As Luciferians we are often presented with the ideology of rejection of the ego. Personally I don’t subscribe to this wholly as I see even our questionable aspects of psychology as a prospect for channeling into a possitive part of our own nature.
But I think this principle while often lauded is not examined as part of our lessons and books enough. Our teachings all too eagerly delve off straight into metaphysical and magickal aspects of our Luciferian or Satanic philosophy.
This lesson contains little of that aspect of our wisdom, but contains a more practical but equally important aspect of personal sophia.
I have written this article as always to promote fresh perspective and hopefully insight and consideration in yourselves.
It is not to be taken as any form of policy, but as a concept to reflect upon and question its potency in your world. Luciferianism isnt all supernatural and metaphysics, sometimes its just really examining ourself.
We would all, I’m sure, like to believe that each and every individual desires a better life, not just for themselves but for all mankind. There are some nasty people out there, but as a whole, when we dismiss our nationalistic, sexual, tribalistic, divisions, I believe people as a whole are not innately explicitly selfish with intent. Yet the natural desire of the individual is formed in increasing circles of selfishness.
Unfortunately the term selfishness is, like our mascot and light-bearer, oft maligned without due consideration to the dichotomous nature of all things.
I suggest that anything to do with the self can be likened to the two wolves which fight inside us, to coin a mystical Cherokee Metaphor. That which we feed will win the fight.
In its modern understanding the word means…
As Luciferians many of our precepts relate around those of self-discovery, self-exploration and self-realisation. In short “the self” and therefore is undeniably an exploration of the battle between the ego and our moderation of it.
Simple word structure of “self-ish” without its negative connotations is to be considered the internal narrative of a self-centric universe.
Despite being indoctrinated into an elevated perception where nobody believes themselves to be “selfish” and it is a trait we only see in others, the fact is we at some point in our lives must logically be those “others” and therefore have selfish attributes.
In reality we, and all individual consciousness are by nature self-centric. Metaphysically our universe is made of matter which orbits in complex motion around our conscious subjective yet material selves. Reality is self-centric unless we are considering abstraction or empathic aspects of external entities.
In this sense we are entities of the self and therefore “selfish” or “egotistical” by nature.
This continues until one such time as we re-join with the great universal consciousness which is all things, if you share my perception of the theology, or we simply die or whatever your afterlife beliefs may be.
So let us for this thesis not deny but indulge the reality of our selfish nature, to explore ourselves and what this means for our ego.
Our primary survival instinct is selfish. This is an inherent part of our survival system. It is for all of us an innate and unchanging part of our primitive makeup, deny it if you like but if you bear with me you will see why I say this.Just take my word for now until you reach the end, that we are selfish, self-prioritising, and we innately do not stray from the path of self-indulgence and self-preservation without cause.
We of course can reason to countermand this primordial directive by conscious determination and by applying self-justifying derailments to these core principles by engaging in such as suicide or more immediately presented to any parents out there, a conscious sacrifice on behalf of a loved one or child. These are just a couple of the more obvious examples of where we genuinely believe we could be altruistic.
But that does not mean that the primordial directive of selfish survival wasn’t there as an instinct before our determined relegation of that command. It just means it was superseded by a conscious considered directive.
The primordial survival instinct existed long before you acquired awareness of such concepts as sacrifice or suicide, and so must remain higher in the pyramid of self-centralism if we were to draw it in a diagram. We are the centre of our universes, regardless of physical location or self-imposed hierarchy of relational possessions, and with that our subjective centre moves around with us at all times.
What comes next is our possessions, and possessions for this discussion are all things that we have a possessive value or claim upon including the people in our lives.
Now I want to speak frankly, and I know my intended audience of enlightened folk do not want to “beat around the bush” with pointless explanations to cater for the socially acceptable PC brigade.
It goes without saying, especially to Luciferians that people are not possessions. But in terms of what relationships really are in concept. It is an established possession of a bond between two or more people. You may not own the person, but you do own the bond, or maybe a better term would be to share a bond. But even that would imply the bond is mutual, and in the case of a stalker to his prey, the relationships bond is far from a mutual arrangement. The same with unrequited love.
So for our purpose this possession-relationship is like a dialogue, the dialogue exists as an entity within itself, but your contribution is entirely owned by oneself.
So with that in mind we all possess an individual bond which forms the relationship we have to others. And so in that context, and to save having to explain all individual relationships on a case by case basis. I will simply say I “own” possessively “my children”, “my wife”, “my friends”, and “my readers” which is my relationship with you. And I expect you should understand what that means without claiming I am promoting possession of people, I’m blessed that only sophisticated people read my work.
The next relationship of possession is the extent of that bond, this dictates the level or parameters to which our selfishness extends. If we consider one example which is “wealth” as a medium of this bond, I believe with few exceptions we would usually extend our desire for wealth to map itself nicely over our selfish relationship topology. Wealth is a great example, which I will stick with for my explanation, but this applies to any transient relationship mediums.
Let me explain, while we all desire a united world-standard of life, an end to poverty and a fair distribution of wealth as a principle, it is primarily “selfish” in the way we are prepared to distribute our personal portion of that wealth beyond our immediate possession, rich or poor this behaviour is universal, yet because of the proportion imbalance in wealth we expect greater generosity from those with it to spare than we do than those without.
Instinctively, we place ourselves at highest consideration when it comes to wealth distribution by some innate method of self preservation, and when compared to our theoretical mortal sacrifice which we may throw ourselves into the flames of hades to save loved ones, while we like to think we would give our children our last pennies (dime if you’re American) in principle, we simply don’t perceive wealth as terminal a property as we do our own life.
So this suggests that we are more cautious with our physical and material wealth and our approach to it, than we are with our personal mortal continuation.
I believe this is because, in the case of money, we egotistically consider ourselves to be the wiser custodians of the commodity than those we are prepared to imbue with it.
The finality of mortality inherent in self-sacrifice defines that since we no longer need a reserve of life, we can be more liberal with the gifting of it.
This means we justify it more readily as being “easier to part with”, than it is to part with our requirement for continued possessions.
If we forgo our wealth or possession entirely, we are not comforted with the finality of death, and so in our considerations we must make future provisions and calculate the terms and requirements of continued survival.
This suggests that we are more likely to sacrifice our lives to the benefit our children, or another than we are to hand over our real last penny, particularly when we limit the time required to consider the options.
Of course it goes without saying that any parent who lives a “moderate means” life, has gone without money for a while to furnish their child with something that they feel would be essential to their child’s continued progress in life.
But we usually do that with the cushion that “Given next pay day, I’ll be okay again”.
It’s highly unlikely we throw caution to the wind and literally give our last penny and all future quantitative possessions away, until we are terminally leaving the physical world. We are in reality merely giving our last current resource of wealth, not its entirety.
So this shows, despite our claims of “I would give my life for my kids”, we really still hold selfish caveats to our conceptual idealism. So, what we establish from this is that of our personal principles of altruism which despite being defined as…
In our case it is just the measure of the dissemination of selfishness from a personal perspective.
In our diagram, at the top of the selfish mountain resides ourselves, the next scope for our selfishness mountain consists of that which we own, our family, children or loved ones, our home, our personal actual possessions and our bank accounts.
While our latent altruistic nature will often override our instinctive selfish nature, in most cases egotism will resist our generosity with a hidden ninja like sub-selfishness by placing ourselves as the custodians of the extent and limitations of that benefice.
So in truth the altruism is not simply sacrifice, but is limited to our disguised selfishness which we would best call justification, hidden so deep in our consciousness most of us don’t even see its influence on our munificence.
And this is just the first stage of this distribution of concerns. Because the beneficiaries of the concern are still all conceptually an extended personal possession, as identified above.
We really are not being generous or altruistic at all, we are simply endorsing our ego by believing our gratuities are being given away. But if they are only being given to things passively possess then we are not being altruistic at all.
Even in the concept of the age old and theoretical choosing to save your child’s life over your own., it is merely resolving to extend the survival of your gene pool to that which is most likely continue for the longer period, and therefore still a selfish act. You are simply resorting back to the primordial instinct for survival, which on a cosmic level extends beyond your own physical self, to that of your offspring, and so it is natural not altruistic to give your life for your child.
This concept is the lesson that is explored in Genesis 22 where Abraham is offering to sacrifice his son Isaac to show his loyalty to his version of God. The sacrifice of ones own child is considerably more of a personal sacrifice than that of the sacrifice of self, which is why all parents (usually) will without hesitation claim that they would sacrifice themselves to save their child when posed with this moral dilemma. Weirdly it is because of their selfish ego and extended sense of genetic survival that they opt for the lesser of the two evils on an existential level.
So once our possessions are distributed amongst our further possessions, only then do we start to become generous to extended possessions. Yes even then we still only distribute our wealth in an further extension of ourselves. Our personal version of “charity” is usually that which we deem “worthy causes”.
Even in what we term our charitable efforts, we still act egotistically as custodians of the personal distribution of our possessional empire. Our ego will determine and promote that cause which we justify and hold sympathy to. Our sympathy initially extends only to causes which we personally have an affiliation to through direct experience or through a connection to the cause, and so still yet, this connection becomes part of what we own.
For example people who generously give money to a cancer trust, will usually have a possession that has been affected by such a cause, thus establishing a relationship to which they are supporting, it becomes their possession by proxy.
Their intended altruism towards this cause is a hidden, although often not so hidden massage of the ego, and their selfishness is defining the extent of the gift and their perception of an ideological personal self-gratification granted by their generosity.
The marketers of the larger charitable cause’s know this human condition and even play up to these concepts by using manipulative promotion techniques which includes adverts which say such things as “one in three people you know will be affected by…” or “you can change a life today by just giving…”
This subliminal manipulation, and that’s exactly what it is, plays its tune to your ego, your selfishness and unguarded emotional response while you recollect the sorrowful situation as a personal subjective experience rather than an objective one which really should be “where would be the true most worthy cause for my excess wealth be beneficial”.
The probability is the most worthy cause would be one we do not even see on our horizon.
This brings me to the principles of change, change cannot come from a single personal gesture, you are a pebble in the water, trying to redirect the flow of the river. To bring the fruition of meaningful and lasting change, a person alone no matter how sacrificial will not redirect that current. And so you either make small changes or band together to make big changes.
To create big change we must start with the formation of ideas which is to be shared amongst others in principle rather than in action. Change in the modern world cannot be instigated by the man alone, he needs to change ideals before the actions can form shape. There are some big players out there that now form our modern globalist world, monopolies which now control all aspects of our lives, and we all know that these single entities are indirectly creating misery for the vast majority of world inhabitants.
They are personally blind to the lesson above as they are a collective mind rather than an individual one in most cases. I believe their selfishness is not evil in its intent although we may perceive it as such from the opposite side dancehall. Their principles no different than yours or mine and that which we apply above to ourselves with our moderate possession, they apply to their greater world perception.
Like us, their perception of success is measured by frequent recurring desire for rewarded, and the continuation of that success is created by the same actions that bring about the continued reward, obfuscating the objective view from the subjective one.
They simply do not understand the world beyond their possessions any more than we do, our rewards usually are manifest in that which we see.
Like I suggested in the beginning, none of us see ourselves as selfish, the hive mind of the corporation never see itself as being the responsible person for collective evil, it defers its responsibility firstly to the corporation, and the individuals that form that corporation beleive they are acting in the best interest of that corporation which in the capitalist free world suggest that anybody can share in that progressive wealth of commodity by becoming a shareholder, which must be a good thing right?
The drive amongst the many is always to do good, to benefit others and rarely to do harm whether that is selfishly motivated or not. In doing so we often wish to stand out in the crowd as heroes and the nature of cooperation is awash with patrons seeking a disguised personal reward. Similarly the good causes benefit from celebrity hero’s patting each other on the back for their charity work in an orgy of self-indulgent egotism which if gratified regularly creates a national hero, even given regal recognition in terms of knighthoods and honours. You will find it often the rich who part with a little of their accumulation reaping this further possession, than the poor man who gives his all.
Even our limited altruism gratifies us and we indulge our ego by wishing to observe the effect we have on that which is the benefactor of our generosity. Often the wealth distribution is limited in order of that which we see immediate impression upon, self-first, family and immediate possessions later, flowed by extended possessions, rarely do we use our personal wealth to support causes which we do not see any reward or have any possession of. True altruism would be to give generously beyond your means to a cause which is outside your possessions, relationships and concerns. Even sympathy for an unknown homeless person in a street massages your desire to feel Superior? Responsible? Guilty? Altruistic itself? And do not deny when you put your hand in your pocket you pull out and give all that you have without just checking that you have reserved enough to meet your needs…No I’m not claiming you are a fraud or a failure for doing this, I’m suggesting we recognise it as part of our “self”, nor am I suggesting you stop doing it, just next time tell yourself “I seek no reward or gratitude for this action” and do not indulge your ego with consideration of the good deed you have done, only then are you being truly un-selfish.
You and I, we are what we are, denial of it even to ourselves creates personal disharmony. You are not a bad person for experiencing that which is built into us all. We cannot help it, it is hard wired into our make-up. But identifying these realities of self gives us an objective reflection of who we are, which is helpful in understanding the person we are and a useful Luciferian lesson. I am not suggesting you change your ways, or that we all behave this way, although I believe we do. I am merely being a messenger of the self.