Control and the political dichotomy of the people and the state in a Luciferian context

There was a video released by Michael W. Ford on his YouTube channel about the Greater Church of Lucifer and its focus. It was very inspiring, and it particularly gives a good idea of how to conduct yourself as a Luciferian, shows me that having like-minded individuals doesn’t detract from your own individuality or that of your path, and actually inspired me to print out and laminate a business card  with the 11 Luciferian Points of Power on it, so that I can carry the 11 Luciferian Points of Power with me everyday and hopefully remind myself to pay closer attention to them and try and apply them regularly in my life. In other words, a good reminder of the basics for Luciferianism.

For your potential viewing and learning pleasure I will put the video itself below.

There’s actually one unique point I feel inspired to comment on as the main subject of this post: that the Luciferian understands that all politics is ultimately about control, and that control is not in itself a bad thing. For a while, I thought about that? In what sense is control not a bad thing? It’s a common thought that control means the ability of external bodies such as the state to impose their own will upon the individual, without the consent of the individual. Naturally then, it could be assumed that the obvious reason why a person like myself would support libertarian political philosophy and libertarian spiritual philosophies such as Satanism and Luciferianism would be because people like me detest the idea of control in the external sense, because we don’t want to be controlled by anyone. But in the internal, individual sense, control means something rather different. Self-control is a good thing, it’s one of our important faculties as beings with individuated consciousness capable of mastering our own destinies. It’s also vital is we are as a species to achieve any kind of self-sufficiency, or if we are to avoid lapsing into mob-mentality and complete suggestibility. It’s precisely because most of us do not believe we can control our own lives and achieve that self-sufficiency that the imagined need for external authorities arises in the minds of many people. As author Ryan Holiday put it:

Control and discipline of one’s own reactions make for a successful person and a functioning society. I don’t think you want to live in a world where that isn’t the expectation of each of us.

It’s also vital that we don’t practice any kind of restraint simply for the sake of submission to polite “society” or for the sake of winning the favor of others, but instead for the benefit of yourself so that you may cultivate discipline, patience and mastery, and fully cultivate any kind of autonomy. You can’t be a fully autonomous human being if you lack the self-control that makes you completely suggestible to various whims and negative emotions any more than you can if you are a complete robot or drone constantly acting in obeisance to the will of others without any sort of independent thought whatsoever.

Politics as simply external control, however, is something that can seem like a sensible conclusion. Once you look behind the certain of often baseless moral hyperbole, you may find that few politicians are ever interested in a greater ideal alone. Worse, if they are, they may be devoted only to that ideal, and either uninterested in its practical implications or unable to answer for them. One need only look at America’s current presidential election cycle to see this play out. That’s not to say it isn’t admirable to sacrifice pragmatism in the name of a principle, after all I tend to instinctively be a “liberty over prosperity” person myself, as evidenced in my own personal Euroscepticism – while others in the UK may prefer to Remain in the EU out of concern for the country’s economic standing, I choose Leave as a matter of the principle of independence from a distant and indifferent external authority regardless. But the thing with many idealists out there is they may be blind to any concern for pragmatism or practical application of their ideals. Only their crusade matters.

But getting back to the point, it does seem obvious that many politicians are only out for some kind of control. Any attempt to find any moral justification in authoritarian or illiberal legislation being proposed by governments or politicians yields the same result: that there is no real ethical or logical value in them, so they are purely mechanisms designed to bring control into the hands of the State, or sometimes into the hands of other bodies such as religion. A good example is probably the anti-pornography legislation that the UK government has been trying to introduce, with of course some backing from the British press (and not just sensationalist papers like the Daily Mail, but also “educated” papers like the Guardian and even The Independent). A familiar argument is that pornography is supposedly damaging the minds of those exposed to it and increased availability leads to sexual violence. However, research done on the subject suggests exactly the opposite: that increased porn availability reduces sexual violence rather than increases it. Indeed, this debacle is a very old one. In America during the year 1970, then-President Richard Nixon tried to get rid of pornography and claimed that its “warped and brutal” portrayal of sex was damaging the public at large. His own administration, upon conducting research on the subject, produced a report which concluded that there was no evidence that pornography had any harmful effect on anyone, and naturally discouraged anti-pornography legislation for adults. But Nixon himself rejected the report and its content as morally bankrupt and continued to oppose the right of adults to watch pornography regardless. In the absence of any ethical or logical justification, it was nothing more than a move to put control of some of aspect private life in the hands of the state.

Since the dawn of civilization, or even the dawn of mankind and communities in general, Man has attempted to exert control over populations of people. In the ancient world, it was perhaps more transparent, especially on the matter of war. From wars carried out by nations to conquer foreign territories (from the ancient world right up to the modern age), to civil wars fought in divided and fractured nations (the many wars fought between rival powers in China and Japan are a great example), the aim is often quite transparent: domination, control, the establishment or preservation of one’s political power. Whether or not this was good or bad was usually not a matter of principle, especially not in the modern Christian sense, but rather – as always – dependent on who was wielding power. A good ruler may have put conquered territory to good use and enriched the lives of newly conquered people, preserved a just and prosperous civilization by fighting wars of defense, and used his/her power to enrich the nation or community or simply preserve what is already good. A bad ruler may have treated a newly conquered people with cruelty for no good reason, subjugating them and his/her own people, often for short-term and petty gains, cultivated a corrupt civilization, destroys anything good about it and established dominion and took power only for the sake of having dominion over others and carrying out cruel, extravagant or tyrannical whims. Sometimes, though, a bad ruler is simply an incompetent one, or even one who will not accept and use the strength and power that he/she needs in order to do any good for a nation or community. Even so, power is power, control is control, and many of the dichotomies in our civilization have been ultimately of power versus power. History will always have its way of deciding who was good and who was bad, or rather help us make that judgement for ourselves, but ultimately political power is neither good nor bad, unless applied in such a way by the individual. Just as, like Michael W. Ford said in the video I put here, the individual can make the GCOL great or diminish it entirely through his own efforts or lack thereof, so too is power as tool that can generate, preserve, destroy, or diminish based on the individual wielding it.

What’s important to remember is that in the ancient world, there was simply the rulers and the ruled, and the relationship between them was mostly static, rather than dynamic. Sometimes there was room for the people to rebel against their rulers, but very rarely did it feel like the people had the “right” to dissent (the Mandate of Heaven in China is the only example off the top of my head that I can think of, where the people actually have the right to get rid of their ruler if he is found to be unjust at least in the eyes of Confucian morality). And usually, civilizations were ruled by monarchs who wielded basically absolute political power. With the rise of democracy (read: representational democracy, not direct democracy), the people generally have more of a say with regards to who rules them. This doesn’t always mean more freedom for the people from control, and there’s the chance that such very freedom can be put to a vote – the people have sometimes willfully given control to the State through the vote. But it does mean that the people have a more dynamic relationship with the state, and they can win some control from the State. Representational democracy, from what I understand, hinges on a kind of balance or power struggle between the powers of the state and the people, even though I generally prefer that the best government is the least and favor the rights and freedoms of the people. I also notice that the fascists, the totalitarians, and the authoritarians always seem in favor of disrupting that dynamic relationship in favor of a more static one, perhaps suiting their extreme black-and-white outlook. The anarchists, and to some extent the communists, also want to do away with this dynamic relationship in favor of “rule by the people” or “stateless society”, thinking that the people have the self-sufficiency to do without it or will just operate out of “the goodness of their hearts”. But, until such time as we as a species at large cultivate such self-sufficiency that we no longer have any need of governments and external authorities, we will have to deal with the dynamic relationship and power struggle that defines our democratic civilization, continue to strive to make it work for us as best as possible, and maybe we’ll get a little closer towards achieving the self-sufficiency that will make external authority obsolete for the vast majority of people. In a sense, that is how you free Mankind from external control: not by working to replace the dynamic relationship found in democracy with a more static relationship (thereby reverting to the ancient past) or by destroying it entirely for a species who has not achieved the self-sufficiency required to do without it, but through an evolutionary process – one that, for better or worse, democracy is very much a part of.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s