Jon Letendre

Luciferianism: A Secular Look At A Destructive Globalist Belief System

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Samson Corwell said:

I have yet to see a good definition of "globalism".

 

 
 
 
2
6 hours ago, Samson Corwell said:

I'm pleasantly surprised, Michael. That definition is many times better than what I've seen up until now. Previous definitions I've encountered were vague, kinda cloudy-feeling stuff about "socialists", "multiculturalism", "Islam", and hodge podge of other things. I saw the title of this thread and was wondering just what I was going to see.

 

:)

It is a hodge-podge because that's what is collectively in the mass of minds. At first the concept will look "cloudy-feeling" and nebulous when one comes from the point of view of each person's mind, then multiplied by billions. Government and corporate is always there too, feeding off the masses of minds in order to control them and flourish.

If one has ever wondered why there's vitriol and outrage for people, for example, who question - as the given - unquestionable - Anthropogenic GW, or those who simply support an elected head of state who bucks the system, you get the idea. Here is the hatred for man's mind and hatred for individualists. The 'Globe' plus Society is the world's new religion and that minority of abstainers and agnostics are the evil infidels who'd undermine the faith. 

Throw in the socialist desire for free things, add in envy for others who seem to have it all, herd-like conformism, and their deep fears and moral cowardice and making connections with a power bloc like political Islam - and more - and the picture starts to come together. It's not pleasant, which is why one never hears an explanation of globalism from believers in globalism."Free trade" and the good of the world and the people (etc.) - are their justifications for power over others.

They are all about control of minds, and there is where politics and politicians respond and lead the way to give them what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't dunno about this. "Globalism" sounds like nail soup, only everything is in the pot. Except the fish. They're in the ocean.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 5:11 PM, Jules Troy said:

Kneellllll to Zod!

😈

Okthnxbai.

Kneel before Zod!

4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

I don't dunno about this. "Globalism" sounds like nail soup, only everything is in the pot. Except the fish. They're in the ocean.

--Brant

Everything?  No, they haven't yet tied in the Freemasons, the Elders of Zion, or most vitally, the Knights Templar.  It's "a fundamental axiom: The Templars have something to do with everything."  See Foucault's Pendulum, chapter 65.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

I don't dunno about this. "Globalism" sounds like nail soup, only everything is in the pot. Except the fish. They're in the ocean.

--Brant

That's the thing about any religion: it's comprehensive. You get it all in a single "pot" - 'meaning', purpose, morals, One-ness and Unity.

A secularist doesn't have to rationally understand others' global faith - only to know the faithful are willingly bound by numerous aspects of it. Even where some aspects seem to us loosely connected. It doesn't need to make sense to us--they "believe" in their righteousness.

These "mystics of body" (and skeptic-determinists), will be morally and politically almost identical (as you can regularly hear, from very disparate persons, speaking and emoting with one voice).

They can instantly sense who is against them and who's for them, a word, gesture or expression is enough to trigger them. And any dissenting, independent voices, watch out!

I've not yet touched on aspects like the globalists' need to repress free speech, especially against the 'competing' Church (Christian conservative). 

The big giveaway, after their fanaticism on AGW, is their anti-nationalism. As Article of Faith, the entire number will be fanatically for 'open borders' and a 'free' movement of peoples - less for a pressing altruist concern for the migrants, but to deliberately sacrifice the individual freedom of citizens and to dilute a sovereign national culture (identity). "Internationalism" is another euphemism for globalism, meaning all countries are to be homogenized by world leaders, like their populaces, and your "soup" will mix better. As they believe.

Give me old style religion any day over this lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, anthony said:

It is a hodge-podge because that's what is collectively in the mass of minds. At first the concept will look "cloudy-feeling" and nebulous when one comes from the point of view of each person's mind, then multiplied by billions. Government and corporate is always there too, feeding off the masses of minds in order to control them and flourish

[....]

 They are all about control of minds, and there is where politics and politicians respond and lead the way to give them what they want.

 

8 hours ago, anthony said:

A secularist doesn't have to rationally understand others' global faith - only to know the faithful are willingly bound by numerous aspects of it. Even where some aspects seem to us loosely connected. It doesn't need to make sense to us--they "believe" in their righteousness.

Tony,

I think you're perceptive and eloquent about "globalism" as a religion and the way it works "[quoting you] collectively in the mass of minds."

But I think that you miss something about the instigating role of persons whom Michael and Jon and I call "global elitists."  Those persons aren't just responding to popular desire as it were in order to take advantage of it.  They're cynically manipulating in order to produce the mass phenomenon. They aren't themselves actually believers in the religion they're fomenting.

Brandon Smith, whose articles Jon featured in starting this thread, thinks that the ringleader elitists subscribe to their own "Luciferian" religion.  I'm doubtful about specifics of Smith's views.  My current belief is that the history behind today's global elitists hasn't been so organized and unified an effort as he thinks it was.  However, there has been an occult history which has laid groundwork for the machinations of today's international-power-seeking elitists.

Ellen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Ellen, I always have thought of a two-way causal street existing between leaders and followers, in politics as elsewhere (eg.cults.) I've been puzzled to see, for example, the common topic in O'ist circles of "the dictator", usually considered one who has seized power by force -- almost- without the clearly necessary support of a fervent inner core - and - the complicity (quiet sanction) of large numbers, if not a majority of people. The notorious dictator collects nearly all of the moral blame, as if he were an irresistible force of nature, when blame should be spread further over everyone who didn't earlier speak out against him--and - of course, who enthusiastically endorsed his actions and stood to gain anything from them.

In short, you can't be led where you won't follow. Also if you've "followed", or have been an innocent third party, the consequences rest equally on you, in reality. That's pretty much standard fare from Rand, (AS) and I strongly agree, from what I've experienced and heard in several countries.

But this presupposes an advanced, conscious and previously quite free society. Too, the "consent of the people" has been a point of contention from (anarcho?) libertarians I noticed. But overall, the principle is good, and applies here as well. Everybody pays, as innocent as they may be.

Yea, I was thinking about elitists, power, and how they fit into this neo-religion (for my purposes I'm naming it progressivist-globalism - if klunky).

How about this: doesn't a Church have its hierarchy of High Priests to lay down the dogma and keep their flock in hand, safe and content in their pens? (Connotations with past pedophile priests are coincidental...).

I'm sure many observed the partial movement to a sort of 'American aristocracy', relatable to the old, implicitly still in place, English class system, that's been coming up for some while. (Contradiction in terms: America - and - aristocracy). I pointed this out once here, in Obama's first term, that I thought I was detecting that prominent US East Coasters were aligning themselves with intellectualist upper-class Europeans whom I believed they were modeling themselves on (- and was blasted by Adam Selene, no admirer of Obama.  ;)  

The human draw to classism and elitism never dies, it seems. "Equality" is topical, and l've argued against egalitarianism as anti-concept (outside of before the law, of course) - but - not so paradoxically when you think about it, the biggest proponents of equality, elements of the Left, visibly appear in need of superiority over others. 

Sure, elitiists could well also have a desperate, psychological, narcissistic, self-esteem-seeking need. And don't forget their "second-handedness". I really suggest another look at Rand's short exposition on "the second-hander". It has become more insightful with time and present social media, I feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are a couple of letters about the concept of the “second hander.”

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: Moral Standards As Ideals Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 03:54:44 -0600. Jeff Olson wrote: "In my opinion, it is this personal kind of consistency, not the abstract acknowledgment that rights must be consistently respected in order to have a peaceful society, which provides the ultimate motivation for respecting the rights of others -- the motivation from which a personal sense of justice and integrity is born.  Individuals may (and do) selectively ignore the dictates of rights theory without affecting the validity or the effectiveness of universally consistent rules; it is much more difficult and costly to ignore the standards by which we judge others -- and to pretend that these judgments don't equally apply to ourselves."

I have argued previously that although the rights of others do not depend for their justification on my personal calculations of self-interest, it is nevertheless true that my motives for respecting those rights in specific situations will depend a good deal on self-interested considerations.

I agree with Jeff that these self-interested factors are primarily matters of character and are not based on estimates of social utility, such as the need for reciprocity by others. (By this latter I mean something like, "If I didn't deal voluntarily with others, they wouldn't deal voluntarily with me, in which case no one, including me, could reap the rewards of freedom.")  And I think Jeff's valuable insights are fully in accord with Ayn Rand's views, which are more complex and subtle than even some of her admirers may realize.

As just one example of what I mean here, consider this passage from Roark's courtroom speech in *The Fountainhead*: "The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man's first duty is to himself. His moral law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend *primarily* upon other men. This includes the whole sphere of his creative faculty, his thinking, his work. But it does not include the sphere of the gangster, the altruist and the dictator.

"A man thinks and works alone. A man cannot rob, exploit or rule -- alone. Robbery, exploitation, and ruling presuppose victims. They imply dependence. They are the province of the second-hander.

"Rulers of men are not egoists. They create nothing. They exist entirely through the persons of others. Their goal is in their subject, in the activity of enslaving. They are as dependent as the beggar, the social worker, and the bandit. The form of dependence does not matter."

I won't explore the implications of this fascinating passage, except to note that Rand clearly regards the coercive exploitation of others as a form of dependence, and therefore as incompatible with the virtue of independence -- which is a character trait. There are many passages like this scattered throughout Rand's writings, both fiction and nonfiction, and they point to a theory of character and motivation that is far different -- and far more sophisticated – than what we find in most theories of ethical egoism. Ghs

From: Ellen Moore To: Atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Moral standards as ideals Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:05:30 -0600. I agree with George Smith that Rand presented a complex and subtle standard of moral character as an ideal to follow.  He acknowledged that Rand offered a theory of character and motivation that is different and sophisticated.  I think that she presented ideals that are practical both in theory and practice.  Her stated goal was to portray in her fiction "the ideal Man" in Howard Roark - and I think in John Galt.

I agree with Jeff Olson that we evaluate and judge others by the intellectual, moral and esthetic standards we accept.  If our own character values are rationality, independence, honesty, justice and integrity, then we justifiably have pride in our own achievement.  The ideal Rand presents is moral perfection which by these standards and practiced consistently are within the individual's reach.  We can and should evaluate and judge ourselves by the same standards we apply to others, and vice versa.  However, it is all too apparent that individuals often apply standards inconsistently and hypocritically. They allow their own intellectual defaults, character flaws, and evasions to thrive without correction.  Others who observe them find it impossible to deal with the inconsistency and injustice.

It is easy to evaluate people, and to judge them as *good*, when they agree with and apply our standards in dealing with us -- it is relatively difficult to deal justly with people who oppose and criticize the ideas and values we think are *right and good*.  It requires observation of character traits expressed in words and actions over time; it takes application of rational values; it requires objectivity of evaluation and judgment.  Last, but not least, it requires that one consistently act with integrity when applying one's own standards to oneself and to others.

Rand has presented in her writing almost every form of evaluation and judgment about different individual characters, good and bad.  She clearly described pictures of each, and she shows how their ideas and values affect their actions - whether directed at themselves or in relation to other characters in the novels.  Look at Toohey and Keating versus Roark, Francisco - look at Dominique and Dagny versus Lillian, or Katie - look at all the specific characters having lesser roles in the novels.  Rand was a master in portraying psychological, moral, esthetic, character portraits.  She was a master at integration in showing that how they think is consistent with how they appear and act.

The philosophical point is that objective analysis and integration was Rand's special intellectual achievement.  The principles and applications of her philosophy are bound together by logical integration -- it's the system as a whole that is unique.  I know that I understand it as an ideal that is practical for my life.  There are some who disagree, but I think Ayn Rand understood and acted according to her principles.  The thing is that one has to learn to think using the same objectively meaningful concepts in order to understand these intellectual premises and moral ideals.  It all stands together, or it falls apart, on the strength or weakness of individual's learned ability for logical reasoning, objective judgment, and integrated actions. It's always a fallacy of judgment to drop the context. Ellen Moore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fresh and appropriate - Thanks, Peter.     

Second-Handers

Isn’t that the root of every despicable action? Not selfishness, but precisely the absence of a self. Look at them. The man who cheats and lies, but preserves a respectable front. He knows himself to be dishonest, but others think he’s honest and he derives his self-respect from that, second-hand. The man who takes credit for an achievement which is not his own. He knows himself to be mediocre, but he’s great in the eyes of others. The frustrated wretch who professes love for the inferior and clings to those less endowed, in order to establish his own superiority by comparison . . . . They’re second-handers . . . .

They have no concern for facts, ideas, work. They’re concerned only with people. They don’t ask: “Is this true?” They ask: “Is this what others think is true?” Not to judge, but to repeat. Not to do, but to give the impression of doing. Not creation, but show. Not ability, but friendship. Not merit, but pull. What would happen to the world without those who do, think, work, produce? Those are the egoists. You don’t think through another’s brain and you don’t work through another’s hands. When you suspend your faculty of independent judgment, you suspend consciousness. To stop consciousness is to stop life. Second-handers have no sense of reality. Their reality is not within them, but somewhere in that space which divides one human body from another. Not an entity, but a relation—anchored to nothing. That’s the emptiness I couldn’t understand in people. That’s what stopped me whenever I faced a committee. Men without an ego. Opinion without a rational process. Motion without brakes or motor. Power without responsibility. The second-hander acts, but the source of his actions is scattered in every other living person. It’s everywhere and nowhere and you can’t reason with him. He’s not open to reason.

“The Nature of the Second-Hander,”
For the New Intellectual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Tony, par for the course, we aren't communicating.  I'll leave it there.

Ellen

Too bad. I'll try once more. We are not dealing here with a known, formalized, Scriptured, religion. There are -many- premises and offshoots in this one and too many people, each of whom, alone and in groups and sub-groups, might carry his/her own beliefs and supernatural symbols (Lucifer, Gaia - whomever) etc.. But the planned effect, the overall intent of it, is clearly world domination (sold: "for the universal good"). There is the end point one can make deductions from. And the instigators/collaborators can accomplish nothing without masses of followers. The sacrificers are useless without the surrender and/or collusion of a majority of people. "It is your mind they want". Power, for its own sake. The money - that is secondary, and anyway an automatic consequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...