The deal

We humans live in settled communities in order to get something we want out of them – in this case what we want is usually safety from the wilderness, proximity to other members of our species and access to resources that would ensure our survival or fulfill other needs. In exchange for these things, we are often expected to observe the laws the society in which we live and not subvert that society or the bonds between the people who live in it. Most people access resources such as money to survive by earning through work, and this is how individuals survive and also support their families. You don’t get something for nothing. This is what I would refer to as a kind of social contract.

There is a similar phenomenon in relationships between mates. Each partner seeks sexual and emotional gratification from each other, and usually one partner wants the other to be able to provide for the other and any family unit that they may plan to raise. You don’t get something for nothing in relationships.

Why am I saying these things? Because I think that we are living in an age where a social contract based on mutual benefit and rational self-interest is either being eroded or rejected entirely in favor of more idealistic proposals. Human societies are not built solely upon abstract ideas, not least the popular ideals being propagated by politicians and ideologues: ideals such as “diversity” and “unity”, or “love” as opposed to “hate” winning the day. They are based on the social contract, people scratching each others’ backs in return for doing the same in kind or simply not causing any trouble. We cannot pursue a lot of our natural inclinations within large groups or communities without some kind of secure society with rules to ensure that people don’t either kill each other based on whims or infringe upon what we might call each others “rights”. But I worry that modern society is acting against this reality in its grandiose pursuit of witless ideas that work against the natural inclinations of humans.

You might think I am talking about the effect that religions such as Christianity have on our society, and it’s certainly true that a society ordered around the Christian religion might in some way work against the natural inclinations of the majority of people. And of course, you could say that the Christians supplanted and replaced a pagan culture based on a deal with nature and the gods with a religion where, in general, the main component of salvation is simply to believe in God. But Christianity has been domesticated by the secular, liberal West, and is becoming less culturally relevant in the West, with the possible exception of America. And yet, where Christianity has failed, secular “progressive” ideologies such as feminism succeed. What may have started out as a movement working to genuinely give women rights that they didn’t have before is now a purely gender-based identitarian movement which claims to be about “equality” but in reality seeks solely the advancement of women as a gendered social class, often by taking advantage of the gynocentrism (which I plan on covering in a later post) as well as, interestingly, a kind of social and cultural puritanism similar if not identical to the kind that has been characteristic of Christianity, all while embracing and profiteering off of modern victim culture and the rancid social justice movement. And this is also based on the idea that the gender roles we are familiar with are entirely socialized, an idea that sooner or later people will realize is working against them, which it is already doing. And let’s not forget a culture that is both increasingly feminized and increasingly antagonistic towards masculinity – which, I guarantee, you will find exemplified both in social media and in many major media outlets where social commentary is found – a culture that is bound to facilitate higher rates of male suicide. It is my belief that those invested in this sort of culture want to get something for nothing, they want to lift themselves up at the expense of everyone else.

In addition to this, we have a consumer culture where humans can find instant gratification through social media, technology and other avenues. Social media and technology, I must stress, isn’t so much a problem on it is own as much as the fact of our lack of control. The rise of ideologies such as socialism, which is based ultimately on the premise of taking from the wealthy and giving it to the poor through the state, is also surely not a coincidence, particularly as it is popular among millenials. After all, when you want a society where you can get something for nothing, why not gravitate towards socialism? I mean it worked out great for Venezuela, right?

All of this is relevant because the social contract is meaningless when there is no incentive in society to uphold it. The bonds between humans are meaningless when there is no incentive for humans to reciprocate each other. Relationships are becoming perverted, not by sexual “immorality” but by people who want to have it all and the ideas through which they feel they can acheive this, and this driving people away from having relationships and even from having sex.

Man is in the midst of a great experiment: to try and realign his own nature in order to suit whatever ideologies humans have which demand that human nature be realigned according to their respective propositions for society. It failed with communism, it failed with fascism and it is going to fail again precisely because human nature is not accounted for. Man has forgotten to put his own needs before whatever grand visions of society are produced by charlatans and entertained by fools. So have the nation states of Europe, which allow migrants from the Middle East and North Africa, most of which are neither refugees nor from Syria, to break down the social cohesion of their communities in the name of both pathological altruism and the ideal of “diversity”, thus undermining the social contract. Man has also forgotten that his needs can be fulfilled through hard work and through observing the contract – by scratching someone else’s back, they scratch yours – and perhaps even cultivating the bonds between humans that, ultimately, preserve society. Neither instant gratification nor the grandiose ideals around which modern Man wishes to orient society will not be too fulfilling to Man or his needs for very long. As Anton LaVey assures in The Satanic Bible, “yes, times have changed, but Man has not”.


One concept that’s often associated with Left Hand Path traditions is the concept of elitism. I’m not sure if it’s a universal tradition among the Left Hand Path. Some Left Hand Path traditions seem to, or at least some claim to be associated with the Left Hand Path – the irony of course being that some of these “Left Hand Path” traditions actually embrace a kind of collectivism, in terms of the acceptance of an in-group and shunning an out-group – case in point, the Order of the Nine Angles, which is sometimes seen as embracing elitist concepts and spirituality, and also embraces the notion of the in-group versus the out-group (the in-group being anyone in the ONA, and the out-group being the “mundanes”, which refers to anyone who’s not a member of the ONA).

In his book Lords of the Left Hand Path, Stephen Flowers seems to refer to the Temple of Set as elitist. There is some truth to this, as there are a category of people – which, of course, consists of very few people – who are identified as “Elect”, referring to individuals within the Temple of Set who have attained the second degree or higher or have been selected by the Prince of Darkness after realizing their separation from the objective universe and its natural order.

And then there’s Peter Gilmore, personality cult leader current head of the Church of Satan, who wrote this:

[Satanism is] a religion of elitism and Social Darwinism that seeks to re-establish the reign of the able over the idiotic, of swift justice over sluggish injustice, and for a wholesale rejection of egalitarianism as a myth that has crippled the advancement of the human species for the last two thousand years. Is that something to fear? If you’re one of the majority of human mediocrities merely existing as a media-besotted drone, you bet it is!

– from Satanism: The Feared Religion by Peter Gilmore

Honestly, if Satanism really is a strongly elitist religious tradition, then that’s an aspect of Satanism that I don’t think I’ve looked into a lot (though the Book of Fire in the Satanic Bible contains verses that could be interpreted as supporting Social Darwinism and elitism). That, or I just say that because the Satanism I follow is basically a non-elitist interpretation of Satanism.

You also have individuals such as Augustus Sol Invictus (who you may remember from this year’s International Left Hand Path Consortium in Atlanta, USA), who have been associated with the Left Hand Path and espouse some kind of elitism, to the point where they are actually trying to blend LHP belief with fascist ideology. In the case of Augustus Sol Invictus, he has come out in support of eugenics programs and criticized the United States federal government for not having them in its policy because he believed that the government favored “decadent” ideology which he claimed “rejected the beauty of strength and demands the exponential growth of the weakest, least intelligent, and most diseased.” He also believes that the “strong” should govern and rule over the “weak”, which would definitely entail elitism in some form.

The dictionary definition of elitism reads as follows:

  1.  leadership or rule by an elite

  2. the selectivity of the elite; especiallysnobbery <elitism in choosing new members>

  3. consciousness of being or belonging to an elite

– from Merriam-Webster

In general, the Left Hand Path is supposed to embrace individualism above all else, which means the rejection of collectivism and collectivist ideals. But elitism, by its very definition, is preferential towards a group of people over another (or others), and its premise is actually errs towards collectivism. In collectivism, humans are divided into two key groups: one of them is the in-group, the other is the out-group. The in-group is the group that the majority or a given individual may identify with, while the out-group is the group that said majority or said given individual does not identify with. In collectivism, the in-group is given preferential status, power and the rights that those things entail, while the out-group treated as the inferior party and does not have the same rights, and there are no individual rights, only group rights. Consequently, the application of elitism would have results that I think a Left Hand Path practitioner such as myself would not find very agreeable. Going back to Peter Gilmore when he described Satanism, the irony is egregious. Satanism is a religion that espouses individualism as one of the core tenets. Elitism, put into practice, contradicts individualism and instead operate on a collectivist mindset.

In fairness though, it’s not as though every Left Hand Path individual or organization believes that the external world should follow an elitist social order. Again, I’m not sure if it’s a universal tradition in the Left Hand Path, so I can’t be sure if most Left Hand Path practitioners agree with such a premise and I certainly can’t speak for everyone – only really myself. Also, the Temple of Set is not especially egregious in its apparent elitist worldview given that they only practice anything close to elitism a hierarchy that only applies to those who join the Temple of Set. As far I know, they do not seek to impose any kind of elitism on the external world, and they don’t think that the non-elites should actually be ruled by the elites. This post is more targeted to those who an elitist social worldview.

But I cannot stress enough that, in my opinion, the application of elitism on the external world tends to only go one way – down. In the Western world today, I have been taking notice of a significant divide between the political establishment/the media and the common people, and in my opinion this divide is only getting more exposure with some key political events – namely this year’s US presidential elections and the looming EU referendum in the UK. In America, there are two populist presidential candidates you can easily point to. One of them is an old socialist, and the other is Donald Trump. Both of them seem to come from outside the political establishment and both are gunning for the power of the elite, but Donald Trump has clearly been the most successful of those two. The main reason for Donald Trump’s success is simple – he has successfully appealed to a large section of the American people who, quite frankly, are tired of feeling excluded from the political process. And that section of people happens to be a large portion of the working class.

For a long time now, the so-called liberals (I prefer the term progressives, actually) have done a good job of lording their supposed political superiority over everyone else in American culture, and even Facebook has gone out of its way to suppress people with more conservative opinions. In addition, the Obama administration proved to be a disappointment to many people, with the change promised by Obama himself not coming to pass for the most part, and you still couldn’t criticize progressivism without facing some ostracism from your liberal friends, who now doubt make a point of virtue-signalling and express their conformity through lame memes. Don’t forget the media with its glowing pro-establishment biases. Around the same time, you had political correctness gone mad, as embodied by not just the progressive/liberal establishment but also the feminist establishment, as well as a movement of young Marxists popularly referred to as social justice warriors, all demanding obedience to progressive dogma whilst considering themselves to be ideologically and morally superior to everyone else.

Naturally, a large section of people feel have had enough, and they see Trump as the antidote. The media have been falling over themselves repeatedly trying to understand Trump’s rise, and the only thing progressives seem to do is denounce Trump’s voters as racist and go out of their way to not just unfollow or block Trump supporters, but actively encourage their friends to do so as well because they’ve decided Trump supporters at large lack compassion and empathy for other human beings, little realizing that it’s exactly this intolerance to the point of illiberalism that’s spurred Trump’s voters on in the first place. It’s so bad now in the American media, that Trump’s presidency is treated as an extinction-level event, but of course some of us know what this all really means – that the establishment actually feels threatened by Donald Trump and they want him gone. We even have David Harsanyi from the The Federalist write in The Washington Post calling for the “weeding out” of ignorant Americans from the electorate. Even though the article doesn’t mention Trump at all, I have a feeling that this is establishment media butthurt stemming from Trump’s success. But the fact is, this suggestion is elitist at its core. Why? Because the author suggest that America excludes citizens from voting on the basis of intelligence, even though the right to vote is supposed to be universal – applying to literally everyone – in any democracy. Frankly, I hear stuff like this and just feel disgusted.

In the UK, we have been a part of the European Union since 1973 (back when it was called the European Economic Commission), and we voted to be a part of the single market in 1975, but the British people have had no real say as to whether or not they want to be a part of the European Union until recently, and now there’s a chance we may leave. Now the European Union is about as elitist as it gets barring actual fascism. They impose their own will on member states, and the people of member states fall out of line (like in Ireland, France, and Holland for instance) they will denounce them as xenophobic. The European Union generally does not have much respect for ordinary people at large. And as a matter of fact, neither do pro-EU politicians, like Pat Glass who referred to a voter as a “horrible racist”. And this attitude seems to be reflected in everyone else who supports the EU. In the British media, you have a cultured establishment media that is divorced from the common people (The Guardian being a perfect example) versus a more populist but less informative media that most people wind up reading (The Daily Mail being a perfect example), and if you’re a Eurosceptic you can be mistakenly denounced as racist and right-wing. Lots of people are keen on staying on the “right” side by virtue-signalling and shunning opposing viewpoints. The referendum presents an opportunity for populist backlash in this country, if all goes well at least.

Elsewhere in Europe, we see another recent example of the divide between the establishment and the people. Just two days ago, Austria almost elected Norbert Hofer, leader of a right-wing populist party called the Freedom Party. They captured the working class votes that were previously the domain of Social Democrats because they didn’t take the working class seriously enough, and they captured the conservative vote from the People’s Party – both parties represented a more centrist political establishment, and the EU had felt threatened by the rise of the Freedom Party. Other countries in Europe have had far right populist movements threaten the political establishment – France for instance has the Front National, Italy has Lega Nord, the Netherlands has the Party for Freedom, Greece has the Golden Dawn, and here in the UK we have UKIP. Some of this backlash is tied with the migrant crisis, and Europe’s response. Generally in popular culture you’re expected to just blindly support mass migration, and if you dare to question the impact that might have on your community then you’re vilified as being an anti-immigration racist. That ostracism will no doubt provide fuel for some seeking to attack the political establishment. Especially in Germany, after authorities tried to cover up the mass sexual assaults that happened on New Year’s Eve. In the UK, we also had a culture of political correctness which left authorities largely powerless to deal with the spread of radical forms of Islam and often prevented police from taking decisive action against criminals who happened to be Muslim (such as in the infamous Rotherham scandal), prompting the rise of the EDL and similar, more extreme groups.

The reason I wrote in great length about Europe and America in this post is because what’s happening there and generally in the Western world illustrates a simple truth that is becoming self-evident – when you culturally exclude a group of people deemed morally inferior in civil life instead of treating them as basically equals, it’s only a matter of time before the established order faces the prospect of populist backlash. In our world, we should be viewing our fellow citizens as morally autonomous adults or at least presume that they are – regardless of their beliefs, gender, or race – and try to engage with their ideas in order to understand and even challenge them to the best of our ability, whatever chance we get. However, it seems a lot of people decide not to do this, and instead just unfairly vilify the other side without any notion of intellectual humility, or even integrity if you think about it. When “polite society”, the establishment, the media and everyone who offers obedience to it,  people will become fed up and rise against the demand for conformity. When a political establishment becomes too divorced from the people and from reality, such a disconnect will eventually become obvious. Put simply, impose elitism on the outer world, and the people will have none of it. They will want to go for the throats of the elite, and watch their establishment burn.

The illusion of society

Progressively I have been moving towards the idea that, in truth, there is no such thing as society or the collective. The collective is nothing without individuals, as is society. They both mere agglomerations of individuals. They cannot exist as their own individual entities, not least as entities that are positioned above the individual, and they do not have any intrinsic value on their own.

The idea that society exists as its own entities is at best deluded and at worst indulgent for all the wrong reasons. It allows the weak and the conservative something to cling to and worship, and it allows those who are those the progressive and who seek “social justice” to have something to scapegoat. In the modern world, many people either fall in line with society or demand society to fall in line with them, depending on their disposition, but neither cause is ultimately conducive to freedom for the individual. Worse, the concept is a continued source of thought slavery and delusion for it makes it harder to treat human beings as individuals, since you end up treating individuals as just part of society rather than as individuals.

To be honest, I feel that society is just another scapegoat, a means for humans to avoid blame for their own faults. In fact, I feel society is truly an egregious scapegoat of scapegoats, because by shifting our own faults and sins to a baseless entity like society, we halt our own personal liberation and depreciate our own selfhood. How? Because we still attach the basis of our moral being to society and its conditions, and by doing so we divert ourselves from individual moral being. How can we be our own moral beings individually if we attach ourselves to the concept of society, especially when that concept is illusory?

It should be noted that due to its obviously pervasive nature in the lives of almost all humans on earth (and probably every human you are most likely to encounter), the illusion of society is a difficult illusion to completely break from. And I don’t plan on suggesting we all live as hermits, isolated from civilization and its benefits. All I hope is that, in our civilization, more and more individuals can defeat one great illusion that depreciates our selfhood and thus move just a little closer to true freedom.

This twisted world

WARNING: This post may or in fact can be considered a giant rant on my part, that’s because, in all honesty, it is. In retrospect, plenty of my posts could be considered rants or gripes, but this one I really think is truly the essence of a rant. Enjoy.

Often times this world inspires feelings of anger, mixed with moralistic instincts, mixed even with some misanthropy, but the fact is I truly hate not the world as it is on its own, and not all of mankind, but world made by mankind.

This world is based upon such sins as the spiritual and creative acquiescence of the individual, conformity, herd and alpha male mentality, fear, ignorance, exploitation of human flaws and human nature, and human greed, certainly anything but individualism or sound morals. Instead of using what supposed power it has to deal with the evils that commonly plague this world, we use it to pollute the world with infrastructure of oppression and machines that destroy liberty, and this pollution is the main tool by which the rights of the many are destroyed or defiled. This is a world where few people ever get their just deserts, and people only know to pursue their own self-interest negatively rather than positively. If you lash out at anyone who has wronged you, then you are punished, not the person who wrongs you, and justice rarely rules. We live in a world where people still mindlessly follow what they’re told, including patterns of behavior, especially regarding gender. We live in a world where the people try to drown each other in drugs, and the sea of loss of control that results, like they deliberately seek to lose every last ounce of control over themselves in exchange for brief highs and self-destruction. Many people do not think much of the soul, the spiritual, or the spiritual self, and have no concept of individualistic spirituality, so we embrace either worthless religions that provide a framework for the individual that demands obedience and acquiescence to some God above, or worthless, meaningless materialism that denies all things spiritual and a shallow, vacuous, YOLO mentality and lifestyle, neither of which will do any good, bar perhaps for some individuals, and anyone who believes anything different is automatically assumed to be a wacko, a nutjob, or delusional. Because people only see the material side of existence, they equate the body with the self, and they cling miserably to physical life, they seek immortality, fruitlessly divorcing themselves from nature by hiding from the inevitable end of physical existence while sacrificing spiritual existence at the same time. And speaking of divorce from nature, this is a world where people try to rise above nature, they pollute the planet, then either run and hide or arrogantly claim themselves to be the saviours of nature, when in reality nature ill needs any savior, let alone such a “saviour” as mankind. Most people are so smug about this, that I bet they will never realize that the earth has endured much more than mankind, and that it is not the planet that is being screwed over, but mankind, who knows he is soon to be undone by his own self-destructive actions but places the planet as the victim so that he can act like the hero. We also all too often ascribe our own sins and self-destructive acts to a scapegoat, monster, or devil, so that we may continue being self-destructive and deny responsibility. This a world where we create wonderful things, and then fuck it all up with one stupid thing. We create computers, and then when one guy creates a computer virus as a prank, it all spreads and we can’t contain it. We refuse to deal with real issues, real crimes, and instead insist on pleasing the people with lesser issues and false morals (such as “think of the children!”). We used to fight evil, and now we teach each other it is wrong to do so. We are spied on constantly by marketing, government, and other perverted, perhaps more criminal, individuals, but do we do anything to stop it? No. There are ways to protect yourself but that’s not the point. The point is this shouldn’t even be happening in the first place. We pretend to believe in freedom and then go back to being sheep, but then who’s to say our particular belief in freedom is just spoon-fed ideas of freedom rather than true understanding of freedom. The only morality we accept or allow to have any power is usually morality that has no spine, it is naive morality that in the end only exists to serve the establishment rather than chastise it. Our culture is mostly lifeless and droll, made for idiots, by either other idiots or people cynically exploiting idiots. Lastly, many of us do not pursue real love, but sexual conquest, and sometimes, we think of love and sexual conquest as one and the same, and we undergo traditions of personal acquiescence just to maintain a relationship based on domination and sexual conquest, rather than actual love.

To be fair, the world isn’t all evil, though the world mankind has created certainly is very evil, but there are positive things we have created, and we do find things to enjoy in this world. To be honest, we live through this world anyway in order to try to simply live out our lives the way we want to before we die. I still live in this world because this world is also a place where we can form our own ideas, discover our own identities and what makes us tick. But that doesn’t absolve anything.

There’s another thing for me to reflect on. When ranting like this, I kinda remind myself of when I was 16 years old, because it certainly sounds like that part of me is still there. And that’s a good thing because it means I haven’t lost any connect with what I essentially am or what my values are. It serves to remind me that I haven’t truly changed, just that I’ve grown a little, which means my understandings have evolved slightly. So yes, if there is a positive to this wicked world, it at least reminds me of my core, albeit in a somewhat negative way.


Speaking of 16 years old, here’s the “evil world” I made as part of an art piece I made when I was that age. My understanding is different now from then, but the spirit is kind of the same, so are the ideals, but back then my ideals were in a different place, if that makes sense.

Reject the world of shallow perceptions!

I was preparing for a meeting/interview at the university I plan to attend starting September, and my mother was all antsy about how smart I looked. And then my sister butted in with her nagging (which we in the family know caused her partner to leave her). On the way, I was still pissed about it, and my mother told me that somehow this is the real world, and that I’ve got to accept it.

I can’t. I can’t accept blasphemy against individuality and personal integrity. Conforming oneself and one’s image to societal exceptions is a blasphemy unto individuality. I urge you to reject a society that encourages this and to fight for your individuality, not letting go even once in your life.

Also, doesn’t it fucking bug you that adults tell you to be honest while at the same time most of them sell their souls?

The greatest delusion of the civilized world

The chief delusion of the civilized world is the idea that we no longer have to fight for anything. In reality, we must still struggle for our survival, for that is the way it has always been.

But it doesn’t stop there. If you don’t want to be absorbed by conformity, then you must fight for your individuality, and be strong. You must defend and hold on to your soul if you wish to keep it.

If you do not stand guard of your soul, self, and mind, you will be lost in the sea of society and conformity. You must always defend your individuality, not just believe in it, or it will be lost in the sea of voices trying to tell you how to live.

Besides that, conflict still exists even in the civilized world, and we still are the same animals we were a long time ago, just more intelligent. The energy for conflict is always there. In fact, in this world, denial and self-repression only seems to make things worse for our species, especially when trying to repress our animal self comes back to bite us in the ass.

The false sense of security attained from the lie leads us to gradually let go of everything we need to be free, convinced that we no longer need to fight, when in reality, we always will. The delusion that we don’t have to fight for anything also leads us not to fight for our youth and spirit, alongside our individuality, thus we lose it and surrender because we are tricked into not fighting for it.

If we continue believing this lie, the same cycle of oppression and ignorance will always rule.

Social change is not the only purpose of art

Art is very likely to reflect the world surrounding the artist, and his/her sentiments, experiences, and even the prism through which he/she sees the world. It is because of this that art inevitably acquires the ability to be used as a medium to affect society. There are a number of voices both in the present and the past who argue that art exists as a medium for social change and consciousness. But this argument is nonsense because it ignores the many other ways art could be used.

At its heart, art-making is about creation, it’s about physically expressing something in creative means. Those who say it exists only for the sake of social change and consciousness ignore art as a means of personal expression and feelings, of spirituality, or other non-political purposes. Not all art is protest, nor should it have to be.

In my personal opinion, artists should make art for themselves, and for the sake of their own passion for art, their feelings, and the desire to create and express something dear to them. If they devote their careers to serve society, then they are no longer creating art for themselves or for their own sake.