I posted this some time ago, but only recently noted a typo which made my meaning unclear. Since I can’t find this in the Edit screen for some reason, I am simply reposting it.
While I am at, though, I will the following “prescript”. As I see it, there is no meaningful difference culturally between the Thuggees of India, who killed and stole in the service of their goddess Kali, and Communists. In both cases the GROUP is empowered to abandon all moral restraints against ALL other groups. The people within the group gain not just material benefits, but a larger whole in which to drown their individual soul, to commit what amounts to a sacrifice of the self, for the good of the whole. Yet, who can truly grant their “self”, without rage?
Recently I have been reading about the systemic affects of narcissism, and am figuring ou some very interesting–to me–things, and asking what I think are interesting questions.
For example, a trait of narcissists is that they expect their children to be exactly like them, little carbon copies. Yet, is this same demand not made in traditional cultures, where conformity ie expected, often to very rigidly enforced social codes of behavior? When there is no demand that a “self” be formed, is narcissism present or not? We assume that it must, because we believe in the power and importance of individual perspectives, but such value inheres in systems in motion, in which new accurate decisions must be made in complex situations. If your people has lived the same way for a 1,000 years and nothing changes, is there value in independent thinking? To argue otherwise one needs, I think, to begin to introduce notions of spiritual growth.
Many years ago, I read some conspiratorial large black book that suggested a link between Marxism and Satanism, the name of which I have forgotten. It was suggested to me by a friend whose family was politically connected. Well, I Googled those words today, and found this interesting link.
There are numerous interesting quotes from Marx here, but this will need to stand in for all of them:
With disdain I will throw my gauntlet full in the face of the world,
And see the collapse of this pygmy giant whose fall will not stifle my ardor.
Then will I wander godlike and victorious through the ruins of the world
And, giving my words an active force, I will feel equal to the Creator.
In the intervening years I have developed this notion, that of Cultural Sadeism, in which the simple desire for pain, death and destruction is expressed politically and disguised–as indeed all Satanic naratives must be–in the rhetoric of compassion and community. No proper Sadeist tells the truth, unless in so doing he can hurt someone. That is just how it works.
When you add to this the frequent admiration that Saul Alinsky expressed for Lucifer, you see a common pattern. Now, I am not a Christian, per se, but it is manifestly obvious to anyone with eyes that there are evil people in this world, those who enjoy the power that comes with being able to hurt other people.
This is, I am increasingly convinced, the task which those who run the IMF in particular, and to a lesser extent the Federal Reserve, have set themselves.
In the end, I only perceive two primal motivational structures in this world: that of Love, and that of Power. In this, I agree with the Christians. Both are mixed in most people, and each expressed to varying extents during the course of their lives.
Yet, every Bell Curve has a beginning and an end: these are our saints, and our demons. Marx was a demon, as have been his followers ever since. No beliefs in non-material realities are needed to accept this view. One simply need term him an aggressively violent sociopath, who worked through his books–as did, by and large, Sade himself–to accomplish pain and destruction.