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.

Greed, control, and the average person

There was this Corrosion of Conformity music video I watched one time for their song “Vote with a Bullet”, and it ended with a message saying “politics is the control and wealth and power…you are being conditioned to condemn politics as petty and boring, thus granting all the more control to the powers that be…you are either part of the solution or part of the problem…the choice is yours”, followed by another message apparently urging people to register to vote. It got me thinking, that kind of talk all sounds like very typical binary thinking in support of democracy. It’s the kind of attitude that says you are either contributing to democracy or a helpless thought-slave conditioned to be apathetic, it leaves no room for people who may have wanted to believe in democracy and the power of the people but whose desire to believe in such things was trampled or has faded. I thought about how much control should be given to the people.

The thing is, if politics really is about the control of wealth and resources, and the aim of “democracy” is give some of that control to the people, then let’s pretend the average person actually had significant control over the world’s resources. I’m willing to bet that the average person has no idea what to do with the world’s resources, or where they should go, beyond the notion of giving it to everyone, misguidedly thinking that the world’s resources are endless. Or, perhaps more likely, the average person will probably want to make sure he/she gets most of the resources to himself. I think that the average person is potentially just as greedy as the politician he/she may condemn as being greedy, because both are in it primarily for personal gain rather than for any ideals. The only difference between the two is knowledge of how to gain, inherit, or maintain control of the world’s resources or stop on top. The reason for this is because greed is a powerful motivator in the human psyche. Uncontrolled, it can lead to destruction. Both self-destruction and otherwise. Human history is resplendent with examples of such greed going unchecked and the consequences that follow it, even in modern times. But we are all capable of bringing balance to that greed, just as we are capable of simple greed itself. I say more power to those who prove capable of controlling themselves, and exercising discipline and balance, and I can tell you that democracy, being ultimately a popularity contest, is something that can’t guarantee that unless the people have an eye for skill and competence rather than just charisma.

My thoughts on earth issues

Since environmental issues like climate change, pollution, and other such issues crop up very often in this day and age, I think I might as well comment and mention my stance.

Let’s start with the obvious. Global warming.

There’s enough scientific evidence to point to a climate change occurring, there’s no denying that, though the science can sometimes be odd and contradictory. But I think the reality of the situation is either outright embellished or just presented rather dishonestly. Let me explain the latter for a moment. If we’re right about global warming, then floods and droughts and all that crap might happen if we don’t either do something about it or prepare for the worst, but the planet isn’t the one who’s screwed. We are! But we aren’t very honest about it. We want to present this as doing something for the sake of the planet, and not for our own survival (which would be a lot more honest). The government and media want us to think the planet is dying, when in fact the planet won’t die, so that they can scare us into doing whatever they want so they don’t have to do the work. Climate shifts tend to happen a lot throughout the history of this planet, if you look back you’ll notice. All that will happen in this case is that our environment will either degrade from all our pollution, or just change dramatically, and we’re the ones who might be done in because of it. Speaking of that…

Pollution and energy resources

Landfills, production factories, cars, and fossil fuels are all attributed as polluters to our enivronment, which, along with depleting energy resources, I feel is the real problem. Climate shifts come and go over and over again in the natural history of our planet, but the problem for our species is that we’re polluting the planet and running out of fossil fuels. We can reduce the waste and pollution, and we can come up with new energy sources that are reusable. The problem is, why aren’t we doing that? Or, if we are, why is it taking so long?

Environmentalism and environmentalists

I have a serious problem with environmentalists and their particular ideology, along with the idea that I should be forced to act or live “green” every second possible in every single facet of our lives for fear of extreme consequences. That sounds like a green version of God-fearing Christianity and its moral ideology. I myself have no disrespect for nature, and I don’t want to ruin to the planet per se. I just want to live my life as I would and be rather free-spirited. I sometimes show my care for the situation, but I’m rather lenient. I just to want live. Environmentalists on the other hand tend to be quite dogmatic and fanatical, and to them if aren’t dogmatically green to the letter then you don’t care about the planet. I DO care, I’m just not strict about it.

Politics and propaganda

As I mentioned earlier, the reality of the climate change situation is embellished, and in our society (or at least just America and/or the UK), the issue has become so politicized and socialized, that the attitude towards it is now polarized to the point that some doubt that anything is actually happening. Another lie I should mention is that if we don’t do something then nature will be destroyed, when in fact it won’t. No matter how much we pollute the planet you can’t destroy nature, partly because nature is more than just the planet, and because we are not separate from or above nature. All you will do, is ruin the environment or make the planet a really crappy place to live in. The things is, all the time we’re told to do our small part, but what the fuck is our government doing? Nothing, as usual, even though they have a very sizeable role and responsibility in all this. Also, they could easily support new, cheap, infinitely reusable energies to just put an end to the problem of depleting resources and even pollution, but they’re not doing it. They’re just making sure that they can still use fear to control us so they can continue with their other plans.

And I believe that’s everything. Thanks for reading.

God has no power

Yep, this is about the Abrahamic god.

Think about this: he’s supposed to be all-powerful, right? Well he’s not. In fact, he only has any power or control over you if you believe he does. If you deny he has any power or just don’t believe in him, or both, he won’t have any power or control over your life. Some of the power he holds, then, comes from indoctrination. If you are indoctrinated into believing in the Abrahamic god, and into fear of the god, then logically that means you are then indoctrinated into thinking that he has any power or control over you, and that’s where you acquire spiritual slavery or submission.

If he had any real, objective power, then he could act against something that opposes his will. Why doesn’t he? Take Israel for example, his supposed holy land. If he was all-powerful and would use it against those who attack Israel, why didn’t he repel the sackings of his own temple by the Babylonians, and then the Romans? Why does he not make war with Iran, who wants to wipe Israel off the map? Why didn’t he stop the Muslims from claiming Israel in the Crusades? Why did he not support or protect Israel from attackers when the new nation of Israel was born? Why isn’t he sorting out who’s boss in Jerusalem today? Why, if the people of Israel are his chosen people?

How about the Christians? Why did he never protect them from Roman persecution? If he’s so adamant about people believing in him, why doesn’t he do something about it?

Or in general, if he’s so all-powerful, and all-loving, why does he let children die, or not prevent genocide?

He can’t do jack shit, because he has no power, or control, or even authority, unless you believe he does. If you tune out, deny his power and control, or don’t believe him, he has no power, no spiritual authority. If you want to get rid of that god, then, everyone would have to tune out, reject his authority, or just stop believing, and I’m not going in to that fully here. The point is that the Abrahamic god has no power unless you allow yourself to believe he has any spiritual authority, and with that, you know how to save yourself, by denying that spiritual authority.