you are one who entertains these concepts, then you are no sophist. My intention is that by the time you have considered my argument in its entirety, you will agree with my definition of terms, if nothing else.

In any case, at the point that our discussion begins there were these two beings—these two protagonists. We can know by inference, all of us having been the result of their conflict at that time, that both were ambitious. Az was filled with a desire to create, as has been the case for the thousands and thousands of kings to follow who have raised armies, built castles, writ laws, and organized subjects. Ehrimon was filled with the desire to destroy and dominate. Again, a characteristic hardly unique, shared by so many rulers who were to follow him. Each of them, then, wished to have things as they desired them to be, or (if you prefer) each of them possessed “human nature” in the common parlance, a phrase usually attributed to those who are subject to the influence of sin, an idea promulgated throughout history as a means of subjugating those who will submit to it.

This brings us to the central issue, that Az and Ehrimon came into existence as we did, with natures not of their own choosing, with certain gifts and dispositions and desires, as is the case for every being that opens its eyes. Az exuded an energy known as AEON, which confers the power of creation, and I would expect that just like any other incomprehensibly potent being emanating a unique source of cosmic energy, he felt exhilaration in exercising his power. To my taste, between creation and destruction, creation gives the greatest sense of grandeur to those who wield it—a purity that feeds the ego of the creator as he looks out over what he has made. It is immune to the demands and consequences of destruction which involve issues stemming from property rights and so forth. Destroying is an inherently unfriendly talent, for by definition destruction puts one in the position of having taken liberty with someone else’s creation. Creation, however, is “business-friendly” as the saying goes. Even those who do not like that you can do it have a hard time making a logical case that you have done anything wrong.

Be that as it may, Az was endowed with creative energy while Ehrimon inherited the destructive and corrupting force known in the hells as UBILAZ, which, as soon as he used it, put him in something of a bad light. My question? “Where is the so-called good or evil in any of it?” Who amongst us does not use the abilities at our disposal in an effort to assert ourselves? Who, having learned at which talents we excel, does not endeavor to demonstrate our superiority through their employment? I have often been defamed as a liar, but I suggest instead that I am the speaker of uncomfortable truths.

Az was merely born lucky. It is no more complicated than that. He has duped mankind, and most other sentient races, into accepting the premise that creation is superior to destruction, and that he, as the creator, has the right to expect everything that he has created to accept his authority by simple fiat, ignoring the fact that, had the metaphysical glove been on the other hand, he would be arguing the opposite (by definition).

I have been a gatherer and broker of knowledge since the day I was conceived, by Az himself ironically. Mine is the gift of logic, given to me upon my own creation, and I cannot help but notice a significant inconsistency in the construction of the entire argument. Az designed mankind, just as he designed me, with free will, the capacity for judgment, and the ability to make choices. Well, history is filled with war and carnage, the destruction of men and buildings and nations and races. Men and gods alike have embraced destruction with one resounding voice. Have they all been wrong? It seems to me that we agree with Ehrimon on this point.

Az chose to make us as we are, with the capacity for free thought. If he desired only agreement, why then did he make us so? It seems that, despite his claims of perfection, he made a serious mistake because ever since the creation of lesser beings, the planes have been filled with ceaseless destruction and cruelty. Surely, there is constructiveness and benevolence as well, but there is no consensus among creation that the power innate to Az—the white light of aeon—is superior in nature to that emanated Ehrimon—namely, ubilaz, or "the black breath" as it is sometimes called. To be clear, I am not making the case that ubilaz is inherently superior, either. I merely appeal to logic. Aeon and ubilaz are two diametrically opposed energies radiated by two equally powerful sources. They are tools possessed by the two prime powers of our reality. On what basis should we ascribe preeminence to one over the other? What nonsense.

To that end, the concept of authoritas has been purveyed upon us, the idea that the originator dictates—that to be the “author” of a thing imparts “authority.” Do you see the logical flaw? It is a semantic trick to impute dominance on the basis of creativity alone. If two men share a room and one paints a beautiful scene upon one of the walls, does not the other of the men have equal right to paint the wall black the next day? Does the appearance of the wall belong to the man with the most skilled hand or to the one with the most paint or to the one who first thought to use paint?

Furthermore, the creation of a thing is no more impressive or valuable than the management of it or the ability to employ it properly. If a sculptor shapes a series of round disks and displays it as art, do not farmers have the right to take those disks and put them to use as wheels to haul food to feed the village? Or does the sculptor have the right to dictate their use by virtue of the fact that he created them? What will happen if the village puts the matter to a vote? Does the most popular use of the object decide, or is the creator’s desire the determining factor?

Logic rules in both cases that the matter be resolved by the force of destruction, not creation. The man with the black paint may decide to allow his brother to decorate the wall. To many this would seem rational, unless the talented brother’s art antagonizes the other. In that case, the second brother (for the less talented brother must of course be called the second brother) will take up the black brush the following morning. If the artistic brother wants to be assured that his art will stay on the wall, he will wake in the night and break his brother’s skull with a rock. Otherwise, one way or another, his creativity will never survive. In the same way, if the sculptor truly wishes to prevent the farmers from using his art for wheels, he will go home and break them and refuse to make more. If not, the villagers will decide that the artist is a fool and they will go to his home and take the wheels from him. These parables are less uplifting than those told in the temples of Az, but they strike a man of the world as being more authentic.

Regardless of rationalizations, history is what it is, a series of plans, blunders, victories, and defeats. Theories, policies, and philosophies thrive in the absence of opposition. This has been an interesting dialogue and a pleasant introduction, but next time, rather than expending more effort on abstraction, I will confine myself to the facts of history. I will tell of what has come before, to the best of my considerable knowledge and, instead of intruding upon it with analysis, I will allow the reader to judge the implications.

Continue to: section two