Page 8 of 8 « First<45678
Topic Options
#34431 - 01/23/10 03:01 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: TheInsane]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
Politics have nothing to do with LHP or RHP. These terms are originated from tantra and describe different paths to reach wisdom (in fact both paths have the same goal). Politics are about the decisions that groups of people mdae in regards to a government and how a country should be ruled. It has nothing to do with personal enlightenment in the occult or religious or mystic sense.


While it's true that the terms LHP and RHP originated in Tantra, it would be rare for someone on this forum to be speaking about Tantra when using those terms. I certainly wasn't.

Furthermore, where it may be true that in Tantra the LHP and the RHP have the same goals - I don't know, as I haven't practiced or studied those systems - it isn't true for the LHP and RHP as generally spoken about on a forum like this one, whereby the RHP seeks the glorification of God, or of the state, or of the corporation, always of something outside the self, while the LHP seeks the glorification of the self.

Finally, politics and religion have more in common, and are more frequent bedfellows, than you acknowledge. There are many people who choose their political positions based on religion, and there are also people who choose their religious positions based on politics. A third element that often serves as the bridge between the other two is morality. The question of how to vote will sometimes be answered by politics, sometimes by morality, sometimes by religion, often by all three in a synthesis.

 Quote:
I think people are way to influenced by modern media on the subject. Almost everyone in the west cringes at the thought of a dictatorial regime because we define ourselves against that. I don't think its the dictatorship in itself that is the problem but by what ideological conviction such a country is ruled by.


Said President Bush, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." There's a lot of truth in that. I would trust almost no one with dictatorial powers, because I think it's true that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But if anyone wants to vote me in, I will accept the position.

In any given country, either gold rules the guns, or guns rule the gold, and the one that rules the other rules everything else as well. In China, guns rule the gold for the most part, although the times they may be a-changing. In the USA, gold rules the guns. I like the latter scenario better, because the gold is distributed amongs a lot of different people who disagree with one another on many things, making monolithic control impossible. In a dictatorship, guns will rule the gold eventually, although there may be a time of transition first. Since all the guns will obey one guy, monolithic control will assert itself, and the strong likelihood is that my personal freedom will be curtailed in some way, to some extent, to my displeasure.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34433 - 01/23/10 03:25 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
 Quote:

Furthermore, where it may be true that in Tantra the LHP and the RHP have the same goals - I don't know, as I haven't practiced or studied those systems - it isn't true for the LHP and RHP as generally spoken about on a forum like this one, whereby the RHP seeks the glorification of God, or of the state, or of the corporation, always of something outside the self, while the LHP seeks the glorification of the self.

Explain Setianism in this case....

The left hand path indeed seeks glorification of the self, it does not imply that the total absence of god ( or in this discussion) state is at hand. Glorification of the self can be done by the use of paying your dues to the state. The state is an organism you live off. When it is ends up in a downward spiral, you'll get sucked down with it. In modern society everyone is linked to the state and it's well-being. The best example is the recent crisis whose effects still last.
The same can be said about the company you work for. If all people involved in the company give the best of themselves, it will thrive well and its employees will also gain from it.
If the company is run badly, it will go broke with the necessary consequences.

Glorification and/or betterment of the self can also be reached by the betterment of secondary "organisms". Humans are social animals and modern society implies some sort of anticipation with your environment to have it easy ( more or less).

Also, when admitting yourself to a secondary organism you might just get yourself promoted or receiving an "extra" which in turn will let other people envy you or even commit themselves to you. Which in turn might/ can give you that glorification you are searching for.
To glorify the self personally is one thing, letting others glorify you is yet another (and much sweeter).


Edited by Dimitri (01/23/10 03:45 PM)
Edit Reason: Expanded a bit
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#34435 - 01/23/10 04:01 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dimitri]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
There is a grande difference between using or feeding a collective in the name of rational self interest, and putting the collective before yourself.

In the first instance you are using a tool to your own benefit.

In the second, you are a tool being used for someone else's.

In practice they are quite similar yet in principle they are completely opposite.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#34437 - 01/23/10 04:19 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Dimitri:

I can really appreciate and agree with alot of what you're writing. I'm on the same page as you are it seems \:\)

Baron dHolbach:

 Quote:
But sincere Fascism is RHP because its centre, its beating heart, is something outside the self, namely the state. Where the Satanist practices self-reverence, the sincere Fascist reveres the state. Where the Satanist practices self-overcoming so the Satanist may become, the sincere Fascist works for the state's self-overcoming so that the state may become. Where the Satanist wills power for the self, the sincere Fascist wills power for the state. The two systems cannot both drive the same person.


I don't agree with this at all. The Fascist does seek to empower the state and the nation but because it also in return gives something good back to the individual. My biggest problem with Satanists were always the preaching of egoism to mean ”do what I want and don't give a shit about others”. To me egoism is way more complex than that and to truly feel good you cant just don't give a damn about others. I would rather live in a strong society where the capable sits in the appropriate places than a sick and weak society. Its quite natural to strive for a better nation if one also seeks to maximize ones own well being. The two actually go hand in hand. One may have to sacrifice for this to happen but the goal is always something that is worth sacrificing for. Mussolini wrote:

In the Fascist State the individual is not suppressed, but rather multiplied, just as in a regiment a soldier is not weakened but multiplied by the number of his comrades. The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves sufficient scope to individuals; it has limited useless or harmful liberties and has preserved those that are essential. It cannot be the individual who decides in this matter, but only the State.

I do believe that humans need restrictions or else it would be chaos and no one really wants that. The state, fascist – democratic or something else, always need to restrict peoples freedom because everything cant ever be allowed or we would destroy ourselves. The most important thing is the thin line one has to walk between enough freedom for the individual to be happy but enough restriction for them to not be destructive to society at large. Some people can absolutely handle total freedom but most cant and thus a society shouldn't allow it.

 Quote:
Mussolini may have been a Satanist, but those who blindly followed him were not.


There will always be blind followers. Satanism has it as well. However just because a state is fascist doesn't mean it has more blind followers than other regimes. I am quite surprised at how blind alot of people are about democracy and what it really means for example. Most think its the political system that will save everyone from war and misery. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a radical change in opinion on this in 50 years or 100 years when people begin to realize the problems democracy presents and that it isn't the solution to all problems.

 Quote:
While it's true that the terms LHP and RHP originated in Tantra, it would be rare for someone on this forum to be speaking about Tantra when using those terms. I certainly wasn't.

Furthermore, where it may be true that in Tantra the LHP and the RHP have the same goals - I don't know, as I haven't practiced or studied those systems - it isn't true for the LHP and RHP as generally spoken about on a forum like this one, whereby the RHP seeks the glorification of God, or of the state, or of the corporation, always of something outside the self, while the LHP seeks the glorification of the self.


This is really a separate topic but I don't understand why people so desperately wants to use the terms LHP and RHP when they clearly just invent new meanings for the words. This all stems from western occultism where both paths have been defined in so many different ways from Blavatsky to Crowley to LaVey to Aquino. Its quite interesting how a concept that originated from a non-dual world-view suddenly has come to have meanings that indicate that the world is based in duality. The whole root in the terms are swept away from under them. In its original meaning the two paths are about to realize the true nature of things. This true nature is always happening and we always live it but it can be concealed. The RHP (dakshinachara ) is the way of the traditionalists in hinduism. Meditation and asceticism as means to realize the true nature of the world. The LHP (vamachara ) is the antinomian path towards the same goal. The former is considered to be slower but more safe while the latter is considered a faster path but also more dangerous. So antinomianism is one aspect that hasn't been lost through the transition to the west but where the ideas of the isolate self or the merging with god comes from I don't know.

 Quote:
There is a grande difference between using or feeding a collective in the name of rational self interest, and putting the collective before yourself.

In the first instance you are using a tool to your own benefit.

In the second, you are a tool being used for someone else's.

In practice they are quite similar yet in principle they are completely opposite.


But the strife for a fascist state or the helping of the same doesn't mean that you strive for it because it gives someone above you the power just for powers sake. It is done because of a belief that things will be better for the individual, the family, the city, the country and the nation. It all build on each other. If we were all to use or feed off a collective exclusively and not give back we would be the vampires that dragged society down with us eventually. I don't want to drag down the society in which I live. I want to make it stronger and more ”healthy” (in lack of a better word) so that I can feed off it and also receive gain from its strength. The individual is part of the state and fights for it and the State is there to give support and help the individual and try to make sure everyone can reach his or her potential.

Top
#34438 - 01/23/10 05:22 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: TheInsane]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

The individual is part of the state and fights for it and the State is there to give support and help the individual and try to make sure everyone can reach his or her potential.

Har, if you actually believe that I have a bridge you may be interested in purchasing.



The state does not serve the people, the people serve the state. Rather, there is no 'state', only a collection of individuals, each with his or her own interests and agendas. The state serves only those who hold its various segmented reigns. I think, perhaps you, like most who have not broken free of the many layers of nationalistic programming that permeate all forms of media, may not clearly see the very distinct line that separates government from society. They are certainly different animals.

Regardless of that, serving society or government, from a Satanic perspective, is only worthwhile as long as the cost to benefit ratio is in your favor.

_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#34439 - 01/23/10 05:26 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: TheInsane]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Utter nonsense.

Fascism, socialism and communism differ primarily in their spelling. All such systems are Statist - requiring the Individual to subordinate themselves to the State and to work against their own interests.

There is no time in history that such systems have not caused grave human suffering. While supporters of such systems will often offer academic explanations promoting the virtues of the true Collectivist State, history and reality do not bear this out. The problem is that they fail to take into account the core of human nature is to be a selfish opportunist.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#34444 - 01/23/10 06:49 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Fist]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Dan_Dread

 Quote:
The state does not serve the people, the people serve the state. . . Rather, there is no 'state', only a collection of individuals, each with his or her own interests and agendas. The state serves only those who hold its various segmented reigns. I think, perhaps you, like most who have not broken free of the many layers of nationalistic programming that permeate all forms of media, may not clearly see the very distinct line that separates government from society. They are certainly different animals.


First off there is hardly any nationalistic programming in Swedish media. It is actually a taboo subject since it is connected to the racist debate and Sweden is very anti-racist in the media and therefore alot of people are afraid to be connected to movements that can be viewed as having a connection to that. Heck, some years ago some schools even banned the singing of the national anthem in schools during graduation because they were afraid it would be regarded as racist. Our immigrants didn't understand it of course since they thought it was the most natural thing to be proud of where one comes from.

Whether the state serves the individual or not depends on the regime of course but in the end the idea behind it is to create a strong nation/country and to do this it needs to encourage people in that nation to also be strong and for them to find the place where their work may be most valuable and where their talent is used for good. The individual probably wants this as well – to be able to be recognized his/her achievements and to make use of the talents and skills that he/she has.

Now I don't know about you but where I live I feel like the state, our government, does indeed serve me with certain benefits because of what I deliver back to the same state. To claim that the state doesn't serve the people at all is just ignorant.

And of course you are right that there is indeed a difference between society and government but as a country the two are very much connected. Both serve the other – or that's at least how it should be.

 Quote:
Regardless of that, serving society or government, from a Satanic perspective, is only worthwhile as long as the cost to benefit ratio is in your favour.


Agreed!



Fist:

 Quote:
Fascism, socialism and communism differ primarily in their spelling. All such systems are Statist - requiring the Individual to subordinate themselves to the State and to work against their own interests.


That is just not true. There are big differences between all of those political systems you mention and if you don't know what they are I don't know why you would even start to debate about it. Now I wouldn't say I am a follower of either of the three (even though I am closest to fascism) but I know that no one from either ideology views it as if they go against their own interests. They are followers of the political movements because they believe its right and because they think that in the long run it serves themselves and others in the best possible way.

 Quote:
There is no time in history that such systems have not caused grave human suffering. While supporters of such systems will often offer academic explanations promoting the virtues of the true Collectivist State, history and reality do not bear this out.


Really? You speak of totalitarian or authoritarian regimes now not one certain political ideology? Because the world is filled with history of countries that have existed and thrived with some sort of totalitarian rule. Democracy is a tiny, mostly modern, phenomenon and to disregard all totalitarian or authorian regimes down to them always causing grave human suffering. And again, democratic countries have also pain and suffering but in general towards other countries they want to make into democratic countries. So it goes both ways. Neither system is perfect.

 Quote:
The problem is that they fail to take into account the core of human nature is to be a selfish opportunist.


How would you suggest a politician would do this, to recognise and take into account ”true human nature”. Because as a man in power you cant both realize true human nature as well as accept that people live by it. Because then it would bring chaos to the country. The main role for whoever rules any country and whatever ideology they have is to control the human society over which they have power so that they wont be destructive. This is also a part of true human nature – to organize and to cooperate for bringing the best possible conditions for survival (and in our times comfort, technological success etc). I think this part is often overlooked in the Satanist community. While selfishness is definitely a big part of us humans so is cooperation and helping each other to bring good for oneself and the family (or tribe or community). Humans are social creatures and this is of utter importance.

Top
#34449 - 01/23/10 07:48 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: TheInsane]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:
To claim that the state doesn't serve the people at all is just ignorant.

This is true to the extent that the state enforces a monopoly on certain essential services. Again, I think you are blurring the line between government and society.

Easy to do living in a socialist nanny-state, I suppose.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#34461 - 01/24/10 05:44 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
 Quote:
To claim that the state doesn't serve the people at all is just ignorant.

This is true to the extent that the state enforces a monopoly on certain essential services. Again, I think you are blurring the line between government and society.

Easy to do living in a socialist nanny-state, I suppose.


Now I realize that the government is the body that makes and enforces rules and law etc and that a society basically is the very body of humans living in a community. Please explain why the distinction of the two is problematic to what I have written above in previous posts.

I think you have to walk a line between government monopoly and the free market. For one I would never want the health care system the United States have where even people who are pretty well off have a hard time paying for hospital bills. The market there has gone into a bad extreme in that regard.

I think England's system is good in that health care is actually free and paid by taxes (I guess its similar to your country Canada in that regard). In Sweden it isn't free but very cheap all things considered. I am thinking of this now purely from my own need and I definitely would rather live in a country where I can afford health care, where it is already paid for in taxes (i.e. In that case what you call a ”socialist nanny-state”) rather than live in the free market USA. Now the US have other things on its plus side that Sweden doesn't have but as I said its a thin line one has to walk between what is good and desirable and what is not.

Top
#34519 - 01/25/10 07:48 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: TheInsane]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
Oh, I see a lot was said in few days.

I can only bounce on Fist's post :
 Quote:
Fascism, socialism and communism differ primarily in their spelling. All such systems are Statist - requiring the Individual to subordinate themselves to the State and to work against their own interests.


From this, totalirian states are probably the more risky because the more coercitive and without any counter-power.

Whatever the ideology behind (RHP or LHP) a totalirian state will be always a place I would not like to live.



Off course, for those who dream of leading the sheep into the desired direction and find this amusing, the totalirain state (with them leading it off course) is the best scheme for imposing their own ideas.
After all, every political party in a democracy dreams about absolute majority because they're all convinced that if their ideas would be applied, all would finally go well for the benefit of the society... Totalitarism is just a longlasting shortcut to this...

In the same order of idea, compare the CoS and its Priests, Grand Priests and Super-Clown-Magus against the Fisrt Satanic Church organisation where there is no positionary titles...

I might join the FSC but I don't think I will ever join the CoS...

Top
#34650 - 01/27/10 07:11 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You can come of your little soapbox now.

Your argument here doesn't impress me at the least because frankly it is no argument at all. Comparing Satanism and fascism is like comparing hooves with horsepower. I might be wrong but last time I checked Satanism was no system of government. Democracy, aristocracy or fascism etc… is so if you're going to compare one; it is probably smarter if the comparison involves another. Else your argument tends to look silly.

Setting up a sincere fascist -in the mind numbing context you did- against a free Satanist is constructing a straw man which I could as easily do by setting up the sincere Satanist -in the same context, you as an example- against the free fascist.

What many of you forget is that no matter what system of government is in control, nothing, absolutely nothing, is enforcing it upon someone. Rules and laws are only there for them that submit themselves. Those that see them as what they are can do whatever they want. All too many Satanists fear fascism because it would severely limit their freedom but they don't realize that they are the ones that limit their own freedom. If you don't dare to step outside of your comfort zone, it will turn into a prison indeed. Even if you are under the assumption it is a golden one. So many are housebroken and no matter how much they gloat about them being free and individual, whenever government snaps their fingers, they retreat to their corner. Be a brave dog and we allow you to bark once in a while.

Fascism is a form of government that can be effective where I am not. It can address certain problems and provide solutions which are inevitable in our current society. Democracy is glorifying weakness and promoting it is promoting that very weakness. So is ignoring it.

D.

Top
#34655 - 01/27/10 07:56 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
You can come of your little soapbox now.


Well, I had stepped off a while ago, but I'll step back on.

 Quote:

Your argument here doesn't impress me at the least because frankly it is no argument at all. Comparing Satanism and fascism is like comparing hooves with horsepower. I might be wrong but last time I checked Satanism was no system of government. Democracy, aristocracy or fascism etc… is so if you're going to compare one; it is probably smarter if the comparison involves another. Else your argument tends to look silly.


Diavolo, you aren't seriously denying that Fascism has a philosophical component, are you? Yes, it of course advocates a system of government known as totalitarianism, but there is more going on than just that.

Random House Webster's College Dictionary:
fascism, n. 1. (sometimes cap) a totalitarian governmental system led by a dictator and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism, militarism, and often racism. 2. (sometimes cap) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism. 3. (cap) a movement toward or embodying fascism, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy.

Definition #1 becomes philosophy from the word emphasizing onward.

Definition #2 actually includes the word philosophy.

Definition #3 implies philosophy when it names Mussolini, whose book, My Rise and Fall, which I have read, is chock full of philosophy.

If you want to limit the discussion to totalitarianism, that would be fine by me, but it will be a very different discussion. In fact, earlier in this thread I agreed that there were (or at least could be) positives in a dictatorship, which of course is a form of totalitarianism. It's when you add the philosophical component incorporated in Fascism that I reject it.

 Quote:
What many of you forget is that no matter what system of government is in control, nothing, absolutely nothing, is enforcing it upon someone. Rules and laws are only there for them that submit themselves. Those that see them as what they are can do whatever they want.


Technically true, of course. Responsibly accepting the consequences of one's actions, one can do whatever one wants with eyes wide open and chin held high. Still, the consequences of flouting the law are often severe in the extreme, especially under a totalitarian regime, which usually has no motivation to be merciful and every motivation to be brutal. Even with a gun to my head, I am technically free, but the gun is still there, the coercion is real, and the narrow range of options is undesirable to say the least.

 Quote:

Democracy is glorifying weakness and promoting it is promoting that very weakness. So is ignoring it.


All democracy means to me is that the government tends to leave me alone. Being left alone suits me. Of course that also means the government tends to leave everyone else alone, even people I disdain or despise. I'm fine with that, since the people I disdain or despise tend to leave me alone, not least because I return the favor.


Edited by Baron dHolbach (01/27/10 08:03 AM)
Edit Reason: Fixed important typo
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34657 - 01/27/10 09:25 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
Let's not confuse ideology with philosophy, would we?
Fascism is a form of government with straight set ideological ideas. The term philosophy used in this context is a bit misplaced.
Satanism is a way of living, a "philosophy".
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#34659 - 01/27/10 11:13 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dimitri]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Let's not confuse ideology with philosophy, would we?
Fascism is a form of government with straight set ideological ideas. The term philosophy used in this context is a bit misplaced.
Satanism is a way of living, a "philosophy".


Your definition of philosophy as "a way of living" is wrong. Philosophy is the "love of wisdom" (from the greek word philosophia). It is the study of the fundamental questions of life and death and everything in between. If one says "one philosophy" it is generally regarded to mean a coherent system of thought, an ideology or a philosophical school of thought.

Politics is a sub-category of the philosophy subject which isn't strange at all once one looks deeper into it. When I was studying philosophy in the University we had the course slashed into four equal branches of philosophical study: ethics, logics, metaphysics and politics (there are of course several more branches).

I think both Satanism and fascism (and every other political and religious idea) are philosophy as well as ideology. Political ideas are always founded on, and developed into, philosophical ideas.

However Satanism is not a form of government which of course all political ideologies ar (except maybe extreme utopian anarchism where there is nothing to govern in the end \:D ).


Edited by TheInsane (01/27/10 11:14 AM)

Top
Page 8 of 8 « First<45678


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.031 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 27 queries. Zlib compression disabled.