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.

Advertisements

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.

Meet Mitsuo Matayoshi: Japan’s Crazy Christ!

I want to share a story that I felt made me laugh in a lot of ways, and might make you laugh too. The story of the Japanese politician Mitsuo Matayoshi, leader of a minor political party called the World Economic Community Party. You know all those fundamentalist Christians in America with their wacked out beliefs (like Pat Robertson), and all those cultists who’ve claimed to be the messiah (like Marshall Applewhite from the infamous Heaven’s Gate cult)? Well Matayoshi tops them all in truly spectacular fashion and in a way I swear you can only do in Japan. You see, his primary campaign platform is his belief that he is literally Jesus Christ. I’m not kidding. He actually believes he is Jesus Christ, and he bases his political agenda, including his political party, on that premise. He even styles himself as Jesus (or Iesu) Matayoshi. And he doesn’t just believe he’s Jesus either, he believes he’s the one true God, as in the Christian God (probably assuming they’re one and the same).

The resemblance is so uncanny it’s shocking.

So how exactly does this man manage to top all the fundamentalists and messianic cultists we’re familiar with put together? Well obviously being the leader of a political party is one way, but that’s just the beginning. His political plan is to actually carry out the Last Judgement within the current political system. Because waiting for God to do it is for pussies. The first step, for him, is to become Prime Minister of Japan. Then, he plans to “reform” Japanese society and expects to be offered the post of Secretary-General by the United Nations. Then he plans to rule the whole world with both religious and political authority, get rid of foreigners in Japan, and after his judgement he plans to throw the “corrupt” into the lake of fire. On top of that, he has the balls to urge his political opponents to commit suicide by hara-kiri and to proclaim that he’ll cast them into the fires of Hell. In 2004 he even proclaimed that the then-Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi should resign his post to him or commit suicide, and that he’ll send him to hell, along with everyone who didn’t vote for him. Just look at this campaign poster. And to top it off, although it seems like he’s pretty low-key and obscure nowadays, he’s clearly not giving up as he continues run as a perennial candidate in Japan, obviously not deterred by the fact that he never wins. If history is any indicator, he’ll probably start teasing his opponents into crucifying him like Jesus.

The existence of this guy blows my mind on many levels. It’s really surprising to find a guy like Matayoshi in Japan, where Christianity is pretty much a minority religion (comprising of about 1% or less of Japan’s population). I wonder how the hell he came to literally believe that’s he’s Jesus, though I’m aware he studied religion well before pursuing a career in politics. I must wonder how anyone in Japan would feel compelled to vote for him apart from his eccentricity. He is the absolute absurdity of Japanese politics, and I’ve gotta hand it to him for that.

Beware of conformist pigs, left and right

Here is something else to take care with regarding politics, especially regarding young people who want to be anti-establishment. Think for yourself. It’s not just the right wing who want to control your mind and sell you bullshit. The left wing prey on young people seeking to be anti-establishment, just as the right wing prey on the older generation seeking security in the status quo. That is the way things are in modern society. And just like the right wing, the left wing don’t like you questioning them. If you think differently from them, or you question them, you’re just a right-winger, same with right-wingers labeling you a left-winger if you disagree with them.

I feel left wing liberalism in modern times is a neutered liberalism. It only values freedom of speech and expression until something outrageous and “politically incorrect” shows up. Early this year when Charlie Hebdo was attacked by terrorists, the liberal community did not defend their right of freedom of expression, and instead chose to take up the attitude that they deserved it for publishing offensive cartoons. Over a week ago, there was a shooting in Garland, Texas, over a contest for drawing artwork of the prophet Muhammad, and I swear many liberals acted like Garland deserved it for holding that contest in the first place (all while conservatives found a perfect opportunity to hypocritically chant support for freedom of speech). And in the UK, censorship has become justified by so-called liberals for the sake of creating an inoffensive society.

Then you have hard-left celebrities revolutionary types like Russel Brand, and pretty much every political figure who leans so hard towards socialism and anarchism. They’re frauds. They talk about how repressive and controlling they think a capitalist society is, but they parrot socialist philosophy as an article of faith and expect you to do the same without question, and when you question them they have no idea what to do other than babble meaningless bullshit that answers nothing. And speaking of Russell Brand, Brian May from Queen dared to question Brand about his little revolution, and he just went on and on about his vision without providing any practical solutions. People like Brand are the same kind of idiots you find in the right wing, only they say different things, and the youth just eat it up. Thinking about it, I’m sure some young people swallow far-right politics all the same with exactly as little critical thinking for all the same reasons.

And if you’re young and reading this thinking I have no idea what I’m talking about, when I was about 16 I used to consider myself oriented towards the left. I often fell under left-wing libertarian thought, as I saw it, and I even saw myself as a political anarchist, but I don’t think I fully understood left-wing philosophy. But I didn’t necessarily swallow the same left-wing noise others may have swallowed. Granted I may have been interested in metaphysical and spiritual philosophy as well as myth and religion slightly more than political philosophy as I often am, but back then I had managed to expose myself to a number of ideas. Obviously I strayed away from conservative and overtly right-wing sources and I wasn’t keen on communism and its bloated cousins either, but I had a plenty of various sources of political ideas and philosophies. Even back then, my views could have been considered different and often times I veered towards libertarianism anyway, just that I flirted with the left wing when I was young. Eventually, I grew out of it, became disenchanted with the left wing for various reasons, fell out of love with out-and-out anarchism, and started considering myself just libertarian (well, from a mostly American perspective), seeing it as the best possible political framework for my views and beliefs. I even give some of the writings of Ayn Rand due credit at times, which I guarantee you your average left-winger or anarchist would never have done. Was I brainwashed and crushed by the establishment? No! I thought critically about my political framework and understanding of my own ideas, and listened to other people, some of whom were often older than me. My spirit, the original spirit, hasn’t changed, but understanding has and so has knowledge. That’s why I don’t care about the left-wing anymore after my early teen years. It has nothing to do with “the Man”.

I suggest all who are young and seeking identity, politically or otherwise, do the same. Think for yourself, don’t have faith in anyone except yourself. Be suspicious of all pundits and preachers, left and right, who think they’ve got utopia in mind. Your only utopia will be your own, your own spirit your only article of faith.

In closing, Clint Eastwood once said in TIME magazine (probably before his descent into madness) that always got to me and I think rings some truth about the whole left and right wing politics thing, and it is as follows:

Extremism is so easy. You’ve got your position, and that’s it. It doesn’t take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right you meet the same idiots coming around from the left.

Speaking of which…

What the Republicans could be (if I gave a rat’s ass)

There’s an idea that’s been my few for what I suspect to be a few months. Let’s pretend for a moment that I was actually interested in investing any energy in the American democracy. Let’s pretend that I had any faith in it. Why? Because I actually have an idea on how the Republicans can improve.

Let’s face it, Republicans are basically known for being evil, authoritarian, old-fashioned, hypocritical, unintelligent, bastards, but they have more spirit than the Democrats. What if they took out the authoritarianism and stupidity and gave the Republicans better representatives? Part of the problem with the party’s image is that they usually end up being represented by the stupidest people imaginable (although that’s not to say the other side isn’t full of crap). If intelligent people started representing the party, things would actually be a lot more interesting, and it would be the beginning of intelligent arguments for their values.

Honestly though, you might as well just replace the Republicans with a libertarian party. In a land that values freedom, many of the Republicans are basically useless. Besides, why bother making a more libertarian Republican party when you could have actual libertarians. And libertarians are perceived as kind of right-wing anyway (even though that’s only from the perspective of capitalism versus socialism).

As I said before, this all assumes I care enough about the American democracy, let alone have faith in it.

Politics is all about sucking up

To borrow terminology from South Park, you know how in every democracy, your only choice is between a giant douche and a turd sandwich? The same episode, “Douche and Turd”, had a character who said “It’s always between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Nearly every election since the beginning of time has been between some douche and some turd. They’re the only people who suck up enough to make it that far in politics.

It might actually have some truth to it. As we know, politics is not about true power. It’s about lies, obeying certain interests (usually the interests of corporations), and kissing ass. The politicians who don’t do this, and instead speak for their own will and ideals, or for the benefit of the people, are eventually airbrushed out. Maybe not murdered, but at least made sure they can never have enough influence to change anything.

In America, politicians also have to suck up to Christians, and appease the Christian voting block in order to get far.

Every politician and the media want you to think that said politicians are good, powerful, on your side, and doing something, but when it comes down to it they’re all just rats in suits who get by on our own weakness and ignorance, and only get far by sucking up and using our ignorance.

Politics isn’t what I’m interested in

Lately, I’ve been thinking about politics and current stories, and I’ve also thought about my perception of politics in general, and I’ve come to conclude that what I am interested n is not politics, even though it seems like it is politics.

What I’m actually interested in is ideals, values, ideologies, beliefs and belief systems, philosophies of these things, and the effect they have on society. See, actual politics to me consists of stuff like politicians, officials, MPs, debates, political processes, diplomacy, tax, shit-tastic speeches, policy, elections, bi-laws, legislation, regulation, voting, yada yada fucking yada. It’s all boring shit, boring and ugly people, inaction, and mounds and mounds of pure, uncut bullshit, not to mention the lies upon lies, which are only true because we believe so.

It has almost nothing to do with ideals, ambitions, what you value, and what you want for society. It’s not interesting whatsoever, and I’m willing to bet you agree with me (unless you actually enjoy this boredom and inaction, in which your brain is  probably seriously, seriously shot). The fact is, most if not all of politics is boring and completely meaningless, and all of it is naught but bullshit. I would actually go far enough to say that without politics, the world would be a much better place.