You! You are an aggressor! There is no way that you can exist on this planet otherwise. All of us have to carve a niche out of Nature, with violence or treachery, for there is simply no other way to survive. So malicious are you that you commit the ultimate evil – to continue to exist!
Every living creature has a need to metabolise in order to stay warm. This metabolisation requires energy, which means food, which means a need to eat, which means a need to kill. In order to live, you have to kill!
Every bit of food you have ever eaten was a living being that had to be killed so that you could eat it! What right do you have to assert the primacy of your own existence over that of another being, over a fellow creation of God? The morally correct thing to do, in order to avoid bringing suffering into the world, is to lie down and starve to death!
Worse, as a mostly hairless ape, you also have a need for shelter – and there’s no other way to build a house than by carving a space out of Nature for yourself. This means destroying the habitats of other creatures.
150 square metres of floor space means 150 square metres of land on which no forests can grow, and through which no streams can run. It’s 150 square metres worth of trees that had to be chopped down, with all the bird and insect life supported by it destroyed.
Neither can you escape your own energy needs. Driving a car around consumes oil – a finite energy source, and one that has to be extracted at the price of more environmental damage. Reading this website requires electricity, which requires energy. All the goods in your house were shipped to you by transportation methods that required energy.
Collectively, these demands meant even more coal mines put down, even more oil wells sunk, even more valleys wiped out by hydroelectric dams. To use energy is to render parts of the Earth to chaos!
There’s nothing you can do about any of these things! To continue to exist is to destroy – for only through destruction can one continue to exist!
To reproduce causes even more damage. The facts are stark: the single most ecologically destructive move a person can make is to bring another human being into the world – a human who will have to eat, to shelter themselves and to use energy, and at ever-increasing appetites!
Worst of all, merely to keep existing means you run the risk of bringing more conscious life into the world to suffer. Even if you don’t intend to breed, you might meet a certain person who causes a massive dump of some hormone to be released by your brain and then you fall in love and nek minnit you have eight children, all of whom must find their own way to come to terms with the fact that they are mortal creatures in a world of ceaseless slaughter!
If you should stop existing, on the other hand, not only does it become impossible to bring more conscious suffering into the world in the form of human offspring, but one also vacates a niche within the biosphere that can (and will) be occupied by gentler, kinder forms of life.
Think of the biomass of the worms that would eat your corpse!
You should be killed!
*
If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis).
The apotheosis of Buddha came not through grovelling, sadomasochism and superstitious entreaties, but from lucid, rational and brave introspection
The fashionable talk today is about interfaith dialogue. All of sudden, everyone’s trying to emphasise what the world’s various religious traditions have in common. Some even go as far as to say that all religions worship the same God. Despite the absurdity of most of this fashionable lip-flapping, this essay will argue that, at least, Buddhism is compatible with Luciferianism.
Some say the reason for this interfaith dialogue is that talking leads to fewer misunderstandings, which leads to less violence. Leaving aside the fact that Abrahamism causes 99%+ of the world’s religious violence anyway, the problem with Abrahamism is that the more one learns about it, the less one respects it. Even worse, the more time one spends around its followers, the less one respects it.
On the face of it, there are several major ways that Buddhism appears utterly incompatible with Abrahamism. On the other hand, although Buddhism could never find peaceful co-existence with Abrahamism, it could find it with Luciferianism.
The major tenet of Buddhism is that one acts in a way that minimises the suffering of other sentient beings. The principle behind this is compassion, in that the suffering of those other beings is an important thing that ought to be taken into consideration. A related teaching is the interdependence of all things, which cultivates an appreciation of the effects that one’s actions have on the well-being of other creatures.
There are no such concepts in Abrahamism. Working to reduce suffering is incidental to following the directives of God – if homosexuals are to be put to death then so be it. God says so. It matters not whether this action reduces or increases the suffering in the world. Likewise, women have to be put in their place, and non-believers persecuted. Compassion doesn’t come into it; all that matters is submission.
Luciferianism doesn’t really have set instructions for what to do about the suffering of other conscious beings. Cruelty, however, is seen as petty, small-minded, even bestial. The Abrahamic insistence on male infant genital mutilation appalls the Luciferian, who tends to see it as a gross violation of power with superstitious origins.
This attitude of submission (and of forcing submission) is another way in which Buddhism is not compatible with Abrahamism. For example, Buddha said:
“Don’t blindly believe what I say. Don’t believe me because others convince you of my words. Don’t believe anything you see, read, or hear from others, whether of authority, religious teachers or texts. Don’t rely on logic alone, nor speculation. Don’t infer or be deceived by appearances. Find out for yourself what is true and virtuous.”
This is an extremely Luciferian attitude. Here, Buddha appears to be saying explicitly not to worship him, not to see him as something higher. A Luciferian would understand that one cannot take another person for an authority on how we all got here or what we’re doing, while a Buddhist might contend that the nature of God is irrelevant.
By contrast, Abrahamism preaches submission to dogma. Questioning the priest is not the done thing, because he speaks with the authority of God. Whereas a Buddhist teacher will sit at the front of a class and take questions, which are answered honestly, the Abrahamist preaches from a raised pulpit, and takes no questions. Questions imply free-thinking, which is a sin because it correlates negatively with submission.
Buddhism doesn’t demand that anyone bow down to anyone else. There is no self-appointed “God’s Representative on Earth”. A Buddhist would not give any credence to anyone claiming to speak for God, for any reason – the Pope has no more spiritual authority than a schizophrenic street prophet. The shiny silver that high priests are bedecked with will not convince a Buddhist that they know what they’re talking about.
What matters to the Luciferian, like the Buddhist, is a methodology by which truth might be discerned. Abrahamism is not a methodology – it is a dogma. Where the Luciferian and the Buddhist might meet on equal terms to discuss strategies and tactics of mutual interest, the Abrahamist presumes to dictate the truth, and the right to enforce submission to this truth with violence.
It seems like Buddhism appeals to the same sort of people as Luciferianism. It may be that both traditions arose to meet the challenges of their time and place: Buddhism with immense physical poverty, and Luciferianism with suffocating environments of spiritual lies, misdirections and untruths.
Buddhism deals with the lies of the senses and the mind, and Luciferianism with the lies of the Abrahamists. They are both master moralities, in contrast to the slave philosophies of the desert.
*
If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis).
Dividing the political spectrum into two poles depending on a person’s attitude to sociobiological dominance hierarchies can be more instructive than left and right
There are many competing theories of political spectrums. The best known is left-right, but libertarian-authoritarian and traditionalist-progressivist are two popular others. This essay contends that the most instructive way to look at the basic political division is to split it into what we call verticalists and horizontalists, based on crude biopolitical sentiments.
These terms refer not to a person’s ideal distribution of resources or land, or to the status quo or change, but to a person’s preferred form of social dominance hierarchy. In this sense, verticalists correspond to what has traditionally been called a “masculine” kind of politics while horizontalists correspond to what has traditionally been called “feminine”.
Verticalists also overlap heavily with what has hitherto been considered the right, and horizontalists with the left, but it isn’t as simple as this.
The basic belief of a horizontalist is that the dominance hierarchy ought to be flattened, or at least that the ideal dominance hierarchy is a relatively egalitarian one. This entails that no-one can exalt themselves too far above the others or above the average. The basic belief of a verticalist is that it is morally permissible for an individual to acquire many, many times more wealth or power than the average person.
Horizontalists are therefore much like mainstream leftists when they contend that CEOs should not be allowed to earn 500 times more than the most lowly-paid workers at their company, or when they express a dislike of feudal monarchy. Their core sentiment seems to be a belief that people should not be allowed to wield power over others, and that to do so is obscene.
Verticalists don’t feel the same sense of injustice that horizontalists do at the thought of a dominance hierarchy in which some positions carry much, much more power or prestige than others. They are much more comfortable with the thought of a person having exclusive control over an area, such as a fascist dictatorship.
There are essentially two types of verticalists.
The first are those who think that they themselves are the natural inheritors of the top of the dominance hierarchy. These people are the natural alphas. Usually they are distinguished from the others by being exceptionally vigorous, strong or intelligent. Sometimes their distinction is a matter of will.
The second are those who want to serve the first group, in the hope that some of the spoils of war fall to them. These are the natural betas. If one observes the natural dominance hierarchies that occur in chimpanzee troops, it is clear that this alpha-beta vertical distinction is a naturally occurring phenomenon in social creatures.
Horizontalism draws its power out of a discontentment with this primitive way of things. Some people naturally have a moral objection to others wielding great amounts of power. Horizontalists tend to think that such a thing is obscene, and that “the people” (i.e. the betas) need to work together to avoid being exploited out of their fair share of the proceeds of their labour.
Horizontalisation probably came about when some early primate realised that the alpha male of their tribe was preventing them from accessing reproductive opportunities by means of extreme jealousy and possessive violence over the tribe’s females, and that if our early primate teamed up with a like-minded they could collectively eliminate the alpha male and thus gain access to those females.
Over time, this created a selection pressure in favour of those males who reacted angrily to other males asserting dominance and control over large amounts of resources. In other words, there was a selective pressure in favour of those who believed in horizontalism.
There are also two types of horizontalists. The first are those who do not themselves think they are the natural inheritors of the top of the dominance hierarchy. These people are similar to the beta males who become verticalists, only they have chosen another strategy. Instead of trying to work with and for the alphas, they aim to supplant them and become the new alphas themselves.
The second are those who promote horizontalisation for idealistic reasons, despite being in the upper half of the dominance hierarchy themselves. These people are often very intelligent and have taken a particularly long-term view, because a long-term view will naturally suggest that one should focus on co-operation rather than competition. These people are the natural nation-builders and philosopher-kings, and are extremely rare.
A verticalist generally has no problem stating that one thing is more valuable than another. For example, they might be comfortable saying that Person A is a great man and that Person B is a piece of shit. A horizontalist, on the other hand, is disinclined to show great respect to Person A and is also disinclined to show great disrespect to Person B. In this sense the verticalists are more masculine and the horizontalists more feminine.
Verticalism differs from the popular conception of right wing in several ways. A verticalist has no problem with a person smoking cannabis, for example, because that doesn’t impact the individual verticalist’s ability to get ahead. Whether or not cannabis is legal doesn’t make it harder or easier for a verticalist to get ahead from their own effort, so they won’t support it for the sake of mere tradition like a conservative, or for the sake of destroying poor and non-white people like a right-winger.
Also, verticalists don’t tend to be either racist or misogynistic. A verticalist doesn’t have a problem with respecting a black man or a woman as long as those people are capable of distinguishing themselves from the plebs by their own merit. In this manner, there is an overlap between verticalism and Luciferianism.
Conversely, horizontalism differs from the popular conception of left wing in that it doesn’t need to posit a new ruling class in the form of any kind of global authority. A horizontalist feels absolutely no need to crate a global hierarchy in which an entity like the United Nations wielded great power over the peoples of the Earth. Horizontalists are fairly anarchistic in that sense.
Furthermore, a horizontalist would likely oppose mass immigration from poorer countries, for the reason that this tends to form an underclass of people who aren’t really a part of the nation, and an overclass of wealthy landowners who benefit handsomely from the cheap labour and increased demand for housing. Horizontalists might therefore have more in common with national socialists than with regular socialists or Marxists.
Alchemically, all of these positions relate to the four masculine elements. The basic verticalist dichotomy can be said to reflect the basic feminine-masculine distinction between clay and iron, between the passive, receptive yin and the active, outgoing yang. The horizontalists are themselves split into the false egalitarians of the silver and the true philosopher-kings of gold who intend to lead humanity out of the brutality of biological dominance hierarchies.
*
If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis).
