A demonic secular religion with self-appointed gods?

 

That's how Brandon Smith sees globalism and its followers.

From Carl Jung to Joseph Campbell to Steven Pinker and beyond, all scientific evidence suggests that human beings have inherent psychological qualities and characteristics from birth. Some of these are unique to the person, some are universal archetypes and ideas that the majority of people share (such as conscience and moral compass). If we didn’t have these built-in qualities, humanity would have become extinct thousands of years ago. We still don’t know where exactly they come from, we only know that without them we are no longer human.

There is, however, a certain percentage of people (1% or less) that actually do not have these inborn character traits. They are generally known as psychopaths and sociopaths, and their behavior is very similar to that of the globalists. I have long held the theory that the globalist cabal is in fact a cult of higher functioning psychopaths.

Their lack of empathy and conscience, their thirst for godhood and omnipotence, their drive to attain all encompassing surveillance of the population, to know everything about us at all time, to have total control over the environment and society, the narcissistic self image of a supreme ruler who is worshiped by the masses, and the delusion that they will be able to read minds and predict the future. These are psychopathic fantasies, and they are willing to chase these fantasies by any means necessary.

But even psychopaths sometimes need a fundamentalist framework in order to maintain organization and inspire devotion within a group. It makes perfect sense that they would choose luciferianism as their religion.

Their “do what thou wilt” philosophy of hedonism takes the idea of freedom and removes all responsibility – It is a degenerate view of liberty, rather than a principled view. Freedom, they think, is only for people like them; the people willing to desecrate everything in their path and upend the natural order.

As psychopaths, they are devoid of natural inborn contents and are more robotic than human. So, it’s no surprise that people like Harai argue there is no soul, no freedom (for you) and that machines are capable of the same creativity as humans. An empty person with no soul or creativity is going to assume that all other people are empty. An immoral person will also be compelled to prove that everyone else is just as immoral as he is. Or, he will be compelled to prove that he is superior to everyone else because he has embraced his immorality.

Do the elites actually believe in a real “devil” with hooves and horns and a pitchfork? I don’t know. What matters, though, is the philosophical drive of their cultism. Their goal is to convince a majority of the populace that there is no good, and there is no evil. Everything is empty. Everything is relative to the demands of the moment, and the demands of society. Of course, they want to control society, so then everything would really be relative to THEIR demands.

If you want to see something truly demonic, imagine a world in which all inherent truth is abandoned for the sake of subjective perception. A world that caters to the preferences of psychopaths with no ethical imperative. A world where the ends always justify the means. This is the luciferian way, and the globalist way. And no matter how much they deny it, the reality of their beliefs is visible in the fruits of their labors. Wherever they go, destruction, chaos and death follow.

There's more at the link.  Highly recommended reading.

That might sound far-fetched to many people, but I've seen at first hand the consequences of the pursuit of money and power for their own sake, rather than as a means to an end.  I'll give you just one example, out of many I could cite.  Back in the 1980's, while working in the information technology industry, I helped one businessman figure out his (very complex) taxes.  In the course of doing so, I learned that he was worth sixty to seventy million already, and worked up to twenty hours a day to make more money.  If he didn't add at least ten per cent every year to his net worth, he reckoned himself a failure.  However, while dedicating his life to the pursuit of money and the power it brought with it, he'd been through three marriages, all ending in bitter and acrimonious divorces.  His son was a high school dropout, living somewhere in Europe to evade the draft in South Africa, vocally and viciously hating on his father at every opportunity.  His daughter was a drug-addicted prostitute suffering from multiple venereal infections, but refusing to get treatment for them.  His life outside work and money was a ruin, a total and complete failure . . . yet he still addictively and compulsively lived and worked solely for more money and power.  If ever there was a living definition of a "false god", he was pursuing it.

I've no idea what happened to him in the end, but I can't think it was anything good.

I'm also reminded of an article in the international edition of Fortune magazine on July 6, 1987.  I found it so nauseatingly compelling that I filed it in my spiritual reading library - and have kept it there to this day - on the principle of "Know your enemy", because what it described was, and still is, the antithesis of Christianity, and a very clear enemy to any meaningful life of faith.  It was titled "The Money Society".  Here are a few excerpts.

Money, money, money is the incantation of today.  Bewitched by an epidemic of money enchantment, Americans in the Eighties wriggle in a St. Vitus's dance of materialism unseen since the Gilded Age or the Roaring Twenties.  Under the blazing sun of money, all other values shine palely.  And the M&A decade acclaims but one breed of hero:  He's the honcho with the condo and the limo and the Miró and lots and lots of dough.

. . .

Back in 1967, around 40% of U.S. college freshmen told pollsters that it was important to them to be very well off financially, as against around 80% who listed developing a meaningful philosophy of life as an important objective.  But by 1986 the numbers had reversed, with almost 80% aspiring plutocrats as against 40% philosophers.  The number and wealth of the rich have swollen accordingly, with U.S. millionaires proliferating sixfold over the last 20 years to around 1.3 million souls today.  The richest 1% of Americans, who owned 31.8% of the national wealth in 1963, had upped their share to an even heftier 34.4% of it two decades later.

. . .

The corporate restructuring [of the 1980's] isn't just an economic change.  It is also a social change, transforming the relationships between individuals and their employers.  Altered sometimes unrecognizably, cut loose from their traditions, no longer able to offer long-term career commitment, old companies can inspire neither attachment nor loyalty in employees.  "What we're living in now is an age of Hessians," says University of Rhode Island historian Maury Klein, biographer of robber baron Jay Gould.  A realignment like this cuts people adrift from the traditional moorings by which they identify themselves, as do other of our era's social and cultural changes, from family breakdown to the newfangled relations between the sexes to the continuing attenuation of community ties.

What has this to do with the money craze?  Everything.  Says historian Klein, "Money tends to be more or less important in an age, depending on the degree of turbulence and social change that is taking place."  Like the rapidly urbanizing and industrializing era of the robber barons, Klein says, ours is "an age where traditional self-identities are under great attack and great strain just from the pace of change.  In that situation, money becomes a way of defining who you are by what you have."

That way of defining a self is rampant in the money society.

. . .

What then is one to make of that patron of the arts Saul Steinberg, chairman of Reliance Group Holdings, sometime greenmailer, and recently host to a gathering of such writers as Norman Mailer and Allen Ginsberg?  What does he think when he walks in his door after a hard day at the office and sees, first thing, his Francis Bacon triptych?  On one side a naked man throws up into a sink;  on the other, a naked man strains on a toilet;  in the middle, grotesque and half hidden, a third naked figure casts a batwinged, demonic, and loathsome shadow ominously across the floor.  Who knows what these images might say to Steinberg of life in high finance?

All this is what is really meant by the word "lifestyle" - more superficial style than rooted, meaningful life.  And the point of these examples is not that the money society has triumphantly driven out all the solid, estimable values, like the shaggy barbarians at the gates of Rome.  Rather, the money society has expanded to fill the vacuum left after the institutions that embodied and nourished those values - community, religion, school, university, and especially family - sagged or collapsed or sometimes even self-destructed.

Now we live in a world where all values are relative, equal, and therefore without authority, truly matters of mere style.

It's hard to read that 1987 article and not see the roots of today's secular, wealth-obsessed, psychopathic focus of those who lead (or say they lead) our society.  The money-focused hedonism and self-obsession of the 1980's gives rise to the uber-hedonism of globalism and its denial of individuality, community, culture, faith and nationality.

Here's Yuval Harari, one of the high priests of globalism, talking about his - and their - vision of the human being today.  It's chilling.

That's a vision of humanity that I reject utterly - but it's the vision of humanity that is guiding the globalists in their quest for power.  They truly believe they can overturn all of human history, all of humanity itself, and make the world something directed by a machine that acts in the name of what's good for that world as a whole, without considering individuals, communities, cultures, religious faith, or anything else.  A secular society in every conceivable way.

I can understand how Brandon Smith came to his conclusion.  Increasingly, I share it.

Peter