Jon Letendre

Luciferianism: A Secular Look At A Destructive Globalist Belief System

Recommended Posts

This is a fascinating article. The author detects organized evil in our world and tries to put together who is involved and what the organizing principles are.

Over many years of investigating the mechanics of global events and the people behind them I have become perhaps a little obsessed with one particular subject – the source and motivations of evil. This fascination does not stem from a simple morbid curiosity, but a strategic need to understand an enemy. Much like an exterminator needs to understand the behavior of cockroaches to be effective, I seek to understand the behavior and nature of organized evil.”

...

”Evil is first and foremost any action that seeks to destroy, exploit or enslave in the name of personal gain or gratification. Unfortunately, evil actions are often misrepresented as advantageous for the group, thereby making them morally acceptable. The needs of the many supposedly outweigh the needs of the few, and thus evil is rationalized as a means to a “positive end” for the "greater good".

“In most cases, however, destructive actions do not end up serving the interests of the majority, and only end up giving more wealth and power to an elitist minority. This is not a coincidence.

...

It is sometimes difficult to identify the true “sacraments” behind luciferianism because, for one, luciferians refuse to admit that the system is a religion at all. They prefer to call it a philosophy or methodology, at least in public. The system also seems to encourage active disinformation in order to dissuade or mislead non-adherents. The historic term for this religious secrecy is “occultism”. I would call it “elitism”.

...

As mentioned earlier, there is a group of people in the world who do not see good and evil the way most of us do. Their psyche functions in a completely different way, without the filter of conscience. These people exhibit the traits of narcissistic sociopaths.  Full blown high level narcissistic sociopaths represent around 1% to 5% of the total human population, and most of them are born, not made by their environment. Also, 5% to 10% of people hold latent traits of either narcissism or sociopathy that generally only rise to the surface in an unstable crisis environment.

“I have written extensively on narcissistic sociopaths and the globalist establishment in numerous articles. I have also outlined how such people, contrary to popular belief, are not isolated from one another. They do in fact organize into groups for mutual gain.”

...

”Luciferianism is also prevalent in globalist institutions. For example, the UN seems to be highly involved in the ideology through groups like Lucis Trust, a publishing house founded by Alice Bailey, an avid promoter of luciferianism who also owned the Lucifer Publishing Company. Lucis Trust was originally headquartered at the UN buildin in New York, and still runs a private libraryof occult books out of the UN today.

“Former UN directors like Robert Muller were tied closely with Lucis Trust and the work of Alice Baily and openly promote luciferianism. Muller was central to the UN's global education policies for children and formed numerous branch agencies with the intent of global governance. You can read Robert Muller's white papers on the formation of a global government on his website Good Morning World.”

 

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3651-luciferianism-a-secular-look-at-a-destructive-globalist-belief-system

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

This is a fascinating article. The author detects organized evil in our world and tries to put together who is involved and what the organizing principles are.

Jon,

I caught this article on Zero Hedge earlier. I think the folks at Zero Hedge realized that the word "Luciferianism" would cause a kneejerk reaction in certain users, so they put it under a different headline and used a most intriguing pull-quote.

(It certainly caused a kneejerk here on OL, someone gave it a one-star rating and I am 100% certain the person didn't even look at the article.)

Brandon Smith: A Secular Look At The Destructive Globalist Belief System

Quote

"If you have to lie about the motives of your philosophy in order to get people to adopt your philosophy, then your philosophy must be dangerously incomplete or outright cataclysmic..."

That is what pulled me in.

Without using the word, Lucifer, the concept behind the philosophy of the globalists and other ideologues is exactly what I was talking about on a different thread earlier today:

10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

... it all boils down to two different views of mankind:

1. Those who think humans are perfectible according to some model or other, and
2. Those who think humans are not perfectible and never will be.

The contradictions inherent in the "humans are perfectible" model are so great, its breathtaking how people miss them--how the human mind evolved the capacity to be fooled by a good story to miss them.

For instance, if humans are imperfect right now, how can they design a model of human perfection? How do they even know what that is from their perspective of imperfection? The one who designs the model is imperfect by observation and definition.

Yet, like the Sirens calling Ulysses, this vision of perfection drives people crazy and they jump overboard to shatter themselves on the shoals trying to to get to it. They shatter their ships, too. They have done this throughout history, but it got especially bad with communism.

And their model of perfection designer? What do people do about that person's imperfections? They make up a story and deify the person. That is, until they all shatter.

Rand heard this call of the Sirens and jumped overboard, too. Moral perfection is one of the parts of Objectivism I no longer accept. I don't think I ever did. Fundies will say I am trying to make a half-assed excuse for my own pathetic soul, but my problem has always been the contradictions.

How can I aspire to something that is improperly identified?

Take it on faith?

And when we move this vision to power over others (government), what do you do when those little human suckers refuse to cooperate, refuse to become perfect, insist on doing things their way? The obvious solution always triumphs in the end because reality always triumphs no matter what a visionary says to the contrary. When reality triumphs over quests for utopia, some form of eugenics emerges. The frustrated social and human nature engineers always end up sanctioning murder--just kill the goddam imperfect bastards off. Then those all-wise self-appointed perfection lords and masters turn the executions over to people who don't mind doing it, or even like it. 

And they don't even see that an executioner of innocent people can never be perfect under any model of perfection. So the ones executing will ultimately have to be executed, too. But who will do it? Only the imperfect, who will ultimately need to be executed. Talk about a contradiction...

My point is that government is and should be for humans as they exist, not for humans in some form of future perfected model. That means, no matter how rigid the principles are underlying any social system, there has to be flexibility built in to deal with human imperfections.

Even something as simple as don't hurt people, at least don't start it. That should be pretty easy, right? Never hurt people if they are not hurting other people. No exceptions.

But if you know a human monster is educating himself and arming himself to the teeth, or manufacturing some dangerous form of gas or poison, it's better to do something about it before he kills gobs of people, even if you have to hurt him first. The problem is you can't turn that into a principle. You have to do it case by case to the best of your common sense ability. And that bothers the shit out of those who have heard the Siren's call and want a static universe.

But if they allow primacy of the Sirens, mass murder will ensue. They don't care when they get the craving to jump, though. They jump anyway. And reality will prevail as it always does.

This says the same thing on a fundamental level as the article on Luciferianism does without using an "ism."

I didn't use an "ism" because I didn't want a kneejerk reaction from any potential less rigorous thinker on OL.

:evil:  :) 

Incidentally, YouTube is considering disabling the "dislike" button. People who want to control the thinking of others by getting them to not even look at certain ideas are abusing it by forming "dislike mobs."

I'm into free expression, so I won't disable it the ratings here on OL. But if I see something like "dislike mobs" ever form, I will intervene. The idea here on OL is the idea, not peer pressure.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon,

In order to pull the teeth out of the attempt to label this article as religious quackery, here are some quotes from the comments:

A poster named "Curious" posted the following:

Quote

Brandon, do accept the biblical position that there is a Supreme Creator and that Satan, Lucifer, is a created being that is at this time the god of this present age? Just curious if the Bible is part of your research in reaching your conclusions.

Brandon answered:

Quote

No, the bible was not much help in writing this article other than a point of reference for what luciferians believe, which is a "gnostic" and contrary view. Whatever the bible (specifically the New Testament) says, they tend to believe the opposite. There's a reason why this is titled a "secular" look at luciferianism.

A poster named "Brett O." posted:

Quote

1. I too would be curious to know more about your personal convictions on the Christian/Biblical narrative and the metaphysical in general. There are lots of folks out there using their end-times ideologies to interpret current events. I don't personally agree with this view--I'm more inclined to say we don't really know how things work until we get to the other side. But it would be helpful to know what angle you're coming at this from. 

2. Jung--he has some really interesting ideas that I'm inclined to agree with, and he has a lot of supporters (Jordan Peterson, Alan Watts) and detractors (https://www.hgi.org.uk/resources/delve-our-extensive-library/interviews/mysterious-jung-his-cult-lies-he-told-and-occult) in the modern era. A lot of people say he was involved in the occult, himself, but many say he used it for good, not evil. What do you think of these accusations? Also, I'm curious if you can link to any articles discussing the universality of archetypes (e.g., found in the Amazon and the cities). 

3. There are some who claim that there is a dark occult and a light occult (e.g., Mark Passio), and I personally know people who are involved in the light occult and seem to have good, conscientious intentions in using it. The light occult seems to use most of the same symbolism and methodology as the dark occult, but puts it to more productive uses, or at least intends to. Do you think such a distinction can be made or do you think these people are being deceived? I can see arguments for both sides.

Brandon replied:

Quote

1) My personal religious leanings are irrelevant - I am perfectly capable of an objective analysis of any system without personal bias, and this includes Christianity. Primarily, though, I am more concerned about the behavior of adherents; the behavior of adherents does not always match the teachings of the religion. In the case of luciferianism, the behavior absolutely matches the belief system. 

2) I suggest looking up the definition of "occult"; it requires secrecy. Jung was never secretive about his work or methods. His studies into mythology and mythological practices were a study into archetypes from a clinical and scientific perspective. He was, though, a practicing Christian in his personal life, and believed that archetypes and synchronicity were proof of creative design. 

3) I'm not really interested in what people do in their spare time, as long as they don't harm others in the process. The problem with luciferianism is not only that it rationalizes destructive actions, but that it seems tailor made for narcissistic sociopaths. These are the people I am concerned about; their religion is actually just an extension of an inherently evil mindset. 

4) Narcissistic sociopaths require bureaucratic systems and large populations in order to blend in. I think it is possible they are simply a natural extension of civilization and we forgot how to deal with them over time. That said, I think it's also possible that they have been deliberately seeking to create more centralization in power structures over the centuries. Monarchy, bureaucracy and the high priest class seem to be perfect petri dishes for them to grow.

Based on this article and these responses, I like this guy, Brandon Smith. 

I will look into other things he has written.

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Based on this article and these responses, I like this guy, Brandon Smith. 

I will look into other things he has written.

Here are a couple of other things he has written, but I haven't read them yet.

Global Elitists Are Not Human

and

The Reasons Why The Globalists Are Destined To Lose

Also, here is a documentary he linked to in the article on Lucifereanism. I will see it and maybe comment later. It appears to detail the symbolism and some of the propaganda processes of Lucifereanism.

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the BBC’s “Midsummer Murders” show last night Detective Barnaby and DS Troy investigated a group of Satanists after an annual Halloween magic stunt turned deadly . . . and right in front of children. This usually dramatic show was nearly a comedy when you began to see the Satanists in their silly costumes, performing their 60 IQ level rituals, with blindfolds, costumes like wizards, and sharp swords and knives. I can’t take the global, real or unreal life, version with any seriousness. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The true basic principles of Objectivism are perfect as such. (I am not referring to the NBI course.)

Reality, reason, self interest, individual rights. All wrapped up and integrated. You got this you've got Objectivism. THEN you pile on the humanity with all its complexity and supposed exceptions.

What Ayn Rand piled on ran right through humanity like a hot knife through butter including her own humanity. But humanity cared not.

The philosophy of Ayn Rand is not Objectivism, but she was entitled to call it that in her own lifetime which was staggeringly heroic, creative and productive.

All Objectivism is is those basic principles and what is made of them. Person by person.

But if we can say Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand then John can say Objectivsm, the philosophy of John or Objectivism, the philosophy of Brant*. Just acknowledge those basic principles and abide by them in integrity.

--Brant

*I never do this; I don't like the form

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apple has demanded Natural News stop publishing articles critical of abortions or Satanism, threatening to block the Natural News app from all Apple devices if Apple’s demands are not met.

”Speaking out to stop the mass murder of newborns is now “hate speech” according to the deranged, mentally ill Leftists who run Apple, Twitter, Google, YouTube, Facebook and Snapchat.”

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-02-11-apple-demands-natural-news-stop-writing-about-abortions-or-satanism.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now