MANIFESTO DRAKONIS

By

Frater Necrosophiacos

2015 e.v.
MANIFESTO
DRAKONIS
By
Frater Necrosophiacos

Last Blood Moon

2015 e.v.
 Introduction

Left-Hand Path

Right-Hand Path

Altruism

Perception of God

Occult Ritual

Vibration, the Physical Body and the Spirit

Concept of the Ego and Levels of Consciousness

The 'Astral Plane'

Use of Inverted Biblical Imagery

 Astral Vampirism

Chaos, Destruction, Malice, the Anti-Cosmic current and

the 'Natural Order'

Conceptual Issues

Bibliography
 Introduction
Understanding Satanism, Bestian Gnosticism, Gnostic Luciferianism, Anticosmic
Satanism it is necessary to examine the concept of the left-hand and right-hand paths. I
have attempted to understand all of the above areas, but may only have a crude grasp of
them, despite my best efforts. It should be noted that the different systems of belief and
practice within the stereotypical Left-Hand and Right-Hand Paths are often not readily
categorized into one or other part of the dichotomy, and indeed, some utilize concepts from
both 'left' and 'right' handed paths. Nevertheless, the definitions do hold some value in
understanding paganism, Satanism, Luciferianism and occultism in general. The
predominant usage of the terminology can be found amongst those who define themselves
as being adherents of the 'left-hand path'. Eliphas Levi's Baphomet is often used to
represent the Left-Hand Path.
 'The terms Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path refer to a dichotomy between two
opposing belief systems, whose meanings have varied over time. Modern definitions of
"Right-Hand Path" elevate spirituality, the strict observance of moral codes, and the
worship of deities. The intent of "Right-Hand Path" belief systems is to attain proximity to
divinity, or integration with divinity. Conversely, "Left-Hand Path" belief systems value the
advancement and preservation of the self, glorification of more temporal and terrestrial
goals, and personal power rather than spiritual attainments. Rather than valuing proximity
to the divine, followers of Left-Hand Path belief systems seek to "become divinities" in
their own right. These definitions are typically used by proponents of Left-Hand Path belief
systems. Opponents often argue that these definitions improperly divide belief systems, a
mislabeled or false dichotomy, or claim that many Left-Hand beliefs are illegitimate.
 Left-Hand Path

The term Left-Hand Path (LHP) originates from Hindu Tantra:

'Tantra is a set of esoteric Indian traditions with roots in Hinduism and later Buddhism
(which is a separate Dharma formed from Hinduism). Tantra is often divided by its
practitioners into two different paths: dakshinachara and vamachara, translated as Right-
Hand Path and Left-Hand Path respectively. Dakshinachara consists of traditional Hindu
practices such as asceticism and meditation, while Vamachara also includes ritual practices
that conflict with mainstream Hinduism, such as sexual rituals, consumption of alcohol and
other intoxicants, animal sacrifice, and flesh-eating.

The two paths are viewed by Tantrists as equally valid approaches to enlightenment.
Vamachara, however, is considered to be the faster and more dangerous of the two paths,
and is not suitable for all practitioners. This usage of the terms Left-Hand Path and Right-
Hand Path is still current in modern Tantra.'

Vamachara is not an undisciplined, 'orgy' type approach, but in a general sense contains
more rules than Dakshinachara. In order to indulge in these earthly pleasures in such a
manner so that they lose their power and hold over karma, one must approach it with the
utmost discipline. An undisciplined approach would result in increased psychological
addiction and ill health, which is not the desired outcome or goal.

The term Left-Hand Path was first used in Western occultism by Helena Blavatsky (the
founder of Theosophy - pictured above) to describe sex magic. Theosophy is examined in
more detail on the Fringe Religions page. Aleister Crowley further popularized the term
'Left-Hand Path', referring to a "Brother of the Left-Hand Path," or a "Black Brother,"
meaning one who failed to attain the grade of Magister Templi with the AA (through fear
and/or not letting go of the ego). Throughout modern history, many cultures have regarded
 the left-handed path as evil. This tendency can be seen in the etymology of words such as
'sinister', which means both "left" and "unlucky" in Latin. The left hand has often been used
to symbolise the rejection of traditional religion.

Modern usage of the term Left-Hand Path often refers to those belief systems and religions
that see themselves as diametrically opposed to mainstream religions, the 'darker' religions,
choosing often to use inverted symbols, such as inverted cross and inverted pentagrams
(e.g. Satanism). Examples of those religions and groups that label themselves as following
the 'Left-Hand Path' including Theistic Satanism, Polytheistic Satanism, LaVey Satanism,
Setianism (The Temple of Set and its sub-groups), Luciferianism, Gnostic Luciferianism,
Dragon Rouge, Ordo Templi Orientis (Typhonian), Dark Paganism, Demonolatry, and
Left-Hand Path Hinduism (i.e. Aghoris and Vamachara).

The Dragon Rouge logo is shown below. Notice the inversion of the triangle inside the
circle. Dragon Rouge also uses a symbol similar to the Unicursal Hexagram of Thelema
combined with a Chaos Magic symbol. The Typhonian O.T.O. is said to have influenced
both Setianism and Dragon Rouge.

The Clavicula Nox, one of the key symbols of Dragon Rouge, is shown below.
 Some simply define the Left-Hand Path as being 'immersion' and the Right-Hand Path as
being 'abstinence'.

It could be generally stated that the Left-Hand Path in Western Occultism is generally used
to describe Satanism in its various forms: Luciferianism (containing elements of Satanism),
LaVey Satanism, Theistic Satanism, Polytheistic Satanism and Dark Paganism (arguably
almost identical to Polytheistic Satanism in many cases). It could be argued that
Luciferianism and Gnostic Luciferianism could not exist without drawing on the archetype
of Satan to some extent.

Baphomet is not infrequently used to represent the Left-Hand Path. It could be argued that
Thelema and Chaos Magic in general also represent the Left-Hand Path. There are many
different pagan religions and magical practices and Traditions that embody many aspects of
the Left-Hand Path, for example, Freemasonry, The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn,
Rosicrucianism, Wicca etc. Some of these orders and religions (theoretically) display some
arguably Right-Hand Path characteristics, for example, the universal brotherhood or
Thelema and Freemasonry, white magic within certain branches of Wicca, etc.

Thelema is however hugely more Left-Handed than Right-Handed. Freemasonry,

depending on the branch and exact esoteric practices engaged in, is usually slightly more
Right-Handed than Thelemic orders, given its charity work etc. This clearly depends on the
Lodge, and some Lodges are definitely not Right-Handed in any way.
 'Left-Hand Path belief systems generally share the following properties:

- The conviction that individuals can become akin to gods, usually through spiritual insight.
- The conviction that there is no such thing as a selfless act. Fulfilling one's desire is
acknowledged to be selfish, at the least reaping an individual sense of satisfaction. Altruism
is considered self-deception, created and fostered by conventional religions.
- An exoteric interpretation of concepts like karma, divine retribution, or the Threefold
Law, resulting in flexible rather than rigid codes of morality.
- The conviction that the individual is preeminent, and that all decisions should be made
with the goal of cultivating the self (though not necessarily the ego).
- The conviction that each individual is responsible for his or her own happiness, and that
no external force will provide salvation or reward actions which do not advance one's own
happiness in this life.
- The conviction that the forces of the universe can be harnessed to one's personal will by
magical means, and that power gained and wielded in such a manner is an aid to
enlightenment, to self-satisfaction, and to self-deification.
- A Platonic view of deities as "first-forms." If deity is perceived as having consciousness,
then all relationships with the deity are in the form of a partnership, or an alliance which
does not require subservience. Some practitioners of Left-Hand Path belief systems
summarize this concept with the statement that "prideful deities like prideful partners."'

The Left-Hand Path is often defined as self-actualisation, self-deification and the

preservation of individuality. It is the pursuit of the self. Self-deification has many
connotations, and can mean different things to different people, e.g. an ego trip; gaining
psychological, magical and spiritual power through occult ritual (witchcraft), conditioning
and symbolism; taking on more qualities and spiritual power of the Panentheistic deity (
e.g. God or Satan); learning to use the gifts from God, i.e. healing power, channelling and
building Qi etc.; gaining insight into God and Gnosis in order to later join with God but
reaping the benefits of wisdom in the interim, etc. Self-deification has a different
connotation within Gnosticism and fringe Gnosticism (joining the Pleroma) for example
than it has within Satanism (becoming as powerful as (a) God through allying oneself with
Satan). The Left-Hand Path holds the premise that one is reliant upon oneself for one's
happiness and fulfillment. It represents the interests, rights and freedoms of the individual
over the collective (and not usually directly at the expense of the collective or of other
individuals).

The Left-Hand Path could be considered to be about philosophy, wisdom and illumination
(illuminism). It is often associated with hedonism, sex, gratification of the senses, dark
magic, excesses in many areas of life, materialism, apathy, pride, contrarianism, a desire for
self-power, and drug use; sometimes power over others. It often embodies the concept of
Nietzsche's Power to Will. Self-actualisation is not exclusively reserved for occultists, but
is a philosophy adopted by capitalists, artists, those interested in personal development, etc.
The left-hand path is sometimes described as including the merging elements, or the
unifying elements, where the activation of the Self is seen to be more powerful than the
sum of its constituent parts. Occult ritual in the Left-Hand Path is seen as the most powerful
tool of self-actualisation, above psychological tools such as Neuro-Linguistic Programming
and other explorations and tools for streamlining, growing and enhancing one's experience
of the Self.

Whilst Satanism is often considered the embodiment of the LHP, there are other
expressions of the LHP which are considered as 'higher forms of wisdom', e.g. Gnostic
Luciferianism. Here, the self is still the purpose behind the philosophy, but it does not dwell
on the concepts of Survival of the Fitness and Strength, but focuses on 'higher' goals of self-
fulfillment, intellectual illuminism, gnosis, and light and dark principles.

It is of course in many LHP private and secret groups, often those of an 'extreme' nature,
the goal to further the self as much as possible, in monetary, power and influence terms,
above all else. Such goals are best served by covert membership and 'old boys networks'.
Membership is often only granted to those who are considered to have attained a certain
level of wealth and power. This being considered a true measure of their worth in occult
terms, in other words being able to manifest in material terms their Will in their own life;
how educated they are in the occult and how many books they have read are not considered
to be as important or relevant if they cannot apply it and change the world around them
according to their Will. Such goals are rarely best served by 'false altruistic notions' of
improving society through openness and education, but merely doing what they can to
further their own ends above all else.

This is more an attribute of Satanism, the most materialistic form of the Left-Hand Path.
Gnostic or Luciferian groups may share some of these elements, but on the whole their
main pursuit is intellectual furtherment and wisdom, of course which should be applied to
one's own life, but materialistic goals are balanced with others, be they intellectual, spiritual
or artistic, and indeed may not feature at all.

Critics of the Left-Hand Path argue it is/adherents can be (to varying degrees): excessively
narcissistic, glutinous, selfish, materialistic, worthless, empty, emotionally stunted,
soulless, heartless, childish (teenage knee-jerk philosophy), thinking one knows it all,
taking oneself far too seriously, controlling, lacking a sense of humour, devoid of natural
joy, emotionally distant/repressed, antisocial/unsociable/lacking in social skills/unfriendly,
tactless, rude, foul mouthed, devoid of 'conventional' etiquette, impolite, lonely, isolated,
morally bankrupt, emotionally naive, tendency to use people (sucking up what they need
form them like a sponge) and give little back in return (unless one enjoys intellectualising
and talking about a certain subject), often depressed or dealing with crippling
personal/psychological issues, cramped with excessive negative core self-beliefs hidden
away with a layer of 'strong, self-oriented' beliefs, hollow, culturally backwards, clueless,
social misfits, lacking in empathy and consideration for others, left brain biased
(excessively reliant on rationalisation and ego-control), excessively and addictively dark,
morbid, negative, cynical, excessively reliant on black magic, gratuitous goth/death/demon
imagery fixated, chaos magic and malicious magic compared with other forms of magic,
self-actualising on a very low (knee jerk) level, never satisfied, requiring something to be in
opposition to (i.e. rebellious, adversarial - a perverse rejection of norms for the sake of it to
superficially increase self-esteem) rather than representing the true self as it wants to be,
 extremely sharp in some areas but veering towards 'insanity' in others, tendency towards
extreme right wing political persuasions (in some individuals), representing a shallow form
of self-esteem with no real solid foundation, promoting an unhealthy reliance of alcohol,
drugs and the 'buzz/entertain me' mentality (lack of gratitude), and often resulting in
massive, overinflated egos. These examples may reflect an unsuccessful attempt to follow
the 'true' Left-Hand Path. Some critics of the Left-Hand Path regard it as the path of
darkness, seeing certain specific Right-Hand Paths as the path of light. Indeed some
adherents of specific mainstream religions may see other mainstream religions as being
paths of darkness and containing some Left-Hand Path elements to varying degrees.

Some people argue that the Left-Hand Path attracts people with character flaws, bullies,
those who treat others badly, those with addictions, those with disrespectful and negative
childish attitudes by default, and that the path does little to actually encourage more
positive traits or really work on the core negative traits. Their character flaws and toxic
personalities are represented in some LHP systems as being illumination and are further
reinforced, depending on the extent of self-deception. This is ironic as the LHP is supposed
to be the opposite of self-deception. The LHP appears to pander to those who aspire to
greatness, and such individuals often tend to have overinflated senses of their own
importance or intellectual capabilities or their knowledge, logic or wisdom - when in
absolute terms they are often nothing special and 'dress up' their thoughts to make them
sound deeper than they really are. Many people are attracted to the LHP as it has a 'dark'
and 'adversarial' image, which is perhaps in part on account of the gratuitous 'gothic'ness
and obsession with 'dark' imagery. Those who fancy themselves as misunderstood or 'dark'
may well find it attractive - for a while.

Some LHPs do have some more worthwhile attributes and draw on Eastern philosophies
where being a bully, excesses or nurturing the ugly side of one's ego are not generally seen
as very wise. It of course depends on the individual and what the person chooses to focus
on and what sources they draw from. What their movitation to taking up the LHP is and
what their intentions are. Some LHP groups breed conformity in mentality (e.g. the Church
of Satan) whereas others much less so or the opposite. Some consider that following the
LHP helps to grow their character, and it is about the Will and the self, and whilst some
adherents do appear to be more direct, no nonsense and rational in their thinking, they are
often distinctly lacking in personality, character and wit, something that presumably a
system for developing the self should have at the top of the list.

Part of the reason why those who follow the Left-Hand Path may seem self-absorbed is
because often they are following that self-oriented side of their character, and much of the
occult work is by definition self-oriented and intensely introspective and as such may in
some instances come across as selfishness or being short or even an 'asshole'. Indeed, in
some circles, being a bit of an asshole is actively encouraged!

It is not unknown for followers of the Left-Hand Path, and indeed occultists in general, to
suddenly and without warning cut people out of their lives, or to withdraw from social
contacts and friendships indefinitely or for periods of time. If such an individual sees
something as non-productive or counter-productive to the self or the selfs goals and desires
and needs, then the predisposition is to cut it out with little regard for pleasantries or social
etiquette, or ones past history for example. An occultist may go into hiding or a period of
introspection as he may be over-sensitive to external stimuli that perhaps others do not
perceive. After a cooling off or readjustment period, the person may return to his old self.
Or indeed, may simply keep being himself, but cut people out in this manner as he goes
along, perhaps taking on new acquaintances or activities that seem to meet his needs or
perceived needs at the time - which may well be cut out after a time of no longer serving a
purpose for him or when he has got his moneys worth, feels no need for them any longer or
tires of them (perhaps gets to know them properly and his initial vision or projection of who
he thought they were is shattered by reality). This may be perceived by others as antisocial,
rude and selfish behaviour of course!

Followers of the LHP often cite the concept of the Jungian Shadow as a justification or
reason for their lifestyle. Whether this is a primary or secondary reason may vary from
individual to individual and may not always be known to the person also. For a discussion
of the LHP and the Jungian Shadow, please see the Jungian Shadow and the Occult page.

It would be incorrect to assume that all occult practice is of the Left-Hand Path. The sub-
category of the occult that is normally associated with the Left-Hand Path and
Adversarialism in general tends to be daemonology (invocations involving demons, aka
Goetia), rituals involving the Luciferian and Satanic and other related archetypes or deities,
Enochian magic and destructive/malicious/predatory magic. It is in general about personal
power and embodying archetypes, literal or symbolic of power and 'darkness'; and anything
occult practice that increases the sensation of the 'self' and independence from all others. Of
course LHP practitioners often wish to embody archetypes of stillness and calm, but this is
not really in the realm of the occult but in elements taken from Taoism and Buddhism.

Other forms of magic are not exclusive to the LHP, involving Tarot (and their relatives
Oracle Cards), divination, automatic writing, palm reading, astrology, chaos magic,
invocations involving other, less 'dark' deities (those not about just power but other
archetypes and emotions), and sex magic are practised by Neo-Pagans and others. Some of
these practices are a form of Theurgy, from the Hermetic magical tradition. The preference
for these different practices differs according to different LHP practitioners, but sex magic
is usually quite universally practiced, probably because it is most immediately enjoyable!
Some LHP practitioners however consider some of these other practices perhaps a little too
'new age' or lacking in 'power of the self' or the ability to enhance the one's sense of power
directly.

It should be noted that from around 3000 BC up until perhaps the 19th Century, there was
no separation of astronomy and astrology as we know them today, but they were one and
the same. All famous historical astronomers were astrologers and sometimes even priests.
They combined the scientific study of the stars and the visible universe with 'non-scientific'
predictions based on the movement of the planets within (i.e. in front of) different
constellations (corresponding to astrological symbols and representations of animals). Now
that the two disciplines have become separate, we should perhaps consider the two. Many
Left Hand Paths promote science, knowledge and wisdom as the ultimate goal. Is the
 pursuit of astrology still valid? As for many it is considered historically outdated and no
longer a science as it once was? Well this comes down to whether one believes it is literally
true or not. But presumably those who study astrology should pay equal attention to
astronomy, rather than focus more on astrology and have little grasp of the cutting edge of
astronomy or even the basics. No astrologers of old would have been so ignorant! They did
not have the luxury of all the tools available today. Should modern astrologers be so
unscientific.

White magic and spiritual healing magic is not generally in the domain of the LHP and is
practised usually by Wiccans or other 'white' magicians, witches or pagans, often involving
the Horned God (Pan) or other less malevolent deities. Clearly the practice of magic is
intended to change the individual, and some believe change one's surroundings or others.
The intent behind the magic is often what differentiates it from 'white' or 'black/dark'.

Those who practice 'white' magic or the more common forms of Wicca also claim to be
evolving their psyches and developing the Self, which followers of the LHP also claim, but
the 'white' practitioners tend to avoid malicious or 'dark' ritual as they believe it is
spiritually damaging, whereas 'dark' magic practitioners simply believe it is an expression
of the Self or a way of exploring/developing the Self. Intent and goal is clearly important.
LHP practitioners perhaps regard White Magic often as comical as it is more about others
than just the Self, which is the goal of the LHP.

It should be noted that the term 'occult' derives from the Latin 'occultas' for clandestine,
hidden or secret, and is used to mean 'knowledge of the hidden'. It is sometimes used
interchangeably with 'magic' or 'esoteric' although the former use is perhaps not strictly
correct. The occult can therefore be used to refer to the types of 'magic' or 'astral' described
above, but also to prayer, visualisation (the law of attraction), NLP, altered states of
consciousness, dreams, exploring the Jungian Shadow and psychoanalysis, existentialist art,
books or cinema, philosophy, and perhaps even fantasy/role playing. In short, it can simply
refer to exploring the (subconscious) mind through various forms and methods, aside from
actual rituals or rites, astral 'travel' etc.

Some say that the 'occult' would not exist without the subconscious mind, although clearly,
life would not be possible without it! Of course, there are many ways to explore the
subsconscious mind and the hidden. Clearly, God is 'hidden' and could be termed as
'occult'. Certain aspects of prayer indeed use principles of visualisation and practices that
some Wiccans would call magic. Indeed, some Wiccans might class visualisation and
attraction type exercises as 'empty prayers' i.e. they are not 'aimed' at God. Indeed,
occultists, the term generally used for those that explore the whole of the occult, as they
perceive it, with particular emphasis on ritual as a tool for (self?) exploration, like to think
that psychology and philosophy is part of their domain by default, and that anyone who has
 an interest in these areas is therefore an 'occultist' - but this definition therefore associates
them with the astral. This is perhaps grossly unfair to hijack the term in this manner, or
rather to automatically associate it with areas that do not necessary have meaning to a given
individual or are deemed completely different. There are a number of disciplines that have
been 'hidden' over the centuries, including the law of attraction and hermetic philosophy,
and they are early forms of psychoanalysis and personal development. They could be
classed as 'the occult' but whether they are superior forms of psychology exploration to the
more modern forms, or just variations on a theme (mixed in with a little 'symbolism',
'ancient narrative and myth', 'superstition', 'mumbo-jumbo' and/or 'dealing with evil spirits
or the Devil'), is up to the individual to determine.

The shared influences between the (political) far right and various Left-Hand Paths are
discussed on the Church of Satan. This is not to say that adherents of the LHP are
automatically Neo-Nazis, as there are clearly conceptual differences (rights of the
individual vs interests of the collective), but that they both draw from many shared
philosophies.
 Right-Hand Path

'Right-Hand Path belief systems generally share the following properties:

- Belief in a higher power, such as a deity.

- Obedience to the will of a higher power.

- The belief that there is an absolute definition of good and evil that applies to everyone.

- Esoteric belief in a supernatural mechanism like Karma, divine retribution, or the

Threefold Law, which entails the assessment of moral decisions made in one's lifetime.

- The ultimate goal of merging the individual consciousness into a greater or cosmic whole.'

The Right-Hand Path (RHP) is often defined as being a belief system or religion where a
spiritual goal, state of mind (enlightenment), merging with the 'God-source', or the afterlife
(as a prize for good spiritual behavior whilst alive) is the ultimate goal.

In general, one can view the Right-Hand Path as a set of guidelines for behavior and
spiritual management to set up optimal conditions for the next life (be it Heaven,
reinunification with God or Reincarnation). The Right-Hand Path is often held to be that
where a spiritual or supernatural force is necessary to embrace or worship to attain
happiness or enlightenment. The mainstream religions are often classified as Right-Hand
Paths, for example, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, although clearly some
aspects of Gnosticism are somewhat a Right Handed Path (in terms of the goal of
Gnosticism to rejoin with God and escape the physical world and cyclic rebirth).

Those that follow a stereotypical Right-Hand Path successfully could be said to be humble,
relaxed, almost 'high', and feeling fulfilled on a deep level. Whilst the goal of mainstream
religions may be to 'extinguish' the self, and to experience the spiritual realm whilst alive
and after death of the physical body, clearly this is not attained by the vast majority of
adherents in their lifetimes, but is an ideal of perfection that they wish to try to achieve to
enrich their lives. Most adherents clearly still retain some sense of self, be it to interact with
the material world and modern society and to survive and provide for themselves and their
dependents. And to have fun.

And to procreate! Many Christians are interested in bettering themSELVES with new skills
or maturity in sport, business or on a personal level. An examination of the history of
personal development and its spiritual and religious origins and significance.

Critics of the Right-Hand Path argue it is too dogmatic, restrictive, removing one's personal
sense of responsibility for oneself and one's actions, brainwashes people, making people
feel obliged to be a certain way through guilt, obligation and fear, and destroys freedom,
individuality and individual decision making; that the 'God' of the Right-Hand Path is a
judgemental and cruel one. These examples may reflect unsuccessful attempts to follow a
Right-Hand Path.
 Altruism

Some people argue that morality does not exist. Whatever you do, you do to fulfill your
own needs. This is said to include altruism, unconditional love and a genuine desire to help
others (as much as possible). Are these activities simply fulfilling the need to contribute
beyond oneself? A list of fundamental human needs can be found in the psychology
section.

Or perhaps through a sense of guilt or obligation, according to our religious theology and
understanding of 'our duties'? If one is simply helping others for the latter reasons, is one
really a good person? Or is one fooling oneself? And merely ticking boxes so one can
increase one's self esteem and sense of purpose.

If it is the latter, then perhaps the motivation to keep performing random acts of kindness
may disappear once we have felt good again, and are only performed again perhaps when
we start to feel 'bad' about ourselves. As described in the Psychology Section, random acts
of kindness actually boost the giver's immune system and result in increased levels of
serotonin. If indeed people who help others occasionally are only doing so to make
themselves feel good, then surely altruism is in a sense a Left-Hand Path? In those who
want to do it and enjoy doing it? And don't need to motivate themselves to do it.

Anything that produces serotonin and makes the person feel great and engages their senses
in a pleasurable manner is surely hedonism on some level? Are feelings of commonality
and unity, such as brotherly or sisterly love strictly Right-Handed? Can one not feel this,
but in a Self-frame of reference? If something feels good, then is it not good for the self as
well as good for others? It is often said that by loving yourself you can love others or be of
help to others, and by not loving yourself or respecting yourself, you cannot respect others
as you will be a hollow, damaged shell. In this sense, then, one's primary duty to oneself
and the world is to simply be oneself and treat oneself properly and look after oneself
 properly. After that, then it is up to the individual how much he wishes to love others, to
fulfil his own emotional needs.

Of course, the motivation for adopting love and respect for the self may be altruistic (i.e.
goal-oriented) or it may indeed be self-oriented. And indeed the reason may affect the spirit
in which it is undertaken and expressed/experienced to a large extent. It should be noted
that very few adherents of the Left-Hand Path are ever actually totally Left-Handed, as they
in some capacity help others, love others (unconditionally or almost unconditionally) and
contribute to others, for example, their children or spouse. They may not admit this of
course as it may be considered 'weak', depending on the internal consistency of the Left-
Hand Path, e.g. Satanism is frequently overly 'strong' and 'macho' and does not like to
entertain or admit weakness, even though it is often there on some level and maintained.
Some forms of witchcraft, e.g. White Magic, may be Left-Handed in method, but Right-
Handed (i.e. Altruistic) in intention.

So if you are doing a good deed, do you only do it because it makes you feel good or that
you want to control the other person to make them how you want to see them - that might
be in their interest or an archetype according to your moral/spiritual beliefs? And that if you
are selfless, you only do it as you know someone will return the favour to you in the future
or so you can be seen to be doing good demonstratively as it makes you feel important or
gives you kudos? Or perhaps receiving thanks is part of the acknowledgement or approval
you are seeking to give you a sense of certainty about yourself? Expecting thanks is a
conditional act of altruism and hardly altruism at all. It is a form of ego trip.

Selfless and unconditional and anonymous acts of kindness are deemed to be truly 'good'
and what the Bible teaches. If one does a good deed and does not expect anything in return,
this is the principle of treating your neighbour as yourself. This is the idea of karma, you
spread something good around, and it spreads. You do something aggressive or selfish or
cruel, and it spreads also like a virus, and influences others around you to 'go kick someone
else so they can feel better'. One small action has a thousand repercussions. If one is selfish
and takes what one wants all the time, then clearly one is doing it to satisfy certain needs of
the ego. So the argument is that whatever you do, you do it for yourself, to satisfy one or
more of your core psychological values. So is being a good Christian or a good person just
an ego trip? Are Christians only trying to be 'good' as they know they will get a carrot at the
end (ticket to heaven)? Would they still do it if they knew they wouldn't get in or if heaven
and God didn't exist? The truly good (Christian) person would do it anyway regardless. As
soon as the going gets tough for some shallow and self-interested Christians (only in it as
they want to go to 'heaven'), they give up.

What is a good deed? It could perhaps be defined as an act that has no direct benefit to the
giver but that the receiver is receiving something that makes them feel good or that they
really need (that they either acknowledge they really need or that they realise after they've
received it). If the recipient does not want it, or the giver has an agenda (e.g. trying to
convert homeless people who are being given food) then clearly it is not strictly
unconditional altruism, but the altruism is a pretext for an agenda or manipulation (which
may be perceived as in the person's best interests!) The fundamental human needs explored
in the Psychology section include contributing to others. This could be altruism as above or
 perhaps assisting someone in their path to self-actualisation. Or a satisfying past time on a
higher level. Like a higher, soul enriching form of entertainment, a win win situation - a
way to feel your own heart and help others at the same time. Or even educating others for
no benefit to yourself (or perhaps you want the world to be easier for 'people like you'). It
could be helping a stranger you will never see again, who is prepared to accept your help
and listen if he is seeking advice or encouragement.

Is conditional altruism really altruism. How much value does it really have? If you are
giving or helping another but only on the understanding or expectation that you will get
some acknowledgement or validation of the effort you have made, then is this really a good
deed? Examples may include letting a car in/out in traffic, when you expect the thank you
wave. Getting the thank you wave back for many is an ego trip, whereby the giver can feel
smug about having given. However, if the thank you wave is not given, then the giver may
feel immediately hostile towards the other person. It is an annoyance connected with not
being appreciated; making one think one wished one hadn't bothered.

Of course, appreciation is not always verbal or gesticular, and silence does not always
obviate appreciation. Some people are too busy driving to lift a hand from the wheel, or feel
they don't have to wave every single time someone waits for them (when it is their priority
anyway but when the other driver could have chanced it and gone through ahead of them).
There are clearly issues to do with expectation and gratitute on both parts. The Bible
teaches us that to only love those who love you back is not a sign of good character, as
everyone does that.

Well, most people! However, to unconditionally helpful people every single time, not really
when they need it, but to spoil them so they are not inconvenienced (e.g. on the road or
otherwise), is perhaps taking this out of context and a step too far. We should perhaps
question our motivations and reactions when it comes to day to day acts of consideration as
there are many ego traps here. Altruism is meant to make the giver feel good, not smug!
And altruism is meant to mean something, and not just be reserved for 'good manners' or
'being polite' when one does nothing to really help the needy. Sometimes being overly
polite to others on the road (when it is your own priority and the other driver is a
considerable way off) is a sign of addictive self-deprecation rather than genuine desire for
altruism. Often the two are tied together. Self-deprecation feeds the ego, albeit in the
reverse way we are accustomed to. Of course, if we are talking about genuine acts of help
or altruism rather than road manners related gestures, then if one tires of helping a certain
person as however much we give, they just take and make no effort to help themselves,
then it is a different story when it comes to giving up helping that person as it serves no
purpose.

Altruism can be examined in the context of certain healing therapies, for example Bio-
Energy Healing or Quantum Touch. In these therapies, the idea is to benefit both yourself
and the other person, by raising your own level of vibration and feeling energy 'flow'
through you from the outside environment into you (and into the other person). This is a
win-win situation. If performed incorrectly, however, you can drain your own energy
reserves and simply redirect them to the other person, which benefits them but really drains
the practitioner. I have made this mistake myself when trying to practice these techniques
with no level of instruction and has been left feeling totally drained and mentally
exhausted. Perhaps one can make parallels here to other types of altruistic activity. If it is
not a win-win situation, then one could question the purpose of the act at all, emergency
situations aside.

In most cases altruistic acts that benefit both parties (win-win situation) are more directly
and immediately benefitting the recipient than the giver, where the benefit is secondary and
only there (to the full extent) if you view the whole interraction in the right light. It is
certainly of secondary benefit compared with doing something directly for your own
benefit, that you really need to do. An example could be dedicating time to yourself each
week for personal development. Some might see this as self-absorbed or selfish, but a
secondary effect of this might be benefit to others on other days of the week when you are
more focussed as a person. For example, performing visualisation techniques and
brainstorming your negative beliefs and replacing them with positive beliefs could be seen
as more directly beneficial to you than a sense of satisfaction, sometimes a smug one, of
doing someone a minor good turn. The former is meeting more of your emotional needs.
Clearly the altruistic act meets slightly different needs, and they all need meeting, but some
are more pressing than others. A miserable person is little help to anyone else. Some
therefore say that you have to love yourself FIRST in order to love others SECOND. If you
reverse the order, it doesn't work very well. If the giver is an emotional mess, then it doesn't
make receiver feel particularly good about it, and may make them feel bad, guilty or
awkward! What a great gift!

If every time one gave someone a gift, one was guaranteed two gifts in return, surpassing
the value of the original gift, then everyone would be doing it - as there would be
immediate financial gain from doing so. Every chancer would be giving away their goods!
However, the reward from giving is less immediate and physical, and so many do not
recognize that it exists at all. Seeing joy in others is not a reward for some people. Some
people believe that they do not care. Perhaps in such cases where a person regards altruism
with disgust, that engaging in altruistic behaviour might be a 'truer' form of altruism.

However, such a person who most likely eventually understand the nature of the reward
and open their heart to it (and drop the ego). This is why many adults enjoying giving gifts
to their children, as you enjoy that their children are so happy with their presents. This is
why children are often reluctant to give presents, but are mainly focused on receiving
presents as they cannot see the reward and cannot often look past their own noses. Perhaps
those who dislike altruism as it is 'false' are a little like this.

Some recipients of unconditional altruism may use the situation to exert power over the
giver to make themselves feel better and less like losers. In other words to either turn the
situation more to their advantage to try to rip off the giver or even mug them, or perhaps
even to verbally abuse them or threaten them with violence. Or both! Take what they can
then verbally abuse or threaten the giver. An act of altruism for some individuals with an
elevated sense of pride may be seen as an insult, and they would not want to accept gifts or
charity, as they work hard for what they have, and anyone trying to interfere with these
 values of theirs, of their property, may be threatening their ego-self. A giver can brush off
such behaviour as examples of the few bad apples amongst the masses, or may view it as
why one should not bother with charity in general!

One could view the desire to self-empower others but not actually offer them charity as
another form of altruism. For some altruism has to mean charity, giving hand outs, rather
than giving someone something that they can reuse and something that they can use to in
turn empower and help others. One can view foreign aid or charity donations in this way.
Some prefer to simply throw significant sums of money at a problem, hoping that it will
either go away or to a large enough extent that everyone feels good about themselves.

Whilst this may provide some relief in the short term, and directly help others, it can create
a culture of dependency and remove the will to take responsibility for one's own destiny.
Equally it does not to invest in others or a country, in terms of helping it becoem self-reliant
for the future. It depends if one is focussed on short term relief or long term gain. Some
people object to charity on the basis that it reinforces the very problem it seeks to alleviate,
but that is not to say that they do not care, but may prefer to put their efforts into
empowering others through coaching or other forms of community support. Those in the
healing profession can thus provide healing to people (usually at a cost) or teach people
how to heal themselves where the person does not keep coming back for more 'top ups'.

A similar take on the above might be the notion of fighting for the rights of the individual,
for human rights, and the freedom of the individual to be themselves and to achieve their
potential, whilst essentially leaving it up to the individual as to whether he takes up this
new found freedom and makes an effort to be oneself. It is therefore possible to fight for the
rights of others but also have very little interest in what others do with their lives, unless
they choose to do something particularly noteworthy with it. Is this altruism? It is clearly
helping others in some capacity. Some may reduce the scope of this philosophy and only
fight for their own rights and ignore the rights of everyone else as that is their own problem
and responsibility! The concept of altruism therefore in some way is tied to the concept of
responsibility.

One could also take the view that shattering the illusion of a stranger and pointing
to/offering knowledge of the objective reality of a situation and offering a person
perspective in light of illusory based and annoying behaviour is also an act of altruism. It
may not be popular or appreciated at the time - depends on the person. Sometimes people
are so unable to see how their own psychological patterns are and their own shadow, that
someone needs to actually directly tell them and give concrete examples (rather than just a
flippant response), and point out an alternative if it is not obvious. If one's 'friends' are too
polite to ever say anything, does that really make them 'friends' at all? If they do not care
about one's own personal growth? Or at least only when it is easy to do so and does not
involve opening each other's 'vaults' - maintaining a closeness of friendship but also
aloofness and sense of isolation of separateness or denial in the friendship. Sometimes one's
 'enemies' can be better friends than one's 'friends'! However, the motivations of strangers
are not always benevolent but harsh in this respect and often there may be a large degree of
egotism and desire to put the other person down, including some shadow truth, pointing out
an error, but a large degree of exaggeration designed to try to make the recipient of the
abuse feel as lousy about themselves as possible, to amplify the importance of the 'rights' or
viewpoint of the giver of the abuse, as if the whole world revolved around them.

One could also view it as self-interest, in that one is only doing it as one does not want to
have to put up with the confused/antisocial behaviour any longer! One may also find it
annoying when someone uses poor technique, so correction may be an ego choice.

Altruism could also be seen as a PR exercise, done to project the outward image that one
has good intentions and is benevolent, painting all one's activities with this rose coloured
brush, whereas the reality may not may not reflect this at all, or may even be quite the
opposite. Or perhaps to distract attention away from what one is really doing, which
normally would be frowned upon.

Some view some corporate sponsored charity work in this manner, or even Freemasonry. It
is however sound business sense, depending on the nature of the cause and what sector one
is in. Some argue that Freemasons do charity work for their own self-actualisation and to
reach higher levels of consciousness. Others still argue that it is a genuine desire to help
one's brother man. Presumably however, this altruism and care for humanity should be seen
in other activities if it is indeed genuine, and in documented cases this is not so - but clearly
it depends on which branch/lodge one is talking about.

Emerson believed that it was a beautiful thing that altruism and giving to others provided
the giver with a natural reward. This seems to be a natural principle. You cannot separate a
gift from its reward any more than one can separate the day from the night and just have
one without the other. Why do some people object to the laws of the mind? It is basic
psychology. Why not complain about the law of attraction, specifically regarding focus -
focussing on what you don't want bringing you into a situation where more of that occurs. It
is a law of nature. Please see the Social Darwinism page for more information on the basics
of natural selection and kinship altruism, which plays as important a role in Natural
Selection as Survival of the Fittest. Many LHP adherents are interested in embodying the
laws of nature - perhaps in a selective manner in many cases - only the macho ones!

What is the big deal with a 'win win' situation. Why not object to any form of relationship,
as often one would not embark on it if it was not mutual and one was not getting something
back in return? Otherwise it would be deemed a humanitarian 'project'. Life is full of 'win
win' situations - objecting to all of them would be perhaps ridiculous and too much like
hard work, denying fundamental principles of existence, dependency and mutuality present
in human beings. Humans are social creatures. No man is an island.
 The Perception of God

Those brought up with Judeo-Christian traditions and culture may feel that there is
ultimately no escape from 'God', and no matter what you do, he still loves you. This
highlights the perception that within the stereotypical Right Hand Path, there is no freedom
of choice. The beliefs of Christianity in particular, and perhaps Islam to an extent, regard
there being an eternal punishment after death, if one rejects the true path. To those that hear
the 'word of God', this can be seen as no choice at all. Christianity claims to represent
freewill and the choice to accept God or not.

After all, God does not want to force anyone to love and worship him. However, the truth is
presented that one can either accept and love God, and receive eternal life, or one will be
damned for all eternity. On the one hand we have the carrot, for the positive goal, but on
the other hand we have the stick, that if we do not go for the carrot, we will be punished for
all eternity. For those that believe this message, it is not really a choice at all. Who wants
eternal damnation? Everyone has experienced a 'rough time' in one's life, so imagine that
intensified a thousand times and experienced continually for all eternity. Anyone fancy
that? If the choice was simply the carrot but no stick, then it could be considered a genuine
fair choice.

Christians and those from other religions may often believe that if one believes in any other
God, or if one believes in God in a different way, then one is worshipping the 'Devil'. When
an individual moves away from being a Christian, for example, to Traditional Satanism or
Gnostic Luciferianism, it is not usually a conscious choice to 'defect' to the Devil or Satan.
It is more of a transformation, of a gradual shift in one's own perception of what God is,
and what one's relationship to that God should be. In that individual's mind, it is still the
same God, but just that one is seeing things with more clarity. Those who change the other
way, who go from occultism to Christianity, may not however see it in this way, and
usually adopt the Christian dualistic view.

It should be noted that other monotheistic religions do not believe that hell is for all
eternity. Is a lack of faith or the 'wrong' kind of faith or relationship with God really
deserving of eternal damnation. Surely it would be 'fairer' to not get the carrot or the prize,
rather than get the stick. Some alternative views/takes on the afterlife, and comparisons
with other religions can be seen the Mainstream Religion page for more information.

Does God feel genuinely loved and respected if people convert and worship him because
they are fearful of the consequences if they don't. If the stick or fear evidence that you love
God? Or that you feel pressured into 'loving' God. You can't fool yourself. If you pointed a
gun at someone and forced them to be your friend or girlfriend, would you feel loved by
them? Most likely not! Unless you were mad or trying to kid yourself.

Deep down however you wouldn't. It is the same with God (probably). Similarly, if faith is
only there because of a perceived carrot or prize, what kind of faith is that? Is it again just
there for your own self-interest. If you are only interested in having a 'great time' whilst
alive and after you die, then does God really feel loved? Surely a sign of true love would be
one that received no reward. If for example you gave people in your class or study group
$20 bills every day to hang around with you and be your friends, or if you promised them
$1 million if they hung around with you for the next 5 years (with a contractual guarantee),
would you really feel like you had true friends. Or would you feel that they were only there
for the money?

How do you think God feels? Or what about people how hang around with you because
they have no other choice? Does that make you feel flattered? For example, some people
adopt faith in God or Jesus as they have put themselves into a corner psychologically,
where they would surely go mad if they continued along their chosen path, unable to help
themselves as no beliefs they use (positive thinking or therapy) are powerful enough to shift
this negative mindset - they adopt faith in God.On the same line, are some people looking
for recognition or thanks in some sense by adopting or continuing with their faith? Are they
looking for acknowledgement or a pat on the back? Some people are external referenced
and seek approval from others, whereas others are internally referenced and do not require
the advice or approval from others in order to make decisions or function. Are many with
faith simply the former? Perhaps there is a large degree of anthropomorphism going on in
this article, as comparing human emotions to Gods is perhaps not applicable.

Does God really want people to feel guilty, regretful, worried or fearful when they are
'disconnected from God'? Some say that one should never regret being happy, whatever the
source of that happiness. If it is a superficial or fleeting source of happiness or dishonesty
to the self, then this happiness will not last and the truth will manifest itself one way or
another. Or does God want them to be positively motivated and attach positive meaning to
situations, to trust and to have grace? To offer a positive lifestyle and belief choice rather
than bribing or threatening people into 'loyalty' which is shallow at best in many cases and
self-motivated rather than a sign of genuine love or search for the true essence of God
within all of us and indeed everything. One could view God as more a pantheistic or
panentheistic essence which one can embrace and feel or not (at one's loss perhaps), rather
than the complex view presented by the Old and New Testaments. Or indeed one could
view the OT and NT in one's own framework of understanding, of a sentient God, a person,
and perceive the 'essence' of what the original teachings once were perhaps. Or indeed one
can choose to perceive God in any way one chooses, what feels real and authentic.
 It is important to try to analyse not only the content and nature of your faith, but also the
motivation behind that faith. That is probably more important than the actual faith itself. If
you intention or motivation behind adopting Christianity for example is purely saving your
own ass, and by loving others you are helping yourself, then is it really loving? Is this a
Left-Hand reason for adopting a Right-Hand Path? Are some Christians in a sense just
being selfish and concerned with their future afterlife rather than having a genuine love of
their brother man? This is usually clear when one notices that many Christians are too busy
being judgemental or not giving people the time of day; and being unapproachable or
unsociable.

Christianity takes the view that one should serve God, rather than serving oneself. This in
many cases views God as a person rather than a panentheistic essence. This view of God is
one of master / servant, but equally in the panentheistic sense it could just mean acting on a
higher level when one is closer to God and feeling God within one (or simply inspired by
God) - the actual concept of whether one is 'serving' or not being irrelevant. Christians may
see their duty to serve God as some patriots see as their duty to serve their country. God
could be likened to a nation state, that has provided you with freedom and what you need to
survive, and that you may elect to put your 'ass on the line' in the service of God or that
nation, for the betterment and security of others. Whilst some people regard Christians who
engage in volunteer work as busy body do-gooders, many do appreciate their volunteer
work, such as helping poor or homeless people, which may well coincide with the goals of
many socialists or anarchists, except for the theology of course! Whilst some anarchists feel
that their country owes them a living, and should provide optimum conditions of liberty and
wealth for one to simply be spoonfed, as it is one's 'birth right', that previous generations of
workers have strived to progress society technologically and politically just for one's sole
benefit, some also feel that why should they worship or thank God as they expect 'bread,
water and clothes' and they may have worked for it themselves.

Whilst many anti-establishment types may object to the work of a country's armed forces,
they usually strongly support those that put their lives on the line for the benefit of the
people of a country, for example firefighters, emergency services (perhaps the police in
certain situations where their loved ones are at risk!) Some might regard such deeds of
heroism as 'stupid' and 'illogical', as the prime goal is to serve the self.

What do Christians (for example) consider to be worse? Atheism or a different way of

viewing God and a different type of relatioinship with God? Probably the latter ironically,
even though it is closer to what they actually believe. Perhaps by exploring the nature of
God and the Self, and a desire to get to know God better, one can in fact move further away
from God (or perhaps just Christianity).

Following on from the above point that some people feel trapped and obliged to obey or
accept God, as he is there loving you whether you like it or not, followers of the Left-Hand
Path see that there is something else within oneself that sees other potentials. If is the part
that wishes to self-actualise and to become 'self-deified'.
 Those 'borderline' Left-Hand Paths that do believe in God, a Gnostic God, or Great
Architect, may regard their relationship with God in a different way, God being an ally
rather than as a ruler. God being an essence, an inextricable part of life and being alive.
Seeking to be one with God and to seek the realm of God could thus be seen to be a
positive choice, as pursuing the ego is seen as a lower form of consciousness and shallow
satisfaction, which may be fun for a while, but ultimately unsatisfying.

Is not knowing a form of knowing or wisdom? Is a-gnosis (agnostic) a form of gnosis

(gnostic)? By studying widely according to the philosophy of Illuminism, one may well
read many different interpretations, philosophies and belief systems attached to the same
area. Which is right? Can one ever really know which is right? Which sound right to you?
In certain specific instances, when scriptural evidence is weak or the word of Jesus is weak,
one could choose to elect to 'have no opinion' or take an agnostic view of that particular
area. For example, when it comes to the afterlife or death, one could view that Jesus wasn't
100% clear on the fact that if one didn't believe in him, one would be damned for all
eternity. It was more the other way around, if you believed in him you would taste life.

Or were the Biblical texts 'sexed up' on such subjects and incorporated Zoroastrian ideas,
and didn't quite reflect what Jesus actually said. Was Jesus teachings on this subject more
in line with the OT and Judaism? He did after all pray at Jewish Temples and follow the
Jewish religion in other respects. One could view the New Testament and Christian
tradition of Heaven and Hell therefore with a pinch of salt, entertain a number of other
possibilities, perhaps rule a few out (e.g. reincarnation - as it may not sound 'right' to you)
and have a somewhat agnostic view about exactly what happens when you die and if you
are actually judged or not. See the discussion on Heaven and Hell on the Mainstream
Religion page. What I am trying to communicate here is that a relativistic or agnostic stance
on certain Christian concepts or mysteries may be more 'enlightened' or 'wise' than a literal
view. This is clearly up to the individual to decide for himself.

It is a shame that Christian denominations tend to focus on their differences and what they
do not like about each other, or live in insular worlds where other denominations do not
exist - as if their version of theology and the teachings of Jesus as the only true path; rather
than focus on Jesus' teachings and his positive message. Many atheists who regard Jesus as
just a wise teacher who was 'hijacked' by religious zealots might become much more
interested in the teachings if the focus was here rather than on the 'formula of Jesus' - the
idea that the Bible clearly states he said he was the son of God and there is no possibility
that he was just a wise teacher. During Religious Education classes at school, I and a
number of other students were genuinely interested in Jesus, but the teacher insisted this
could not be so, presumably to try to bring in people to the faith with his written 'proof', but
all it did was to turn everyone offand lose interest entirely. Is this a wise way to preach the
message of Jesus?

Is a literal belief in the Christian 'Formula' and the entirety of the Christian narrative really
necessary to have a relationship with God? That of God giving his only Son to be sacrificed
so that the sins of man could be forgiven; and that in order to achieve this he had to die on
the cross and be resurrected? And to taste eternal life, one must believe in this formula and
accept Jesus as one's saviour, and one has a guaranteed seat in Heaven when one dies;
rather than really try to understand the very deep sayings of Jesus and try to apply them to
the complex situations and ethnical dilemmas of modern living? Is the exact nature of the
formula so important to 'faith' or to feeling God? I (at the time of writing) acknowledge
Jesus as a wise teacher, a source of illumination and being from God, but does not worship
Jesus directly - but more prays to God and 'vibes' with Jesus. I believe the Trinity is
probably a gratuitous narrative 'hangover' from various Jewish and Christian texts and
traditions rather than of Biblical origin. The nature of God is clearly too complex to very
comprehend, and to distill the essence of faith and God into a simple 'believe this and you
will be saved' formula with an associated theatrical plot somewhat ridiculous. Perhaps this
is a part Christian, part Gnostic interpretation.

As discussed on the Gnosticism page, there are differing views of sin. For example, the
revivalist Thomasine Church believes in a philosophy of Illuminism and Hesychasm, based
largely on the Bible and the Gnostic Gospels. The Thomasine Church does not believe in
the concept of 'sin' but more of a concept of 'ignorance' of not knowing the truth or acting
on it. It shows a lack of spiritual wisdom. It is not considered temptation by the 'devil'. I
hold a similar view. I do not believe that a 'devil' and 'hell' really exist in the modern
Christian interpretation of them (another set of concepts discussed on that page). I believe
in a non-binary, non-dualistic view of God, in that there is either God or no God (i.e. the
ego). Some balance has to be arrived at, with the emphasis of embracing God. This is a
more Hermetic interpretation of God. I have a more nihilistic view of Christianity, in that it
is more of a carrot-based philosophy than a stick-based one. Of course, excess ego punishes
the self directly and indirectly through life, and that is the stick, but there is no 'fear of God'
or 'fear of damnation' for me. 'Sin' and the 'devil' and 'Satan' are a sticky subject, but I do
not take the modern Christian interpretation so seriously. I have a more Jungian view of the
psyche and any form of denial and suppression is not really so wise in his opinion.
However, that is no reason to embrace the ego and basic impulses and focus on those soley
or very much at all. The more one tries to block something out and deny it, the more one is
in a sense focussing on it and making it stronger. I believe in replacing something negative
with something positive and powerful which takes all the 'juice' out of the negative, rather
than fighting the negative without replacing it with anything that one really believes in, but
which the conscious mind is trying to convince the unconscious is true.

Many people are brought up as Christians, but lose faith in God, as they see God of the Old
Testament as judgemental and vengeful; and point to God not intervening to protect the
Jews or to help the world's poor and starving; and to the promises of peace on earth not
being fulfilled by history; and the fact that if you want to achieve anything in life or to
spread peace you have to do it yourself and cannot rely on 'God'. The tendency is to move
towards atheism or sometimes the occult or the LHP. However, let us analyse this for a
moment. What we have is a monotheistic ideal of God, that people get disappointed in after
much reflection and thought about what they want to do and be in life in general. To avoid
and move away from the perceived errors in the idea of God, they move away from God
completely and more towards the self or towards occult pantheism. However, this may be
missing the point entirely. To view God as only a person is just one view of God. One can
also view God as both a person and an essence, i.e. a panentheistic view of God. God is still
a creator and a consciousness, but is also an essence that is in everything all around us, and
that we must embrace or connect with (and to have a relationship with) in order to feel God.
 In this sense, the will of God is performed by those that act in the spirit of embracing this
'essence' and is not necessarily a supernatural event that people sit around expecting to save
them when their lives are in danger. Of course, meditation and focus on God, and prayer
can indeed result in miraculous outcomes, and one can view this as literally God or the
power of the mind, when focussed on and using the framework/perception of God, or some
part of the higher self. The ego may expect God to solve all the world's problems and to
correct any area where the outside world conflicts with our arbitrary and culture-specific
values, but surely the whole point of freewill is for man to choose and act, rather than
expect someone to do all the work for him? Perhaps this latter way is a very selfish and
self-absorbed way of looking at God - another way of expecting the world to 'owe you a
living', like many self-absorbed angsty teenagers see it.

There are clearly many ways to see God, and ways to not see him at all. The bottom line is
whether one should be 'punished' for any of these approaches, or whether by following a
different path one is in a sense having more respect for God and oneself and others (or less
depending on one's perspective). Is your faith a noose around your neck and restricting your
very soul or is it enhancing your life in every way imaginable? Are you embracing some
aspects of consciousness at the expense of others? Is this aspect so awesome that it is worth
it? What is the nature of faith and belief? What is your relationship to it? Is an existentialist
and open framework of belief closer to 'God' or further away from 'God'? Is Gnosis closer
to God or further away from God? One may also argue what all the fuss is all about with
regards to God. Is the purpose of being alive to not appreciate the gift of life? If one is to
truly appreciate life and every moment, there are different ways of showing your
appreciation clearly! Some philosophers regard the ideal existence as that which if repeated
indefinitely would not be a curse and would still be something that one would want/find
fulfilling.

Not all adherents of the Left-Hand Path or indeed more heterogenous or personalised
versions of the Left-Hand Path adopt its archetypal standpoint of using/aligning oneself
with a deity, but can adopt the 'carrot' approach, of adoration of a deity, but without the
'stick' or compulsion/fear of that deity. This could be viewed in the masonic sense of the
Great Architect of the Universe (the universal deity) or an individual pagan deity that one
happens to be worshipping. Veneration and adoration of a deity is indeed something that is
practiced by some Neo-Pagans, for example, some Wiccans.

The definition of God or Monad within Gnostic Luciferianism is not the same as in the
normal Judao-Christian sense or Right-Handed sense, perhaps being seen as a benevolent
force or ally that helps one to experience Gnosis, knowledge, and self-conscious spiritual
awakening from the experience/viewpoint of the Self. This is in some sense a cross
between the Right-Hand goal of uniting with God, or learning from and emulating the
essence and spirit of God, but from a Self stance, and the Left-Hand Path of self-deification
and ultimate evolution of the Self.

Whilst some neo-pagan religions, such as certain types of Wicca, may employ the use of
witchcraft, which is typically seen as being 'Left-Hand Path', they may also literally
worship a deity or deities, not unlike a Christian worships Jesus. In such instances, these
aspects of these neo-pagan religions may be regarded as being somewhat 'Right-Hand Path'
 in nature, not following the dark pagan and Satanist/Luciferian model. Indeed, some
Wiccans may sound exactly like Christians, when they talk about worshipping of God (in
that context meaning the Goddess).

In my experience, it is easy for inexperienced Christians and those Christians who are blind
to themselves and their former selves, that one can confuse love of Jesus and that feeling
one has with the Holy Spirit with romantic love and sexual love.

If they both feel slightly similar. One can trigger the other in one's mind or one may
associate one with the other in certain circumstances through association. For example, if
one is feeling elated spiritually, if one is not careful and aware, one can see a soul that one
finds beautiful, and have all these romantic feelings, that are totally inappropriate in the
Christian context.

The spiritual love kinda ignites the sexual love or the person finds them so similar that they
can swap from one to the other quite easily. This can lead to sexual obsessions and adultery
etc. and ruin one's spiritual feelings, replacing them with lustful feelings. When I first
became a Christian, or rather, nearly became one (on an Alpha Course), I was in a physical
sexual relationship with a woman, and I started to associate my spiritual feelings with the
intimate romantic moments.

I thought both were compatible and gradually the sexual replaced the spiritual, without me
really noticing until later reflection, when I was back in the spiritual (religious) zone a year
later and able to recognise this. Some however regard love as love, whether spiritual or
sexual, and such people often have multiple partners or are addicted to flirting and are less
RHP and more LHP in this respect. Is this 'free love' confused? Or more integrated? Those
into free love are usually more into self-gratification and the ego, and have perhaps less of a
sense of brotherly love and duty, or rather it comes after the self more. One can combine
sexual and romantic love with spiritual love for God and one's fellow man, within marriage,
which is 'sex under God and sanctioned by God' in this context. Can this feeling not be
transferred to others. And what would happen or what would this mean.
 Spiritual Belief

I would like to share his experiences and opinions in this area. I have at various times in my
life been a vague Christian, an atheist, a wannabe pagan, a nihilist, an agnostic, a martial
arts cult member, an evangelical Christian. He has been 'normal', a vegetarian and a vegan.
He has been conversative, extremely right wing, extremely left wing, a communist, an
anarchist, a philosopher, at varying times in his life. He has believed in everything apart
from himself (for much of his life)! I respect people's right to hold their own beliefs and
spiritual beliefs and faith. I personally believe that there is something that can be learned in
terms of insights into one's own spirituality, understanding of a culture and of the human
condition, insights into psychology and lessons one can learn, from any religion or belief
system. Although nominally Christian, I do not belief that people of other faiths will 'go to
hell'. Nor indeed that Hell really exists in the way it is portrayed by Christianity. I conceeds
that most established religions draw heavily upon cultural heritage and cultural context and
values, and so in some respects are not totally 'universal truths'. All systems of faith have
been changed over time and by churches and the religious establishment, for various
reasons.

Many systems of faith take on the values and history of their culture. Many borrow from
 other religions. And many embellish spiritual truths with a little creative story telling, by
accident (stories handed down from generation to generation will change) to change the
nature of the faith, for political purposes, or to give emphasis to certain aspects of the
original faith or philosophy at the expense of others. Many nation states may carry out
horrific acts in the name of their claimed religion, even if in reality their actions totally
contradict the messages of that faith.

This however does not necessarily mean that one should ignore all systems of faith and
belief, that they are flawed or contradictory, and therefore false and rubbish; but that one
needs to try to understand their history, learn from each system, keep an open mind, and try
to understand what the original message of the faith or philosophy really was. And how to
reach one's own spiritual enlightenment, if one is so interested in doing so.

I adopt the philosophy that by being honest about the history of one's religion and also by
examining its origins and inconsistencies, one can try to explore what constitutes spiritual
truth and what a faith is/was really about; and be certain about those areas one can be
certain about, and keep an open mind (relatively speaking) about those areas that one
cannot. I do not view inconsistencies within the theology or religious texts of a Religion or
known historical wrongdoings as a reason to necessarily dismiss the faith behind a religion.
One's approach does not have to be all or nothing.

You may find it interesting to talk to people of different religions, and notice the effect the
religion actually has on their personality. A given individual will become slightly different
depending on what religion they pick and how they personally interpret it and apply it. Now
people can be whatever they want to be, and much of it depends on what their personality
type was to start with (i.e. their real personality type, not how screwed up they were
before).

Islam and Christianity will take a person to subtly different places, if adopted in their
traditional forms and in their entirety. To say all religions are great and equal is not really
the case, although they often share many spiritual truths. The place they take to you
spiritually and emotionally is different. I have personally noticed that Sikhs are different on
a psychological and spiritual level to Christians (don't ask about specifics as it is very hard
to describe). Does this mean that only one faith or religion is valid? Some religions hold
that other religions are valid paths, whilst the majority do not and hold that there is only one
path to salvation. This is where the division between those of different faiths and indeed
denominations of the same faith arise.

I have in my experience also noted that those 'white', middle class 'natural types' who
become Buddhists seem to be very flakey (in his opinion). Sometimes the originating
culture of a religion embraces its religion with more dignity and seemingly more naturally
than a person from another culture adopting it. Of course, it depends on how culture-centric
the person is and in what manner the religion is adopted.

But 'lost' 'white' people may embrace say Buddhism, and/or other new age philosophies as
well, and appear therefore a little flakey - not grounded, but somehow calm and at peace as
well (maybe a little too much, detached on one level that doesn't seem quite right or
appropriate to me). This is no doubt due to how they were before they adopted these beliefs
or philosophies. But of course this is a personal perception and based on a small cross
section of individuals in London and the Home Counties of the UK. How different people
adopt such religions and belief systems elsewhere clearly varies in many respects, but
perhaps shares some commonality as well. This is something for you to study and learn
from. Ultimately everyone is different. If you are interested in culture and religion, then the
world is your laboratory!

A Jamaican Rasta, depending on their personality and how much marijuana they smoke,
may not seem ridiculous at all, but a 'white' person trying to be a 'white rasta' may well
appear ridiculous. Because Rastafarianism is tied to racial identity and also Jamaican
culture, and we are used to perceiving it in this manner, then we do not think anything of a
'black' Jamaican or Afro-Carribean person being a Rasta. But when it is taken out of its
'natural' context, the belief system may suddenly appear 'wierd' or 'ridiculous'. In the case of
'white rastas', they may well interpret the spirit of the religion differently to an actual
Rastafarian, and focus on being a hippie and stoned, and being a drop out, and not so firey
and at ease with their sexuality as a 'genuine' Rasta for example.

I have personally found that Catholic Hispanic Americans, South Americans and indeed
those from the Mediterranean seem more integrated in terms of personality, and their faith
does not seem too out of step with their natural state and balance of emotions. In contrast,
Protestants, especially Evangelicals from certain areas, indeed seem to be 'trying too hard'
and their faith seems a little forced. I find that in certain working class Evangelical
Christians I have come across and seen on television documentaries, their beliefs and faith
are inspiring and touch, but also depressing, narrow minded, 'backwards thinking' and
negative in equal measure.

This is of course a personal interpretation based upon a small cross section of individuals.
Evangelical culture in Europe varies to that in the US, and here Evangelicals may
sometimes appear a little 'naive'. I can personally see the good in different Christian groups,
and draw on their positive attritibutes, without necessarily taking on what he considers to
be 'negative'. This is of course entirely subjective. I have noticed that the same populations
(geographically) who seem a little out of step with their faith (where applicable) or not as
well integrated in terms of personality, emotions and sexuality, are more likely to have
pagans and satanists in their midst. This probably derives from the emotional
inexpressiveness and negative aspects of the respective cultures. This is not of course
universally true and is a subjective generalisation.

Many religions are 'designed' for a certain nationality or culture or a certain people, and for
people outside of this ethnic group to adopt it appears a little 'odd' to an outside observer,
partly because of preconceived notions of what to expect and how that 'religion' should
'look'. Clearly religions evolve in the same ways that culture evolves when people migrate
from one area to another and adopt new customs and traditions into their existing cultural
 practices. Religion is slightly different though and usually retains certain defining key
features which a culture of course does not feel bound to, and is free to completely redefine
itself. Of course everyone is free to chose whatever they want. Some religions incorporate
nationalism into them or racialism by default. And most religions are very divided within
themselves and have many many different flavours.

It may be observed that within the same religion, even the same denomination, the actual
experience of faith is totally different between people of different class, ethnic and cultural
backgrounds, values and behaviour - even to the point when it may seem like a totally
different religion! Clearly by staying in one's ethnic or cultural group, one may not really
experience the fullness of one's faith.

For example, if there is an absolute spiritual truth, then there will inevitably be a large
amount of common group between religions and systems of faith, in terms of teachings on a
variety of moral matters such as doing good, selflessness and freedom from psychological
and physical addictions. This is assuming that the systems of faith all have elements of
ultimate truth in them. Of course, in many respects, there will always be aspects of
spirituality that will be personal, in terms of application and interpretation, and here the
individual must choose what is right for them. One has to separate the original message of
the faith from what we see now, the traditions and cultural bias. One must decide for
oneself to take a religious book or spiritual (/magical) book literally, or to interpret it in
one's own way. Taking the spirit of what is being read, and deciding which areas are
unquestionable solid foundations and which areas one is not sure about, that one intends to
keep an open mind about. Some may choose to take every word literally.

For example, just because Christianity may appear to have borrowed certain ideas from
other religions (see the section on Christianisation in the Religion section, Mainstream
Religions page), for example the idea of the trinity from the Hindu religion; or the fact that
it has adopted various pagan traditions, such as using the winter solstice and pagan
traditions around Christmas Day and Easter (one may choose to take these dates and the
celebrations with a pinch of salt, as they are perhaps slightly pantomime in nature and today
highly commercialised and more about children, and consumer products and eating
chocolate, receiving presents and pictures of a dude with a red hood and a beard than the
actual spiritual meaning), and seemingly incorporated concepts of baptism from Egyptian
pagan traditions; or perhaps indulged in a little editing of the gospels, for example, making
changes to ensure continuity with the past and the predictions of the Old Testament, and to
over-emphasize Jesus' connection to David; to emphasise his God aspect and downplay his
human aspect; and leaving a large 30 year wholes in the story of Jesus' life out of the Bible.

These things do not mean that Jesus was not a prophet or the Son of God; or that there is
no validity to his teachings. It just means that one has to decide what one chooses to attach
importance to, what one regards as the actual truth and original message; and what one
regards as unimportant and unnecessary; and what one regards as politics; and what one
regards as cultural or unnecessary spiritual appropriation; and what fringe texts one chooses
to pay attention to and which one does not. Ultimately it is about one's state of mind, one's
perception of the world, of enlightenment, of God, and of oneself; and how one handles the
ego. That is clearly personal.
Most religions have more in common that we would like to admit. An example in case in
Christianity and Islam. Muslims regard Jesus as a prophet, but are waiting for his return to
earth, just like Christians. Many Christians however regard Judaism as being closer to
Christianity and fear Islam, whereas many Jews regard Jesus as a fraud and as a heretic. In
many ways, Islam is closer to Christianity than Judaism. In a sense, it is useful to
understand Judaism to understand Christianity, especially as they share the OT (i.e. Tora).
Christianity shares many of the teachings of Buddhism also, but there are of course
differences. Islam acquired the tradition of humility and surrender through postration in
prayer from Egyptian Coptic Christianity.

Islam, Christiantiy and Judaism co-existed in relative harmony in Cordoba, the cultural and
scientific capital of Europe, during the Moorish occupation of Andalucia in Spain during
the 10th Century, for example, and one should not assume that they are incompatible on
religious or cultural grounds by default, on account of modern historical events, nor that
fundamentalism and politicisation is by default part of these faiths. Of course, Cordoba was
not the model of religious harmony, as non-Muslims were generally treated like second
class citizens, and there was an underlying resentment of the Muslim occupation. But
beyond this, there was a great deal of harmony in the society, more than we see anywhere
today. Once the Moors left Spain, Christian kings, whilst on occasion spoiling Mosques to
Christianise them as a kind of insult to Islam and a representation of religious victory, were
in many cases still inspired by Moorish architecture and culture, which was often viewed as
being more evolved and superior.

For example, the 14th Century Alczar palace was build in the same style as the Alhambra.
Southern Spain would cease to be the cultural and scientific centre of Europe. One might
even argue that Spanish palate for pork and pork based food products was perhaps a
reaction to the Islamic past, and a sign of cultural and religious defiance. During the latter
half of the last millennium, Islamic countries and empires have been in decline with Europe
and later the Americas rising to economic dominance in the world. Christianity itself has
declined as well as Islam, and it is possible that in the Middle East there is a socio-
economic rivalry of the West, and a jealousy of prosperity which is used by unscrupulous
religious and political figures for politicial end, turning it into a religious issue. Please see
the Mainstream Religions in the Religion section for more discussion on this issue.

Whether one believes that Jesus was a prophet or the Messiah, it is clear that his teachings
shared a great deal in common with Buddha, Mohammed and other prophets that came
before him. Just because one believes in Jesus does not mean that there will not be any
other prophets in the future. Just as I do not like every aspect of every culture and society,
does not mean that he cannot take what he likes from each culture he experiences and
incorporate these into his values for life. Staying in one place can often lead to become
blase, anally retentive and taking various things for granted, that are not a given in poorer
parts of the world. It is the same with faith and religion in my opinion. One can reinterpret
certain favourable and insightful aspects of other faiths within the context of one's own
faith. Or draw lessons on a philosophical and spiritual level from other faiths, and learn
from some of the practices of the holy men in other cultures, to help one step outside one's
own cultural boundaries that affect our concept of faith and how to apply faith, and
 exploration of one's own spirituality.

One should not judge a faith by the actions of the majority (the hypocrites), but by the
selfless actions and spirituality of the minority, and the spirit of the faith in which they
embody; the austerity and simplicity of certain culture's spiritual leaders or holy men
(clearly in some cultures they are not austere whatsoever!) There are of course exceptions
and boundaries that one may not wish to cross or delve into too much, for example, areas
one considers to be dark or negative or ego-oriented, but this is a personal decision. This
web site does not draw on one source only for matters of health and psychology, but
chooses to go to a huge variety of sources to try to get to the bottom of things, to find the
absolute truth! I like to adopt a similar approach in other areas too.

One should not necessarily judge a faith or belief by the majority of those who practice it,
as discussed above. Whilst it would be foolish to ignore the history of one's religion (and
which many contemporary followers are extremely ignorant of), it would also be foolish to
dismiss a faith because the actions of a specific Church in the past or present. We don't
dissolve our governments because they made mistakes in the past (and continue to do so in
the present). We work with what we've got and try to improve it and iron out the issues and
problems (and of course new problems or problematic individuals indeed are introduced or
emerge). Blaming current politicians for the slavery of Afro-Americans, for example, is
about as meaningful as dismissing the Catholic Church because of the Crusades. The UK
still has a Royal Family despite years of civil war and slaugher instigated by various Kings
and Queens. Do we blame the current Royal Family for these.

These various historical acts of moral barbarism and corruption were conducted by people
who are now dead. They cannot not be punished (in the physical world). As long as we are
not embracing these acts of barbarism and repeating them or riding on their influence, then
forget about it and get over it. Equally, I would expect any church or temple to explain the
history of its denomination to its followers and to make sure they understand where it came
from and how it differs from other denominations; rather than spending an hour going over
2 or 3 verses of the Bible for example and endlessly repeating oneself in an attempt to
emphasise and condition (in a rather crude and basic manner). Churches should be open
and honest about their past, and not be defensive about it or simply avoid the questions by
pointing at other religions and pointing out their faults and past lapses of relative morality.

Even people with a virtually identical philosophy to mine come away with a different way
of expressing their ideas and living them. We should celebrate our uniqueness, not use it as
a source of division.

Religions evolve, and each person takes their religion to a different place and combines it
with with own personal beliefs in other areas. Many progressive, modern christians are very
much into NLP, oriental medicine, martial arts, philosophy, quantum physics, etc. and are
quite different from the more literalist, creationists. I don't think that monotheism and
specifically Christianity in itself need limit one. Of course, the spiritual domain is very
large and there are plenty of confusing and nasty things out there, and it's something you
have to figure out for yourself.
 The religions that promote promiscuity and drug taking are those that don't put much
emphasis on real self love but more on the ego, such as Satanism and some Pagan religions,
with certain exceptions. Of course, those with no spirituality indulge in these pursuits as
well and may still believe in romanticism, love etc. There are many different types of love!
Which parts of our 'self' and others we love and which parts we trample on and sacrifice
depend on the individual.

You can try to be open minded, but unless you learn the perceive the different qualities in
things and what they mean to you, and to differentiate, you will get screwed over by the
spiritual traps and pitfalls out there (chewed up and spat out) - and hopefully learn from the
experience! I tried to tell people who are interested in spiritualism (and spirit guides etc.)
that not all spirits are benevolent. One has to be careful with an 'everything spiritual is
good' philosophy!

At the end of the day it is about personal growth and being honest about your experiences
and not attaching arbitrary meaning to them; and understanding people and society more;
understanding your place in the universe. The very young person usually have a fresh
outlook and are not yet or completely tainted by cynicism. But an older person has
experience of the real world (usually, or not!) You wouldn't want a 20 year old president,
for example, the will might be there, but the experience, maturity and level-headedness
might not. e.g. the young president might react somewhat hot headedly to certain difficult
situations and say something like 'just kill the bastards!' This of course completely different
to the well-informed and level headed behaviour of more elderly presidents! ;-)

Often people expect to find the perfect 'spiritual model' or philosophy for you out there,
pre-packaged and ready to apply. However like in other areas of life, this is not usually the
case! To arrive at your ultimate spiritual self, you may need to embrace many many
different ideas and philosophies and schools of thought, at varying times of your life,
perhaps not all of which are widely accepted in society, and to have the common sense and
groundedness to not get all spaced out and wierd and belief a load of rubbish. So
statistically it may happen very often. But society as a whole seems to be evolving and
slowly increasing in its spiritual awareness, and you may be pleasantly surprised to find
that there are a large number of people who think the way you do if you actually found
them!

Where you have people that are good and pure of heart, you will have people trying to
control it (you can see this where submissive people attract dominant people who seek out
such submissive people); to be the 'official spokespeople for this pureness of heart'; to make
decisions for those pure of heart; to control the practice and doctrine of the faith of these
people; and over time water it down and in many cases turn it from a radical, grass roots
philosophy or religion into something more institutionalised, mainstream and harmless; and
indeed those that compile the 'official' books of that faith may well steer the faith in the
direction of their choosing that reinforces their position and authority as the voice of that
religion.

One could take the example of the Chinese Communist Party where they felt threatened by
Kung Fu, and they persecuted it, nationalised it, watered it down and turned it into a showy,
national sport, Wu Shu, so it would not longer be a threat. It also encouraged people to do
Tai Chi instead (which is good but clearly not as dangerous!). As one is guaranteed
adherents, hijacking or controlling a religion is an easy way to control a population, and
limit people's activities, and to steer a religion in the direction of their choosing, which is
why historically, monarchs and rulers have sought to control the Church and use religion in
politics. And indeed many Churches became rich, political entities, for example, the
Catholic Church or the Knights Templar. If one could go back in time to see what Jesus
was actually like and his followers, it would be very interesting indeed to compare it with
the Canonical Gospels and indeed the Gnostic Gospels.

When one considers a religious belief or a faith, one should consider whether one is
attending religious ceremonies and services in order to 'condition' the religious belief and to
reinforce it, and whether one believes what one does because one is continually trying to
condition oneself to believe it, rather than actually genuinely deep down really believing it.
Do many followers of different faiths simply adopt a set of beliefs because it is part of an
overall package? And that they acknowledge that adopting the entire package is good for
their spiritual and psychological wellbeing? Is the decision to reinforce faith a rational
decision then, one deriving from a fear of losing this feeling or relationship? Rather than
reflective of the actual relationship one has with God/a deity? Or a sign of real, solid
foundations of belief?

After all, if one holds a religious belief or set of beliefs, it is by definition not a 'rational'
belief but an 'act of faith'. Therefore, should one really need to be continually convincing
oneself of it? Those that are constantly convincing themselves of their faith are often those
who are insecure in their faith and scared of influences that might detract from this
cultivated state of religious and/or spiritual euphoria. They often have little idea of their day
to day experience and philosophy in general and how it relates to their faith - they are often
compartmentalised as less secure and more fragile as a result. Those that genuinely belief
and do not need to convince themselves of it are usually much more secure in their faith
and open minded in terms of discussion and new ideas, and less likely to stick to the most
crude arguments and reasons for faith.

Clearly, many aspects of faith are rationally reinforced, but are felt in the heart. If they have
to be thought about and rationalised every time one wants to feel them in one's heart, are
they really beliefs that one holds? Or is one trying to 'fool oneself' into believing that they
are part of one's identity and core belief system, when clearly it is really just a regular
psychological reminder (or sense of guilt driving one) to condition oneself in order to feel
that 'high' again in one's heart. Perhaps some parts of a theology or system of faith are
easier to comprehend and truly take to heart than others. Are there other peripheral 'rules'
then necessary? If we have to convince ourselves of them?

Be aware in all walks of life that what people say and what people tell themselves (that
which they want (or feel they should) think or believe) isn't necessarily the same as what
they actually feel and think. People with a certain affiliation often feel that they have to
adopt all the views as they lack self esteem and self knowledge. They lack the necessarily
life experience of the variety of situations that might explore their philosophy and beliefs
system, and simply adopt a convenient 'package' or 'manual', a set of rules that tells them
 how to handle certain situations; and they have to keep convincing themselves of
something, and often in a highly irrational and emotional manner, and it's often because
they deep down think it is rubbish; but they can't let go of the belief that they are supposed
to follow as it is part of their identity; as without that faith, they don't really have much of a
clue about what their identity is or who they are. Whilst in Biblical times, life was
somewhat simpler, in modern society, we have many different new problems and situations
thrust upon us that require interpretation and many grey areas that require gutsy personal
decision and feeling one's way through. Churches or Temples' sermons may offer simplistic
answers to many of such problems and dilemmas.

However, one really has to figure it out oneself. This is all part of maturing in oneself (and
one's faith) and becoming 'older' and 'wiser'. I once advised his brother Brad who had been
a little jaded by his experiences with Christianity and religion in general was to keep an
open mind and really get a taste for what is good about Christianity or other religions
without getting too sucked in to be affected by the bad parts, and over time one will grow
and figure it out. To come from a place of genuine belief, backed up by life experience and
references. However, the approach one takes is clearly personal and up to the individual to
decide.

Are those who are religious walking around scared that a situation or person may conflict
with their spiritual beliefs that they feel they should uphold or who might make them feel
awkward? Can one go around cocooning oneself in some kind of bubble and separate
oneself from any potential spiritual conflict or 'evil influence'? There is clearly a fine
balance between avoiding that which is clearly trouble and feeling secure enough in one's
core beliefs to remain untouched by any negative or 'poisonous' external interference or
influence - in an effortless manner.

In an ideal society, a faith doesn't present big moral dilemmas. In a society as complex as
ours, there will be situations that don't fit with the classic ideals and morals of the religion
(morals crafted from the past and past culture and technology/social patterns). Where faith
fits in is that it helps us to evaluate both sides of every story and feel the consequences of
different outcomes in one's heart and realise that often awkward situations and moral
questions often do not have an ideal outcome whichever path you choose.

One is often told that one should act respectfully in church. However, one is not necessarily
told that one should act respectfully towards God outside of church. Why is that? A church,
whilst being a place of worship, prayer and fellowship with other Christians, is just a means
to an end. It is a building. Jesus did not pray in a Christian Church, he prayed in a Jewish
Temple. Should Christians not pray in Jewish Temples instead? A church or temple may be
seen to build up a degree of 'spiritual energy' though continual use by those of a certain
faith. However, it is ultimately just a building. God is supposed to be everywhere, not just
present on Sundays at church. By making a church 'holy' and a 'safe' place for faith, is the
implication therefore that the outside world is 'unclean' and 'unsafe' and that God is absent
outside the walls of the church and the sermons of the Priests? Does a church reinforce a
culture of dependency and a sense of compartmentalisation of one's faith relative to the
other places/relationships one has in one's life. Clearly association creates emotion and on
some level there will inevitably be compartmentalisation, but it is up to the will of the
 individual to 'fight' this tendency. Why not take a more uniform and integrated approach?

Perhaps the compartmentalisation that comes from attending Church on Sundays, as a

member of the congregation or as a Priest, results in one feeling that one has fulfilled one's
spiritual needs or duties within that arena, so that once outside of this world, one can
continue as 'normal' and fulfill all one's other needs, and basically do what you like, within
certain limits. Is a 'surrender to God' on one day a week or two days a week a licence to
massage your ego on all other days of the week? Clearly it should not be, but for many it is.

There is considerable debate with the Anglican Church in the UK regarding the ordination
of female bishops, and even homosexual bishops (as of 2008). In the interests of equality,
there should be female bishops. However, perhaps it is more relevant to discuss the role of
bishops and priests in the church, and perhaps change their role, to one equal to the
congregation, take them off the payroll of the Church of England. It would be better if a
priest or bishop performed his duties in his spare time, out of passion, rather than making a
comfortable salaried career out of it. Were the Apostles on a salary? Should a priest have a
comfortable life where he gets paid to do what he wants? This surely attracts career priests
and bishops, much like politics attracts career politicians, who are interested in a 'cushy
number' and serving himself and climbing the greasy pole, rather than actually serving the
people. Is the Church there to protect its own, or is it there to serve the people? This is
probably why some (clearly not most or all) Catholic priests end up indulging in illicit
sexual activities with young boys, as they feel they have licence to do what they like
outside their priestly duties (through compartmentalisation and satisfying their spiritual
needs), particularly if they know their church will protect them, pretty much no matter what
they do, as they come above their congregation.

I am not 100% convinced that any single belief system or spirituality will ever offer all the
answers, but that as humans we need to continue to grow and learn and of course, make up
our own minds as it should rightly be. And have a personal relationship with the creator if
you want one. It is unlikely that anyone would 'give up' their faith after it pulled them out of
a personal hell, i.e. adopting a faith to save oneself from drug addiction, and then
conveniently leaving it aside to be 'normal' or 'average consumer' again. It doesn't quite
work like that! But you never know. What happens more is that a person backslides into
past behaviour and loses the faith or drops back a few notches into a grey area (and
potentially completely regressing to their previous destructive and addiction ruled lifestyle);
or evolves their faith and spirituality, rather than simply dropping it as they don't have a
'need' for it. There is a perception that faith is only for the extremely screwed up, and is
something that you go for as a 'last resort'. Balanced and happy people however do choose
to believe in God as they feel it enhances their lives. No spiritual life is going to be easy on
account of our modern hyper-consumerist society and its complex situations and obsessions
and abstraction. If we merely achieve goals and are successful and well balanced and have
friends - is this enough? Is this meaningful? Well, we need to look at the 6 fundamental
human needs and whether we are fulfilling these. We need to contribute beyond ourselves
also. Whether we choose to do so in the spirit of faith or just through being 'good' is a
matter of personal choice. These fundamental human needs operate whether one is
religious/spiritual or not.
One could relate this whole question of conditioning to the area of psychology and NAC as
discussed above. Positive beliefs require some reinforcing, as if left unchecked they can
slowly be eroded by negative beliefs taken on from our environment or through the self-
criticism of our egos. Does this also apply to spiritual beliefs? If so, why? If a spiritual
belief doesn't serve a justifiable purpose, then why have it? Is the spiritual belief there
because it makes rational sense and it benefits the 'self' in the here and now? Does it reflect
your own life experiences and observations? Does it represent a higher form of wisdom? Or
the belief there in order to cultivate whatever you feel you 'should' be doing or feeling in
order to gain your 'spiritual prize' after you die? Should spiritual beliefs be there because of
reflection and observation of 'spiritual realities'? Or are they merely empowering beliefs we
use so we can keep up a 'spiritual high'.

Are spiritual beliefs there because they serve a direct purpose in self-improvement or
happiness - like other positive beliefs? Or are they 'parallel' or even conflicting beliefs? Are
our religious beliefs in fact conflicting with some of our other core beliefs in certain
respects? Which of these types of belief are valid and which are detrimental (if any) to our
character? It clearly depends on the belief system, and the individual. One should consider
that if one simply goes about one's daily business without giving it much thought, their
power will most probably be eroded to some extent, and we may well end up being caught
up in the mundane, perceived physical/emotional needs and the trappings of the ego. It of
course depends on the individual. One would like to think however that certain core beliefs
never require reinforcing, but are there to stay and can never be uprooted. One should
consider the fact that most people (if not all) NEED to get out into the outdoors and smell
fresh air and see wild plants, animals, birds and trees, preferably water and hills, in order to
restore perspective and sanity away from urban environments, to restore balance. Does such
a principle apply to the spiritual domain as well?

If one is religious or spiritual, one would like to think the basic tenets of one's belief system
would be so. It is as if a spiritual seed or spirit lives or resides within one. Or rather, it was
there all along and we are just more aware of it and at ease with it and able to embrace this
side of ourselves. What is faith? What is being a 'genuine Christian'? In general terms it
could be defined as having a feeling of unconditional love towards humanity in one's heart.
Monotheistic religions in addition tend to have a more literal personal relationship with
God, like being in love with God, as opposed to more panentheistic views of God where
one feels the essence of God (of love and lifeforce) in everything and in one's heart - and
one feels connected to it (this can of course be interpreted in many ways and where this
'God' derives from and how much of 'God' is a part of us and how much of 'God' is a
universal divinity that we can try to align ourselves to); and there are of course many
variants somewhere in the middle; and indeed many ways of interacting with God and
involving the ego. Clearly, as with any other source of unconditional love, whether based
on secular and/or spiritual beliefs about oneself, others and the universe, a feeling of love,
deep down happiness and freedom requires some 'work' - to reinforce feelings of gratitude
etc. If one makes no mental effort, ingratitude or 'being used to certain things' sets in and
one loses one's edge. Cultivation and control of focus is therefore required on some level
(and in certain areas) to maintain and even enhance one's core positive feelings. It depends
on how you want to feel at the end of the day. You don't HAVE to do anything!
 Of course, many philosophers argue that if one believes that one understands the universe,
then one understands nothing, and if one keeps an open mind and acknowledges that one
indeed knows nothing, then one is indeed wise. To recognise what you do not like or do not
want is to learn more about yourself and what you genuinely do want. One can really
appreciate what one has and what one wants if one has gone without it and indeed is
familiar with the consequences of not having it, or indeed having the opposite. This is
where perhaps a basic understanding of other belief systems and indeed those that lie at the
fringes of one's faith is useful, so one can understand oneself and what one does actually
believe better; and indeed one can discuss faith with others of other religions and be
respected for being knowledgeable and logical; rather than talking from a place of
ignorance.

In fact my renewed interest in matters of faith after a period of materialism in his life was
the result on researching 'fringe' areas and of reading about Freemasonry and the Occult. If
Albert Pike and the Bavarian Illuminati hated Jesus so much, then surely there must be
something good about him! This was my's logic inspiring him to read and study more and
where the boundaries of his faith actually were, and what he truly believed and what he was
merely convincing himself that he believed as it was a 'good idea'. It was a result of the
'stick' rather than the 'carrot'. People differ in their motivations and some may be more
'opportunity' focussed whilst others may be more focussed on 'avoiding pain'. To focus a
religion narrowly on 'avoiding pain' or 'going to Hell' rather than portraying the positive
aspects of faith is clearly a mistake and this is why Christianity for example as portrayed by
many churches alienates so many people.

I doubt that the nature of the universe is any less complicated that the nature of the spiritual
domain. Something can be simple and yet complicated at the same time, depending on the
level of detail you want to go into and how you want to apply it to all different manner of
scenarios. And indeed the further one tries to extend a certain philosophy or belief system,
the more it seems to contradict itself. It may never be possible to break down particle
physics to the smallest 'building blocks'. The field of quantum physics and indeed
astrophysics is indeed full of theories that cannot be tested empirically or proven. And
indeed fanciful theories are constructed to avoid the contradictions in the 'universal' laws
that we use in our world today, depending on the scale one is looking at, e.g. dark matter,
dark energy and M-theory. Is light a particle or a wave? It is neither but it is both. Does this
make sense? Presumably the spiritual realm is bound to be just as difficult/impossible to
fully comprehend and seemingly contradictory, depending how crudely one is trying to
understand it. Perhaps this is a reason to examine it; or perhaps this is a reason not to
rationalise it; or perhaps this is a reason to try to distill it down to its very essence, the core
feelings that define that faith (and perhaps for that person).

In a sense, all people who hold a firm religious or moral belief are by definition hypocrites.
A faith seeks spiritual perfection, but this is impossible, so why does the person believe it if
they can't attain it or aren't behaving consistent with their claimed beliefs all the time? So
why pick on Christians? Christians are a fashionable target for ridicule or for criticism,
often on account of the few visible proponents or political figures who claim to be Christian
whilst not really representing Biblical values at all. Everyone is a hypocrite in some
 capacity. No one is perfect. Should we not strive to improve ourselves? But we should be
humble about it and not claim anything necessarily for ourselves or seek to bolster our
'righteous position' or ego. If there is a harsh, difficult truth in the universe in the area of
faith, then it is what it is, and it's either true or it isn't (completely). But it is not our place to
judge. That's someone else's job! To interpret a genuine desire to help some spiritually as
that person being hypocritical is also a very cynical and one sided way of viewing the
situation.

I would like to point out that the philosophy of this web site is that of self-empowerment
and understanding the self on all levels. However, to some extent, this may 'cut into' one's
faith. Those that maintain and condition themselves to stay in the 'zone' of a 'spiritual high'
may well regard this philosophy as cynical and somewhat anti-faith or at least moving away
from 'God' to some extent, even if one maintains one's spiritual beliefs. To some extent this
is true. It all comes down to what you want, how much self-actualisation you want, how
much you want to adopt the philosophy of 'God helps those who help themselves' and to
what extent you want to experience 'total surrender to God'. There is clearly a grey area in
the middle, and it is slightly different in nature to the pure 'trust in God' philosophy - it
clearly adopts more of a focus on wisdom, knowledge and intellect. It is more philosophical
in nature. Exactly how you relate your spiritual beliefs, if any, to your life philosophy and
understanding of yourself is clearly up to you to figure out!

I have personally experienced different 'modes' or values/philosophies in a short space of

time, as part of my attempt to integrate his own personal spiritual beliefs (mainly Christian-
based) with philosophies, concepts and ideas from other religions and philosophies, which
are somehow 'sandwiched' together. At times, I feel myself going off too far on a tangent
and losing touch with his spiritual core, and perhaps embracing resistance or adversarial
qualities too much (which thinking of being in opposition to something else, the ego seems
to excessively take over). Such moments, I feel extremely uncomfortable, as if I am not
really being myself but am on some 'knee jerk' rollercoaster ride. When I sense this, I can
shift my perception of the situation, whilst retaining most of the original ideas and
philsophies, but returning to a point of 'balance', where I am still within the envelope of my
own self and not being controlled by the insatiable power cravings of the ego. The ego is
still there, as it is a survival tool, but it is not trampling over one's intuition and spiritual
consciousness and core values.

The different modes are not that compartmentalised - they are of course different in spirit,
but the core values that define the self remain in each one. However, one could argue that
this is never going to achieve the intensity of relationship with God that a 'hardcore
evangelical Christian' would experience. I however value psychology, philosophy, health,
science, wisdom and self-determinism, and does not see that these should be just 'dropped'
in favour of a religious belief, but integrated somehow. There is a balance, but it is not
always clear where that balance exactly is. That will however come with time.

I do however feel more comfortable in himself than he has in the past, and feels that he is
getting very close indeed to his true self.

In some regards, I appreciate many of the ideas of Christian Existentialism and in

particular, Soren Kierkegaard. However, I do however have a non-existential view of God
also, that there is on some level a universal truth and spirituality.

In a sense, religious or spiritual beliefs are just an extension of our other beliefs. When a
person believes in a certain religious concept or spiritual belief, he often does so because it
sounds appealing or it is the way he feels things 'should be'. Spiritual beliefs are often
created or taken on in order to justify a person's actions or behaviour or an ideal of
behaviour, or to support inaction, or even to provide a kind of 'opium' for the mind - a kind
of leverage to feeling good that might not be possible otherwise with 'secular beliefs' that
do not go as deep into the psyche and seem like 'good ideas' rather than 'musts', with less
emotional leverage attached to them.

I have noticed that a person's religious or spiritual beliefs often reflect their general
attitudes or beliefs in other areas, and the more outlandish one's beliefs are, the more likely
it is that one's spiritual beliefs will be as outlandish, if not more so. I have personally found
that Conspiracy Theorists or 'Truthers' to have the most far out religious or spiritual beliefs,
and these often reflect their frequently far out secular beliefs or ideas on current affairs.
Religious or spiritual principles or motivations are also often attached to these conspiracy
theories, 'sexing' them up even more, creating even more 'unreality'.

Some people promote Christianity as universally good, and that if you embrace Jesus into
your life it is only a good thing. In general the answer is yes, but I don't think that you
should accept Jesus just because you think you ought to and change your values just
because you feel you ought to. Some Christians think that a belief in Jesus is a binary
matter, but there are a multitude of ways of viewing Jesus, as a prophet, inspiration, or as
some kind of divine vehicle. In the latter sense there are numerous ways of viewing Jesus
and God besides the Trinity.

If one is going down the Christian route, there are psychologically excellent and dubious
ways of embracing Christ and applying him to your life. Many Christians take faith as a
replacement for their brain or rational thought. When they have faith, they don't have to
think! God will sort it all out. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work like this, and you have to
make decisions on the spur of the moment intelligently and with your faith in your heart.
And be put into tricky morally and spiritually ambiguous or unclear situations and see what
you do with it. And pray for help and for others. But the reason you are on this planet is that
you have to personally make decisions and take accountability. Otherwise God wouldn't
have bothered creating humanity as a bunch of monkeys or robots would have been equally
as efficient. But your faith doesn't always 'give you instructions'.

This isn't what faith is about. It's not a simple rule book to dictate your behaviour. Applying
rules and principles isn't easy. Life is complex. Many situations aren't comfortable and
don't have a perfect outcome whichever way you choose to deal with it. Sometimes each
option is a bad or uncomfortable option. Our society is highly disassociated, abstract,
alienating, anally retentive and unhealthy. Everyone is different, but I think in some
individuals, their faith has not been altogether good in all areas of their personality. I think
that you need to ask yourself on a daily basis why you believe this or that and that you are
happy with your relationship with God (or who/whatever you worship), and you are doing
 this because you want to. You have chosen to do so. And because it feels good in its
entirety and there are no unpleasant or repressive aspects that you are trying to brush under
the carpet and kid yourself about; and you try to use your brain. I don't think religion
should be an excuse to ignore and give up on learning about many aspects of life. And I
don't think belief in Jesus should be an excuse to shut one's mind off to science, philosophy,
psychology and alternative/complimentary health etc.

Many Christians just believe and think what they are told in church and make no effort to
understand where the boundaries of their faith lies and how it relates to other religious
ideas, and therefore what it is compatible or incompatible with. And in addition, what is
looking to destroy their faith. And so they can engage in intelligent conversation with other
people about Religion and not make gross generalisations about what they perceive to be
'evil' and also what fringe beliefs they need to be wary of. Of course, each individual
interprets and applies their faith differently and needs to draw their own boundaries where
they feel comfortable. And not necessarily just accept the premise that all oriental medicine
is satanic etc. Which is old fashioned. We are living in an age where our faith has to evolve
with science and knowledge. It doesn't have to be an either or situation. And similarly I
don't think that one should fully embrace Satanism to replace lack of self-knowledge or
natural confidence, or lack of life experience. You need to know when to shut up and take
it, when to reveal nothing and not react, and when to act and exactly what to do when you
do act. This comes with self-knowledge, understanding cause and effect, how people's
minds work, how life and business work. And knowing how to relate the complex world
back to the spirit of your core values. A simplistic rule book that suppresses part of your
options isn't going to help you. Many of the issues that Satanism is trying to fix or avoid
just go away when you have more life experience and learn to use your head and adapt to
different situations and not be a sucker. You simply act on instinct and through a process of
continuous learning and self-knowledge.

In many churches I have been to, especially evangelical ones, many Christians use the same
400 words to describe their relationship with God in a rather mindless manner, including
phrases such as 'I tried to do it myself, but it didn't work, and then I just did what God
wanted.' These types of phrases are applied often to many different situations and attempts
to achieve something. What exactly does this all mean? Do the people know exactly what
they mean? It hardly encourages free thinking, understanding one's faith and how it is
applied to every day situations. Why not use the whole of the English language and be
more specific? And for all this rhetoric, I have not felt like I de had true brothers and sisters
in many of the churches he's been to. There are some great churches out there, but not as
many as he'd like. I tend to try to follow my own path, find real brothers and sisters and
homeboys, through shared experience and values and intuitive understanding.

Many Christians subscribe to the idea of 'God's Will' and associate any occurrence in their
lives as being 'God's Will'. Whilst this may indeed be the case, it often creates a passive
attitude towards one's environment. God gave each of us a mind, body and soul, and he
intended us to use them! Gold helps those who help themselves - through a combination of
taking the initiative and self-conscious self-improvement but also through faith, and
cultivating a health body and mind for God to be able to perform his will through. God
intended us to use our brains and use our initiative, and to never give up or never say die.
 He gave us a body to look after it and achieve incredible things with; and to contribute
beyond ourselves. He did not give us a body so we could be apathetic, eat garbage, abuse it,
get wasted and sit around on our backsides watching television and not exercising. He did
not give us a body so we could sit in front of computer all evening, every night. He gave us
a body to express ourselves in the highest sense. Act like you appreciate these miraculous
gifts! Be grateful for them and use them in the way that nature and God intended.

Some people report that they have found their exposure to Christianity and Christian
upbringing oppressive, repressive and negative. There may well have been a heavy focus
on what you should do, and on feeling guilty for committing 'sins' and doing wrong. This
could be interpreted as missing the whole point of the spirit of Jesus' teachings, and is often
backed up by the use of the Old Testament. It is perhaps why some Gnostic Christians
regard the God of the OT as 'evil'. This concept is examined in more detail on the
Mainstream Religions page. Clearly no religion is free from hypocrisy, persecution,
corruption and no religion or belief system ultimately has 100% consistent followers, those
who embody the spirit of the faith or belief system and do not stray off and break the
concepts and tenets of that faith. These are clearly not reasons to denigrate that particular
faith as it is not necessarily the fault of the belief system and teaching but of the laziness
and moral imperfections of the followers. We should not judge a religion by those that
claim to profess it, and who are most in the public eye, for example politicians, who are
going to be flawed and corrupt in varying degrees whatever religion they follow (on the
whole)! One should not judge the essence of a faith by a religion's past historical crimes
against humanity, as many religions are hijacked and corrupted, and used for purposes of
control, power and money.

Teenagers, especially those in the USA, should try to get more perspective, and there are
alternatives to evangelical Christianity as it is presented to them in the media and through
church sermons. One does not simply have to choose between an American interpretation
of evangelical Christianity and LaVey Satanism. There are many different types of
Christianity, many of which are very different than that found in the USA. There are a large
number of religious and philosophical belief systems out there, if one chooses to read and
learn about them, one may find many ideas and concepts of value. Not all religions and
belief systems are by default 'repressive' or 'dominating'. It is easy just to look at the most
heavily promoted and 'commercial' religions, representations of those religions (which may
or may not actually be true representations of what they are about) or philosophies in our
modern societies. There are many philosophies and ideas that do not require affiliation or
strict adherence to a set of values or 'laws'. One does not have to take on the 'whole' of a
philosophy, in an all or nothing approach.

It should be noted that one's core values are often complex and pulling in different
directions, or radically different depending on the situation that applies to them. It should
also be noted that there are many different ways of fulfilling your fundamental human
needs, and it would be unwise to say that Christians didn't have fun because they can't take
drugs or sleep around. There are many activities which electrify the senses which can be
indulged in by people with a little imagination.
 Try flying in a vertical wind tunnel. Try freeflying. Try rally driving. Try diving with
sharks. Climb a mountain. Try freejumping. And tell me anything else you've done even
comes close in terms of immediate pleasure. Take a look and see what's out there. You may
be pleasantly surprised! And lastly, it should be remembered that not all people who
believe in God or Christ are fanatical Christians, and many are in the middle ground, and
lead 'regular' lives and adopt the values of secular modern society, but still enjoy some of
the benefits of Jesus. This may be hard to see if one lives in America. It is clearly up to the
individual as to what they want to believe, and how they want to apply it. Similarly there
are Satanists who may loosely apply some of the principles, perhaps no more than the
average person in the street. And may indeed enjoy loving relationships, do charity work
and lead a selfless and philanthropic existence in certain areas. So labels are all very well,
but ultimately meaningless. And lastly, it should be remembered that not all people who
believe in God or Christ are fanatical Christians, and many are in the middle ground, and
lead 'regular' lives and adopt the values of secular modern society, but still enjoy some of
the benefits of Jesus.

It is clearly up to the individual as to what and in what manner they want to believe, and
how they want to apply it; and how they choose to develop the self. Similarly there are
Satanists who may loosely apply some of the principles, perhaps no more than the average
person in the street. And may indeed enjoy loving relationships, do charity work and lead a
selfless and philanthropic existence in certain areas. Clearly the nature and quality of the
experience varies for the individuals and those around them. And equally spiritually one
will end up in different places. Don't know something until you've experienced it! Some
things are better experienced than rationalised. And pay attention to your fundamental
human needs, including the need to contribute beyond yourself, to have connection and
love, and personal growth. So labels are all very well, but ultimately meaningless. Try to be
aware what it feels like to have a great time, to serve yourself and take, and to serve others
and to do a good turn with nothing in return. Notice how your ego feels. Notice how your
heart feels. How you feel deep down. And how your soul feels. Clearly there needs to be a
balance, but explore these feelings and be honest with yourself.

Christianity in some ways is highly unfashionable. And modern Satanism is becoming

more fashionable, especially in rock and roll circles and amongst the young and disaffected.
One thing I would say is that for many, they don't go looking to become Christians, it just
happens one day when they aren't expecting it. I didn't get up one day and make that
decision. It happened during the afternoon one day quite unplanned! It was the last thing he
was expecting.

Perhaps becoming a Satanist is more of an evolution of thought and not an overnight

conversion. I am not entirely sure. It clearly depends on the individual. If it was down to
rational ideas and beliefs, I probably would never have picked Christianity, but maybe
Buddhism or Islam, which he had been very interested in in the ten years prior (never
having had a real academic interest in Christianity); with the transformation or conversion
comes with it a 'pre-packaged' set of beliefs. But a faith has to come from the heart, and the
love of Jesus is one of the few faiths that can instantly dislodge many deep rooted negative
beliefs which otherwise could never be shifted, even with deep immersion into NLP
seminars, psychotherapy and so on.
 In some people, they are too deep rooted to be removed easily. Clearly other faiths can
offer the same or similar benefits. Often after conversion one can indulge in such
psychology programmes to fine tune many areas of one's life, which work well when a
person has a faith of one kind or other to add conviction to what he or she is doing. But I
would be surprised to see anyone (and have yet to see anyone) come out of an NLP or Tony
Robbins seminar and achieve the level of change that is possible and acheive the heights
possible without any faith behind it. One sees many atheists come out of these programmes
and seminars and they can't open up completely or be totally honest with themselves; or
they have no deep, powerful core beliefs to really keep up their level of motivation after the
event. Life experience and personal pain are also great teachers! So whether you rationally
like all of Christianity's ideas, which I personally didn't really previously and thought they
were quite pointless, you really have to experience it in this way for it to make any sense. In
hindsight it was a rather crude instrument, but it was a starting point.

I was personally a 'dark' atheist (nihilist?) for a couple of years (whilst a member of the
Wing Chun Boxing Academy as described above), and in many ways a modern Satanist in
all but name prior to getting to know Jesus. I was obsessed with personal power,
read/listened too much of Henry Rollins, in a cultish martial arts school, and suppressed my
softer/emotional side completely. I had many issues around my self esteem that I simply
hadn't managed to address or was even aware of pretty much his entire life. And of the
many phases I'd gone through, extreme right wing, apolitical, 'not sure', atheist, communist,
green activist, animal rights activist, anarchist, drug user, conspiracy theorist, yuppie,
cultist, punk, goth, conversative, socialist, liberal, wannabe-pagan, dark atheist, Christian,
none of these had addressed these underlying core value and self-opinion issues. In fact that
had all made it worse. Knowing Jesus in the conventional sense wasn't the complete answer
either. But it was the most significant step forwards I had ever experienced - although I did
take many steps backwards at the same time. It hasn't been an easy journey since then, but I
have gradually used this platform to try to get to know myself, something I just never
allowed myself prior to this. Illness played a great part in helping to re-evaluating his life
and values. It probably took me 10 years from first becoming a Christian to do so.

Better late than never! Being ill long term has also been a big eye opener and an
opportunity for personal growth. But after that his time relationship with God is more 'real',
solid and comfortable than it once was when he was more text book and somewhat
slavishly evangelical in my approach. That's my personal experience. Of course everyone's
personal experience is different. Hence the word personal.

Some people adopt a religion through fear. I personally don't think this is a good idea,
regardless what the 'official' line is. Clearly, fear is used in all walks of life to control
people's behaviour. Fear of crime. Fear of rejection in relationships (you negatively control
and restrict your own behaviour after a break up through fear of the break up or fear of the
pain of a break up and stop yourself getting close to people thereafter) etc. Fear is a good
survival instinct to keep you alive and stop you getting into unnecessary dangerous
situations. But in our abstract world, there are really very few real dangers if we use our
common sense. Unless we chose to poison ourselves with poor diet and drugs. Most of our
fears are psychologically based. So becoming a Christian because you fear going to hell is a
negative reason to become a Christian and is unlikely to result in a good quality of
 relationship with God. The Bible says to fear God.

I personally chose a different approach. When I became a Christian back in 1996, I didn't
do so out of fear. At the time, he had psychologically put himself into a corner and his life
was very negative. When I found a way out, I took it (regardless of how 'cool' or 'uncool' it
was)! I had the experience of an entity that had been holding me back and making him hate
himself, and try every trick in the book to stay within me, but eventually was driven out and
I had the most amazing experience of having a weight lifted from his shoulders. Whether
you want to rationalise this as a psychological metaphor (driving out a deep seated negative
belief through displacement with a positive empowering belief) or a literal entity (the name
of which and how far up or down in the pecking order of entities is not important) is up to
you. There are many ways to view Jesus, not just the textbook Christian view, and there are
many esoteric Christian sects, Gnostics and even Luciferians who value Jesus, in addition
to many other prophets, teachers and guides. Many see 'Jesus' as a binary turn on or turn
off. It does not have to conform to any particular pattern unless you want it to.

However, for me, it was an opportunity, and the choice of going back to what he was doing
before was 'unattractive' to put it mildly (too much pain associated with it so it was truly
effortless to do something else and stick with it). A middle way of greater self-knowledgein
hindsight might have been better, but sometimes you need to go from one extreme to
another to arrive at the middle ground with conviction rather than just accident. However,
since then, I have of course struggled, but I see my relationship with God as a positive
thing. Some people become Christians as an insurance to make sure they go to Heaven if it
exists when they die. I am personally not interested in thinking about it too much. Life is
for living. To become a Christian for this reason is rather selfish.

It is not my business to think about this. I am just interested in my daily relationship with
God and doing what feels right. Whatever God chooses to do when he dies is up to him,
and really not for me to make a fuss about now. Let's make the best of life whilst we're
alive! Live in the moment. That's why we are here. Once your physical body is dead, it is
dead. You can't change your life then! Preparing for death - why not prepare for life when
you are alive? To make a big fuss about going to heaven because you decided to become a
Christian is rather conceited and tends to really annoy everyone else and put them off
Christianity as it makes it sound judgemental. e.g. 'Unless you accept Jesus, you are going
to Hell. I am not going to Hell, I'm going to Heaven' etc etc. It reminds me of the old
Seinfeld joke where Elaine asks her new boyfriend 'You ok dating me as I'm not a
Christian?' and he replies 'I don't care. I'm not the one going to Hell!' ;-) Elaine makes him
see a priest with her, and the priest asks if he is sleeping with her, and promptly says
'You're both going to hell!'

I still believes in Jesus, but in a slightly more open capacity, and would not use the term
'Christian' to describe himself, as he does not worship Jesus in the traditional sense, and
puts personal development and Jungian psychology as his first priority.
 Occult Ritual
Magic rites and rituals or rather the absence of their practice is one key factor separating the
classical LHP from the RHP. Christians and Moslems for example simply pray to or
directly experience God, and do not need to protect themselves from their God from inside
a Golden Dawn style pentagram, nor invoke, nor do they need to 'banish' their God
afterwards. The idea is to have God inside one all the time. Perhaps this can be seen as an
archetype that one is embracing all the time. Perhaps LHP practitioners prefer to use more
than one archetype, or rather the 'less feeble' and 'darker' archetypes.

The occult is viewed by some as an attempt to reconnect to the abstracted part of one's self,
the disassociated parts of the subconscious mind. According to followers of the LHP, many
people fear this as it is seen as a door to the realm of nightmares, and thus demonise the
occult. One could argue that daemonology and communicating with daemons is already
demonised! The LHP holds that one must embrace the occult in order to embrace all parts
of one's nature, to become whole and at one with creation on all levels, which is perceived
to be extremely difficult if one is 'afraid of the shadows'.
 The desire to avoid the sensation of fear or the propensity to hold oneself within one's
comfort zone and not step outside it are seen to be manfestations of a 'closed circuit' in the
brain and a sign of fragmentation of the self. One could however view the practices of
many adherents of the LHP as being focussed on certain areas and demonology, which is
perhaps only one part of the one's true nature, or indeed, not one's Will at all. Experiencing
bliss, from whatever standpoint is also in our nature, as well as acknowledging one's self;
but the bias is usually towards that which may titillate our ego's desire for something
'naughty' or 'dark'.

Do those who oppose or demonise the LHP simply hide their skeletons in the closet?
Clearly there are many ways to integrate oneself with truth and reality, and ceremonial
magic and daemonology are seen as the main methods available. Of course, there are other
methods, such as connecting with the 'Akashic Record' through dreams or trance;
hesychasm and structured daily contemplation exercises; martial arts; healing; meditation;
lucid dreaming; astral projection; or the innate ability to connect to the Self and the Will;
and to The One (i.e. God) - the sensation of unification with God at will, etc. These other
methods may vary somewhat in their 'Left-Handedness' and some may be reflective of
traditions that are neither LHP nor RHP. Clearly the scope of one's nature and indeed the
preferred methods will vary from individual to individual, and to generalise about the
occult being necessary for all may be a gross generalisation. Acting out of fear is one thing,
but acting out of personal preference, self-knowledge and one's Will is quite another.

When considering the 'occult' or the realm of the subconscious, it should be noted that by
simply doing what others have defined as the 'best' way to achieve more knowledge and
experience of the Self, in a copy cat or imitating manner, may not be right for you. Ideally
one should choose what is right for the individual, and do what you want. Reading from an
instruction manual, whilst useful for many, is rather conformist. Clearly study and
discipline is required, and dedication, but at the end of the day, if one sticks to the formulas
of others without evolving or creating one's own methods or feeling free to choose from
any philosophy or religious practice, then one is in a sense boxed in and not a genuine
expression of one's Will. One is going through the motions of someone else's Will.

The occult often portrays itself to be many things. However, it does tend to reside in certain
areas more than others. For example, it is more about the exploration of the human psyche
and the 'astral plane' than an actual increase in our animal-like perception that we have lost
in modern human society. For example, occult practice in general does not really develop
or seek to develop our navigation abilities, similar to birds that are able to navigate contents
and find an exact spot on the other side of the world. It is believed that sharks in the open
ocean when they migrate follow an 'electromagnetic map'. Animals are able to sense the
weather before it happens and to intuitively understand where food and water are likely to
be. Oriental martial arts, for example T'ai Chi Chu'an, seek to develop more fluid and
natural motion, improve one's awareness and co-ordination, and develop the power of 'qi'
for health, spiritual and self-defence purposes. Most occult practices, if any, delve into such
areas, and focus on the mind and ignore the body or at least in this capacity. They are more
about increasing certain aspects of our senses in our bodies, rather than being more in tune
with them. Animals may not require disciplined training to tap into their innate power and
strength, but are able to do so by living in the 'now' continually all their lives. Humans
require 'deprogramming' or disciplined training and meditation to achieve some of this. In
some areas they are able to excess an animal's ability (e.g. striking through blocks, having
concrete blocks smashed over one's head), but in others they have no chance of advancing
that far. So it is only fair to put it into relative perspective. The other non-occult
development practices discussed do not require interraction with the astral realm and so
may be compatible with a variety of spiritual beliefs and faiths.

All magical rituals were created by someone. All deities were recognised or thought up by
someone. Many followers of the LHP read occult books by famous authors and pick and
mix rituals and rites from a variety of sources. However, these rites were personalised
visions of their respective authors and their view of how to best focus the mind and to
project their consciousness or embody a particular archetype their favour. If one person can
devise a magical system that suits him best, why cannot everyone that wishes to practice
the occult? It seems that some are natural creators or leaders and others are too happy to
follow and not think for themselves. Choas magic tries to cut out all the ceremonial and
personalised metaphor, which some see as good for transforming the mind and bringing
people together - assuming it is focussed and not unambiguous in interpretation - but Chaos
magic, in its stripped down form, does tend to follow formulas or prescribed rites in many
cases. Those who follow are everywhere.

I have often argued that there is no need for the practice of occult ritual in any of its forms
as one can gain similar psychological benefit in terms of alignment with one's Will and
intention and general wellbeing and an increased level of 'vibration' by using psychology
techniques such as NLP, NAC and Cognitive Therapy, as well as visualisation exercises
(c/f the law of attraction) and meditation. I some respects they are however all the same
thing and this is an irrational fear.

There is no strict requirement to perform occult ritual, and there are philosophical
Luciferians (perhaps I am one loosely speaking) and philosophical Satanists - but some
argue they are simply 'armchair' occultists. Whilst any psychological principles or triggers
that cause a change in one's state of mind, determined by one's will, could be considered a
form of 'magic', they have a limited or no 'spiritual' component. This cannot be said about
occult ritual that uses archetypes associated with deities or 'demons' (i.e. entities of various
persuasions and with infinitely stronger wills than the practitioner). Perhaps the occult has
also more potential to involve the ego by default than the former, which depends on the
spirit in which it is undertaken by the practitioner. It could also be argued that whilst both
are useful, they work in slightly different areas and the most rounded and wise occultist
should recognise both, and not just the occult as it is more 'dark' or 'exotic'. These concepts
are also discussed on the Gnostic Luciferianism page and the Drugs page in the psychology
section for more information. I have had various strange experiences whilst sleeping in the
room used by a Chaos Magician for his magic(k)al rituals. One example is shown below.
 In 1996, I was staying with a friend of his in Wales. I had recently converted to
Christianity. My friend was a Chaos Magician. I kept has just given up drugs also. I kept
quiet about my new faith. When I met my friend, within 30 minutes I was smoking dope
again. Maybe my faith and self-belief was too shallow with little conviction. I slept in my
friend's front room, and at night, there were half a dozen kittens chasing each other around
the room, so sleep was difficult! When I did finally get to sleep, I had a dream with my
friend in it, and he was questioning me about God, and talking me out out of my faith. I
would like to clarify that this was not a positive type of philosophical discussion (from my
perspective at the time), where one was feeling new areas and feeling more open and 'wise',
or reflecting on both sides of an issue in a balanced manner, but more an aggressive act of
being battered over the head with a policeman's truncheon, and having the points of
reference (like legs of a table) of his faith demolished one by one. It was not an
empowering and deep experience but more a sense that someone or something was out to
destroy me, but presented in the face of a friend with a friendly tone. I was self-aware
during the dream and could see where it was going. I later found out that my friend kept his
wand closeby and practised all his rituals in this room!

The dream could just have been a shadow manifestation, with my friend's presence and
interaction with him igniting a spark of self-awareness in me, which manifested itself as my
friend's image in the dream. As I had hardly slept because of the kittens (plus I was allergic
to them) and because of the disturbing dream, I asked my friend if I could sleep in his
allotment in his tent. This was a 100 yards from the house and it suited me perfectly. No
cats, no magic! I had normal dreams and slept very well. So perhaps the wand was exerting
some influence on my subconscious when in close proximity to it. I would have playful
martial arts fights with my friend and joking feats of strength contests like who could
perform the most chin ups.

After several nights of getting stoned, which I didn't really enjoy that much, I went to visit
a nearby stone circle with my friend, and his family. Upon arrival, my friend noticed that
another magician had left some traces of a ritual behind, as there were pieces of purple
material or feathers around the place.

What is it with new agers and purple? Anyway, my friend was making fun of this magician,
implying his magic was mickey mouse or something similar. I was feeling somewhat
disgusted by it, and wanted to pick up all the pieces of material and throw them away. I
didn't consider it a big deal and proceeded to pick up the fragments. However, when I
picked up the first one, upon touching it, I felt an icy chill go up my arm, as if his qi, energy
or spiritual energy was being sapped somehow. It did not feel particularly pleasant and I
remarked on it to my friend. Anyway, after a few more days, he went back to London and
back to his own flat. This felt much better! I saw the Shaolin monks perform the next night.
Ironically though, I came down with what seemed like the 'flu' the next day upon returning,
but it turned out to be a blood infection. I had no idea how I could have caught it. Anyhow,
feeling incredibly ill and barely able to walk around, he went to stay with my parents for a
few days for some TLC and rest! However, the morning after his first night, my brother
 (who had become a semi-Christian fairly recently as well) told me in no uncertain terms
that I had 'something with me' and that he could not bear to have me in the house another
night. This seemed totally bizarre to me and I felt my brother was being totally weak
willed, but realised what he was talking about. I didn't personally feel it. However, I was
forced to leave there and then, despite being incredibly ill. After a couple of weeks without
any dope and having recovered from illness, I was really glad to be feeling himself again
(or so he thought - the Christian version of himself)!

I could compare the dream I had with his friend in it to a series of dreams my brother had
whilst staying at a very old, high class hotel in Sardinia. My brother kept having the same
dream every night over and over. It featured John Cusack, my brother's favourite actor (and
one of my favourites too). This John Cusack character would talk to my brother every
night, in this self-conscious state in the dream, and try to help him get perspective and
appreciate the different things in his life. By showing him all the possibilities and emotional
meaning behind relationships etc. My brother interpreted this as his room being haunted by
a spirit and the spirit trying to help my brother and give him a 'wake up call' in his life. My
brother felt this was an uplifting and positive experience. However, as the one week holiday
progressed, and having had the same dreams every night with John Cusack, with the same
theme, my brother felt he had got the message and began to find it a little tiresome and
started to ignore him. In one dream, he finally told 'John Cusack' to 'fuck off' (rather than
simply commanding the spirit to leave politely but firmly).

'John Cusack's character did not appreciate this and became incredibly enraged. After this,
my brother started hearing strange voices and noises in the room during the night, and
could hardly sleep at all. One night he heard a huge noise and there was a bird flying
around in his room. Perhaps this had flown in during the day and kept quiet and he hadn't
noticed it. But perhaps not! Was this a show of power? Anyhow, the rest of the holiday was
a total nightmare, for him, or he made it to be so, which is a shame given the cost and
exotic location. My brother prayed during this time and it seemed to keep the dreams at bay
somewhat. But as soon as my brother left the hotel to fly back to England, the dreams
stopped and so did the disturbances during the night.

I questioned my brother about it as I was very interested, but my brother was extremely
freaked out and did not want to talk about it very much! I suggested that he should have
asked the hotel staff about it, if they knew anything, or perhaps even just to change room.
Anyway, perhaps it was all just 'in his head'. Or perhaps it was a chaotic spirit, with some
good qualities, but also with some rather malevolent qualities. I would have ideally liked
my brother to have conducted a series of controlled experiments, using different rooms etc.
and maybe different people staying there, to see how it felt and what difference it made.
This wasn't the most immediate concern of his brother however!

Nietzsche is quoted as saying 'When you look into the abyss, the abyss looks back'. In other
words, if you look upon something 'dark', some element of that 'darkness' changes you,
depending on the strength of the core tenets of your personality/belief system and what
'attracts' or 'excites' you and why; changing you perhaps forever.

There are a number of somewhat harsh expressions that one should remember.
 You can't polish a turd!

This means that if a friend, partner, relationship, acquaintance or peer group you spend
your time with is at its root a 'turd', then no amount of glossing over it, and focussing on a
few redeeming features will negate what the core is. You can't coat a turd with white
chocolate and pretend it is a 'Cadbury's Snowflake' chocolate bar! It might look like one,
but bite into it and you will soon realise it is not 'sweet'!

Shit should be flushed down the toilet

If something is bad for you or is clearly a 'turd', then don't hold on to it and get shit all over
your hands and clothes! Cut it out of your life - 'flush it down the toilet', where it belongs.
You can build your house on a solid foundation, or you can build it on sand. Worse still,
you can build it on a foundation of actual excrement! And worst of all, you can start off
with a foundation of excrement and actually build the house from turds - if you really want
to - and you can enjoy the 'benefits' of this - all for yourself!

I am of the philosophy of drawing elements of truth from all different parts of the spectrum,
and of keeping an open mind, whilst remaining critical and slow to accept until sufficient
direct evidence or applicable experience is gained. I do not rule most things out by default,
but seeks to learn as much as he can over time. Some call this illuminism. When it comes to
the area of the occult, which is a very broad category and wherein definition is sometimes
troublesome, I am open to revise his view. However, until he meets and observes an occult
practitioner whom he believes to be truly emotionally balanced and psychologically healthy
in his opinion, then he will retain his current slightly sceptical position. I am yet to meet
anyone he finds to be emotional balanced in general however who has an interest in the
kinds of areas he is interested in, so perhaps it is not just occultists. I intend to study occult
practices and Left-Hand Paths as well as the the beliefs, texts and practices of all other
religions and philosophies, time permitting (!), and to study the psychological aspects of
these, as well as other spiritual paths and psychological techniques. Self-mastery is my
ultimate goal. My thoughts and beliefs are evolutionary by definition and if I arrive at a
slightly different position or understanding of any of the topics discussed on this web site,
then I will update them accordingly (given time as there is so much waffle!)
Vibration, the Physical Body and the
Spirit

Most followers of the LHP are not that bothered about their physical bodies, as they are
simply regarded as a means to an end, and that may involve over dietary imbalance and
indulgence and drink/drug abuse, which is counterproductive in the long term (and
arguably the short term as well!) to serve the excesses of the mind and the ego. This could
perhaps be said of many adherents of the RHP to varying degrees, who are often credulous
and believe everything advertising and modern consumerism influences them to do and
eat/drink. However, some consider that the mind and body are really the same thing, the
soul/spirit being essentially the body whilst it is housed in the body during one's life.

As discussed in the Course in Miracles on the Psychology Bibliography page, an

unfettered and focussed mind results in a healthier body that is impervious to external
sources of damage or harm. This is belief resulting in the actual effect rather than the cause
always resulting in the effect.

The is also related to The Law of Attraction. If the mind is in tune with the body and one
looks after the body, then the mind/body is deemed to be capable of so much more, and is
not subject to the limitations and stale psychology and yo-yo-ing that accompanies regular
drug use and greedy diet management. Consumption of processed and modern foods of a
'low vibration' may well result in a body and mind of a low vibration, with less nutritional
input and indeed less energy. However, these factors are only deemed to affect the body
when the mind is of a 'low vibration' to start with.

The low vibrational state is thus deemed to be a vicious circle, and breaking out to higher
vibration is considered much more difficult. Energetic blockages are seen to cause disease.
It is thus believed that if the mind is strong enough (in whatever sense one wishes to
interpret that), then it is able to unblock energetic blockages and essentially the body is able
to cope with any garbage that is thrown at it, and be much more resistant to highly
poisonous substances. This higher mind and strong will is able to raise the energetic
vibration of the body. This higher mind state can also be equated to those who can fire walk
or perform similar feats (buried alive etc.) The body is thus considered as a perception.

I subscribe to these ideas to a large extent (perhaps literally or as a metaphor for positive
thought and goal setting), but equally subscribes to the opposite idea that one should give
one's body a 'helping hand' and assist the body in detoxification and ensure a healthy diet,
and positive EMF stimulation, so that the body, whilst it may well be capable of
resisting/being resilient to these inputs, does not have to, and one can spend one's internal
energy more productively elsewhere. In addition, it should be considered that the emotions
that one frequently runs in the computer of the mind affect our level of energetic vibration.
Hate, anger, fear, jealousy, worry, ego are considered lower energy states or lower
 vibration, whereas peace, tranquility, no mind (thoughts), love, any positive or happy
thoughts, excitement, illumination could be considered higher vibration states. RHP belief
systems, or indeed Eastern Religions, whilst 'dogmatic' in some people's perception or
application, however are so designed to raise the level of energetic vibration through
empowering emotions. This is assuming a positive application of the ideas and philsophies
of these religions, and of course any interpretation that involves fear, guilt or self-deception
is unlikely to be conducive to a high level of vibration on a regular basis.

As discussed in the Psychology section, if one associates with negative people, the nature
tendency is for the negative people to pull the other person down to their level, so they feel
less threatened or more comfortable seeing like in others. The same principle may apply
with energy states or levels of vibration also. A low level of vibration in one person may
bring down the higher level of vibration in another if they are in close proximity or interract
for any significant length of time.

This may manifest as a more deflated, 'bummed' or depressed mood, or perhaps physical
symptoms such as a headache or fatigue etc. If the person with the higher level of vibration
is highly grounded in their level of vibration, then it is also possible that the person at the
lower level of vibration may be lifted up closer to the other person's level. This is achieved
partly by resonance, the way women's periods in a house house may harmonise and occur
simultaneously. These principles are discussed in more detail in the Quantum Touch
section of the Energetic Therapies page in the Health/CFS section. They are also some of
the principles of Hermeticism, and underlying philosophy to most systems of magic.

As can be read in the Health Section on the Energetic Therapies page regarding Quantum
Touch, it is possible (if you believe this kind of thing) to 'impregnate objects with a higher
level of vibation, such that, when they are in close proximity to the body, or better still in
contact with an afflicted area, they can actually help the body increase circulation and
energy flow in that area, raising the body's level of vibration. This feels 'warm' and good.
Maybe some people call this the 'Holy Spirit', and in lively churches, one can feel the whole
building is 'charged'. The intention of healing and love is put into such objects by the healer
who 'charges' or 'impregnates' them. Some may put this down to the placebo effect.

However, occultists use the same principles to charge objects - and I have personal
experience of feeling his energy of 'warmth' drain away when touching such objects or
being in close proximity to them. Examples are discussed on the Gnostic Luciferianism
and the Atheism and Eugenics . There are probably some instances when healers of certain
new age persuasions are not simply raising their level of vibration in one direction, or the
desired direction, so that whilst a healing may take place, the patient is left feeling a little
'wierd' and 'spiritually uncomfortable' afterwards, never to return for another session!
Vibration is clearly not just a case of a one dimensional scale, but seems to have multiple
qualities/components/aspects/dimensions to it.
Of course, maintaining a happy mood constantly is hard work and is actually energetically
draining (from a TCM perspective). Oriental medicine believes that extremes of an
emotion, even a particular positive emotion, causes energetic imbalance.

Therefore, when we talk of a higher level of vibration, it may take the form of a calm mind
or 'no mind' (the 'zen' state). So a high level of vibration can be in the form of no emotion at
all (a Tao/Zen state of mind) or in the form of positive and empowering emotional states;
and also in the form of a strong Will or a deep connection and understanding of the self
(who one really is). However, how do these interrelate? Are they in contradiction? Western
philosophy gives much weight to emotion whereas Eastern philosophy tends more towards
negating the addictions and yo-yoing of the emotions to reach higher and calmer mental
states.

Clearly the concept of 'higher vibration' and 'lower vibration' is not just a simple scale or
one dimensional concept. There are clearly other aspects to it and it must interrelate with
the body's own energetic (qi) systems as well as the spirit. To some degree, the level of
one's vibration goes up and down according to one's moods, emotional states and level of
calmness/no mind (i.e. being tuned in) and the strength of one's Will or harmony with
oneself/embodiment of one's true self to a lesser extent.

If the Chinese are right, then positive emotion alone (i.e. excitement, love, confidence,
happiness) cannot be the sole source of high vibration - or that high vibration cannot be
maintained all the time, and that the qi system in some capacity is more important or rather
a more important aspect of it. Or perhaps the exact opposite, that mind states are just one
part of the overall qi system.

Some people rate the zen mind state (Nirvana or close to it) as being a very high level or
rate of vibration, higher than the positive emotional states. However the concept of high
and low levels of vibration is clearly relative. One could view them on a scale of infinity,
where all points can be seen to be 'in the middle'. In reality and in nature, there is no such
thing as 'no vibration', whether one is dead of alive. Even at absolute zero, when atoms are
deemed to be at rest, matter and antimatter come in and out of existence.

On the scale of vibration, some see that at certain point, some high levels of vibration
appear to be 'still' and 'silent', but as one increases the level of vibration and rate of
movement, they appear to move again until the next node of high frequency is reached and
stillness is observed again. Some relate this to the musical scale, where like notes appear at
various points on the scale, but are essentially the same, even though one may be 'high' and
one may be 'low'.

How does this all fit in with the LHP concept of embracing dark and light sides of the self?
Well, excessive 'dark' or lower emotions is clearly a recipe for a lower state of energetic
vibration, but what of embodying the concept of the Self and one's Will which may
occasionally mean embracing or bathing in one's more basic genetic urges and instincts
(often to engage the ego).
 Some believe that on some level, different points of the scale of vibration can co-exist,
being of different nature, but in 'harmony' to create something more than the sum of their
parts, something denser. This could be likened to a 'chord', a group of notes played
simultaneously to create a multi-facetted product. Some liken this to 'lighter and darker'
emotions and/zen mind states, such that a person can embody different ends of the
spectrum, but in harmony they create something of higher vibration than simply the highest
point on the scale (be it 'love' or 'zen') etc.

This no doubt interrelates to the qi system of the body in some form. From this perspective,
is there indeed such a thing as higher or lower vibration? Is the nature of vibration much
more complex than this, as hinted above? If 'lower' and 'higher' can combine to be
something greater than the 'higher'?However, what combination or balance of 'light' and
'dark' elements is optimal for a high level of vibration? Those that are biased towards more
'dark' or lower levels of vibration, in their self-actualisation and occult practice, are they in
combination really creating a high level of vibration.

Of course, not everyone agrees with this standpoint, and those of the New Thought
movement in general would argue that unconditional love and zen were the ultimate levels
of vibration that could be reached, embodied by figures such as Jesus or Buddha; and not
'lower points' on the vibration scale merely negate or bring down the level of vibration of
the higher points on the scale. Perhaps the musical metaphor is only so useful and can only
go so far. This is a matter of personal interpretation.

This is all very well. But what actually is 'vibration' in the sense that it is used above? Is it a
pseudo-scientific umbrella term used to describe vastly different concepts and to bring them
together in a sloppy and somewhat inaccurate and confusing manner (possibly of
Theosophy origins)? Probably. I believe 'vibration' in this context to mean a number of
things, including emotional state, one's level of qi and qi flow (in the TCM sense), one's
electromagnetic field, one's intensity and strength of character (based upon life experience
and also congruent beliefs giving a strength and dynamism to one's character),
cardiovascular fitness, physical/nervous system congruence/coordination (e.g. martial arts
training and mastery of the body), and ability to control matter with the mind (in terms of
one's own resilience with focus, concentration and belief).

Some argue that the concept of vibration is a metaphor for an esoteric concept that
translates well to certain aspects of atomic/molecular/material vibration in physics;
specifically, the concept of resonance. The principle of resonance has applications in
healing therapies such as Quantum Touch, and also in Sympathetic magic; and explains to
some degree how related, yet scientifically/physically unconnected objects can influence
each other (but which may be connected electromagnetically, on a quantum or 'psychic
level, not defined or measurable by scientific means); and how a certain unique state or
quality ('vibration') can cause proximal/connected objects toto behave in a similar manner
under certain specific conditions. Some scientific theories now begin to explain this with
quantum mechanics and string theory, but it is still far from certain scientifically.
 To what extent can self-conscious wisdom and self-determination be considered 'evil'?
Clearly many Christians regard self-conscious spiritual awareness and spiritual/magical
acts initiated by the self and for the benefit of the self or one's own agenda (rather than
God's) to be 'evil'.

However, when we consider 'evil', if indeed such a concept exists - perhaps being
interpreted as the excesses of the animalistic ego and one's baser instincts in the expression
of violent and cruel intent - then what type of 'evil' is worse? The lowest level evil, which is
full of hate, and seeks to kill and destroy a perceived enemy for reasons of negative
association and self-denial, e.g. Nazi extermination of the Jews or the USSR's ethnic
cleanising under Stalin? An unintelligent exercise of brute and cruel force over others? Or
could 'evil' be considered more to represent those that are actually wise and illuminated, but
choose to cross just that little too far over the 'boundary' (wherever that is) from 'reasonable'
self-interest to the manipulation of others, in a 'ruthless manner', to further one's power in
the world at the expense and in some cases unnecessary deaths of others? In the latter case,
where exactly does one 'draw the line'.

In the former scenario we have obvious 'evil' and in the latter scenario we have subtle,
insidious and disguised 'evil'. Are those that are enlightened that put their wisdom to 'good'
use for the benefit of others truly wise and enlightened? Or are they miguided,
sanctimonious and wasting their own time? There are no doubt many who regard
themselves are philanthropic who are in actuality misanthropic in their actions, because of
the clouded definition of what is 'good' for humanity. Clearly it is a matter of philosophy!
 Concept of Ego and Levels of
Consciousness:

Ego can be viewed as the animal instinct. A form of basic self-defence mechanism which is
controlled by the conscious mind. The more of a slave to one's ego one is, the more
animalistic (survival orientated) one tends to be in one's actions. Let us consider the
different levels of consciousness and how they interrelate. Clearly few people remain on
one level of consciousness all the time, and may alternate between a number of levels
depending on the situation and focus/belief system around it.

If one were to put consciousness in a hierarchy, as David Hawkins has (with a somewhat
arbitrary scale), then one would put negative emotions at the bottom, such as fear, revenge
and hatred (and also fear). These are the most 'ego' and 'animal' states of mind. They
involve fight or flight responses to situations, rebelliousness, stress, territorial disputes, the
desire to kill in an argument (could be correlated to two male animals fighting over territory
or a female, or two gangs of dolphins attacking and killing each other for example), gang
violence etc.

Above these lower levels are desire and jealousy. For example, living one's life according
to fun alone, materialism, selfishness, hedonism, casual sex, rave culture, drug abuse,
jealousy of one's partner or neighbour (his more expensive model, his greater success or
better looking girlfriend, etc), Satanism (also including desire for revenge if anyone messes
with you in certain schools of Satanism), other hedonistic philosophies etc.

Above these levels come states of mind and values such as integrity. Above this is the level
of rationalism and logic, i.e. academia, common sense. Clearly, even those academics who
believe rationalism, knowledge and science are the highest goal, are they logical in EVERY
area of their lives. Or are they subject to higher or lower states of mind? There is a saying
that intelligence and common sense do not always go hand in hand. One may well be
academically gifted but be hopeless in organising one's personal life and making rational
relationship decisions and in looking after oneself. Higher up the scale of consciousness we
have conditional love, such as that a mother has for her baby, or in a relationship. But
relying on a partner for one's happiness is never a sound strategy, as your source of
happiness is not always reliable and can be taken away as easily as it is 'given'.

Above conditional love then is unconditional love, the appreciation of life and the
willingness to be loving in every situation, even the most 'irritating', awkward situation
which tries to trigger your negative beliefs into making you offended.

Above unconditional love are higher still levels of consciousness, such as bliss and nirvana.
The power of each level of consciousness increases the higher one climbs in a given
situation, where a higher mind such as an inspirational leader or prophet may influence and
inspire an entire population.

Other emotional states that slot into the heirarchy (somewhere nearer the upper half)
include peace, tranquility, feelings of relaxation, positive excitement, positive energy,
happiness, contentment, wisdom etc.

The numbers of people who residually reside at a certain level become fewer and fewer the
higher one goes up the hierarchy. Clearly people do not spend their whole time residing on
their maximum level of consciousness, and may indeed revisit lower levels, and drag
themselves back up again. Some spend more time at lower levels than others, only
experiencing brief glimpses of higher levels. Others spend most of their time at their
personal maximum level, only occasionally drifting down. It could be argued that to
experience balance one needs to 'revisit' some aspects of some of the lower levels to
varying extents and degrees. Indeed, this may well occur without trying, and often some of
the more negative aspects of the lower levels; but it ultimately depends on what you want to
achieve. Clearly, the emotions that one experiences in the course of a day may well cover a
broad range, and if we are honest with ourselves we may well surprise ourselves, and often
not pleasantly! How you use and harness these emotions, what beliefs you engage to
harness these emotions, what actions result, how you convert/evolve one emotion into
another (to gain some positive energy from them), and what beliefs you decide to create,
are clearly up to the individual and greatly affect the path you take and ultimately what
levels and emotions you spend much of your time in/on. Lower levels of consciousness
according to some are associated with a lower level of energetic vibration and the higher
the level of conciousness the higher the level of vibration. Vibration level is equated by
some to be equivalent to the body's health and strength of the immune system etc.

Clearly the above concept of vibrational level is slightly out of kilter with the concept of the
Jungian Shadow, as whilst lower levels may be torn apart by their own uncontrollable
shadows in hatred, jealousy and so forth, higher levels may equally be in denial of their
lower, animalistic nature and freedom of self-expression. Gnostics would argue that the
 higher levels are where one is less torn apart by the Archons or addictions of the physical
world, and where one has achieved higher levels of peace and knowledge of the Self and
the Universe, or Gnosis. The individual must clearly find the exact level of balance and
understand what the nature of higher levels on his path really means.

When one enters into an negotation with another party, it is helpful to think of what level of
consciousness the other person is at compared to yours to see if you are both really talking
the same language. For example, if you are very rational, you may not get very far in trying
to take delivery of goods from a criminal or hustler on credit (send me an invoice!) Equally,
Neville Chamberlain did have in his hand a piece of paper when he signed a peace treaty
with Adolf Hitler, but it meant nothing to Hitler as he was not on the rational level of
consciousness and couldn't be expected to play by the rules. It is often why peace
settlements are hard to stick for example in Palestine and the surrounding Middle East as
both parties are obsessed with revenge and hatred, and the facilitator is trying to keep
discussion on a rational an unemotional level. Lastly, do not confuse 'spiritual' development
(the art of happiness and bliss) with the 'astral' (or talking/interacting with spirits - if you
are into/belief in this kind of thing!) The spiritual domain has nothing to do with the astral.
Astral comprises higher (celestial - talking to 'angels'), middle and lower (demonic power,
evil spirits, new age etc.) Are you able to tell the difference between these levels (if they
exist that is)? It is not unheard of for people to claim to be one thing and to actually be
another (just look at politicians, dictators, doctors even etc.) so it is not improbable that this
is the same in the astral domain also.

An example of ego in a fearful context is the way that one's body physically reacts to a
perceived threat. For example, if one is undergoing an osteopathy session, and the
practitioner is twisting your torso slightly prior to perform a manipulation (of the lower
back and pelvic area for example), it is easy to become fearful and allow the body to tense
up, in an attempt to 'defend' itself. However, if one consciously works to try to relax those
areas, the ego is disengaged and the manipulation can be carried out correctly without
injuring the patient! Which might otherwise occur if the person resisted. The same principle
applies in martial arts, when one is engaging in a drill or sparring. If one stiffens up, it is a
defensive reaction, but negates one's ability to stay relaxed, respond and to react and
observe what is actually going on. If you do this, you may get hurt or get hit!

The concept the relationship between one's ego and one's consciousness is a complex one.
It is something that religions and philosophers have been struggling with for thousands of
years. To totally embrace the ego in its entirety without exercising any control over it
would be unwise - this would result in the consciousness becoming a passenger to the ego,
with the ego seeking to control the whole of conscious experience, taking the credit for it
and seeking to reinforce its position. Nor woud it be so wise to try to regard the ego as 'evil'
and to try to completely suppress it in all activities and areas of life. The ego is our body's
evolutionary natural defence mechanism, allowing us to interact with the world and
function. However, it often allowed to exist in a manner at the detriment of our innate
consciousness and ability to 'feel'. The ego is in many ways a left brain entity and is to a
large extent a conditioned psychological response.

To what extent should one embrace the ego, and to what extent should one try to suppress it
or shut it up? These are tough questions. By following our desires in all things we may find
it difficult to develop any sense of self-discipline, and it may be impossible to cultivate any
stillness of mind. By entertaining our ego at all times, we may not be able to silence the
constant stream of 'desires (for pleasure and/or power), fears, stress, guilt, judgements,
analysis, self-loathing, self-criticism, rationalising, attempts to control, attempts to take
credit' nor to trust our instincts and truly feel, in the consciousness sense, without the
intervention and controlling actions of the ego. By calming the ego, it is possible to achieve
greater stillness and a sense of inner peace. This is something that many Eastern religions
and philosophies have attempted to address, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism,
e.g. stillness through 'no mind'. Some religions may conceptually give some advice on the
ego, but may not really assist in actual practical methods of calming the ego and the mind,
but rather just rely on 'faith' to achieve this, e.g. Christianity.

Whilst this may work with some people, with others, it may not, and the ego may continue
with many of its ridiculous activities and in addition get involved in judgements, guilt and
rationalising of one's spiritual experience and that of others, rather than allowing the mind
to be clear and calm. In the latter case it may end up with trying to excessively rely on
rational concepts of the 'rules' and what you should be doing and what others 'should' be
doing, and disappointing and upsetting your ego when you don't get things the way your
ego was expecting. This is not generally a very fulfilling way to live one's life. The ego
may have merely shifted its pattern of control from one area to another (before and after
conversion), and still be an obstacle in your spiritual life.

There are clearly many ways of exploring the senses to the full and to be fully in tune with
one's body and experiences. There are different ways of engaging the ego in these activities.
One may enter into activities with 'no mind', i.e. with the ego not engaged, but relying on
one's instincts and trusting one's subsconscious and neurological system to just get on with
it (rather than trying to control it through the ego and through 'rationalisation'). Many sports
people find this the way to achieve the best results and if they 'try' too hard (i.e. excessive
ego control) they often perform much worse. In this state of mind one may often lose one's
perception of time. One may alternatively choose to enter into an experience of sensation
from the perspective of titillating the ego (or rather titillating a set of beliefs and values,
perhaps of a perverse or reactionary nature), where the ego may be in control of the
experience; Or one may choose to enter into an experience in a more balanced manner,
engaging the ego to an extent, and engaging and referring to various positive beliefs and
pieces of technical information but not try to gain any sense of power, but also trusting
one's consciousness and instincts (not reverting to too much personal criticism regarding
mistakes and performance), feeling calm minded and free, at the same time - the exact
nature of the balance of this mode of experience may indeed vary and change, like a yo-yo,
during an experience - one may achieve a good balance for a while, and then totally lose it
later on - it clearly varies moment to moment and individual to individual. Lastly one may
try to enter into an experience trying to control everything and not trusting one's instincts or
innate ability to do something, whereby one will probably not feel anything or be aware of
what happened at all as one was too busy rationalising it and trying to get as much from it
as possible (ironically getting the least from the experience!)

One may argue whether excessive titillating of the ego (and certain negative beliefs and
 world/global views) in the way we sense and experience things is healthy and to what
extent it results in reinforcing the ego's dominant position and certain negative beliefs. This
is up to the individual to figure out, but if one is not prepared to experience sensation in
other ways (at all or enough), then one may well be fooling oneself about the nature of
experience and ultimately about one's innate consciousness.

There is clearly a time and a place for different approaches, for example, different points in
learning a new technique, or day to day routine experience which does not require any
rationalisation and which one may benefit from trying to connect more with one's
surroundings and not going around on 'auto-pilot' and missing everything. There is a time
and place to indulge oneself in an activity, enjoy the playfulness, chaos and sense of
euphoria, be carefree and irresponsible; and there are times to be responsible; and also
times to help and assist others. Just how one goes about this is up to the individual.

Click here to read about the ego and the left hand path (e.g. LaVey Satanism).

It can be observed in some individuals with low self esteem in some areas, that they may
overcompensate in other areas in order to create 'balance'. For example, one may be naive
or lacking in confidence in multiple areas in one's life, and ideally one should really attempt
to address these areas in order to grow and to be 'free' or more oneself and who one was
born to be. However, instead, the conscious mind may seek to make up for this slight
feeling of inadequacy by strengthening positive beliefs in other areas that do not require so
much or any significant 'work' - to the point of becoming perhaps arrogant or conceited.
This is however compartmentalised and unlikely to overflow into other areas, so the large
areas of low self-esteem remain. If anything, the ego enlargement in certain areas only
seeks to appease one's longings for balance and fool oneself, sapping one's desire to really
be honest about one's deficiencies and to work towards building up one's confidence in
these areas. It is a little like chewing on a piece of chocolate to distract you from the cut on
your leg! A principle parents may use with children.
 The 'Astral Plane':
Some argue that the practice of the occult, with reference to one's interaction with the
Astral Plane, is an area of pure distraction and engagement of the ego, and as such serves
no purpose other than to provide a little 'excitement' and 'adventure' but ultimately to lock
one's consciousness into lower ego levels and prevent one's ascension to high levels of
vibration and self-actualisation. This is not in a sense a 'fear' of the Astral Plane (as some of
a more sensitive religious disposition might react - fear and horror! etc.), but a recognition
that it is a distraction and not worth pursuing - much like someone offering you a 'spliff'
might for some be tempting but is ultimately just a pitfall or a trap to 'lock in stoners for 10
or 20 years of stale existence before they manage to break out of this pattern'. The Astral
plane, as well as being fascinating or a distraction, if engaged in safely, can also be very
dangerous and damaging, if one does not effectively protect oneself in magical terms.
Naive magic(k)al practices can result in physical, psychological and spiritual harm.

With regards to examining one's past lives (if you believe in this kind of thing), all masters
will tell you that, to examine a past life is a total waste of time. What you were in the past is
entirely irrelevant, it is who you are that counts, and the here and now. The ability to focus
the mind and project one's consciousness into the here and now is what constitutes spiritual
wisdom and enlightenment, and looking forwards or backwards is an addiction and
prevents one seeing reality and truth. So the addiction to the past is a stumbling block to
being in the present.

If we were meant to live in the past, we would not be alive and in the here and now, right
now! The only thing worth acknowledging in the arena of past lives or indeed eternal life or
the soul pre-birth and post-death is to acknowledge that the soul is eternal and unlimited,
your consciousness is an eternal being and part of the 'one' in the Hermetic, Gnostic or
Esoteric Christian (panentheistic) sense. The exact details of which before or after death are
really not important right now and perhaps can never be known until you actually die;
everything else being an 'illusion'. So why waste time thinking about death now? Many
religions of course base their entire philosophy around death and preparing for death, e.g.
Christianity, Gnosticism etc.
 One of the worst offenders of clutching onto the past for dear life is Spiritualism. This is
generally not an area of interest for serious occultists, but is more a new age preoccupation.
Those who attend spiritualist churches do so because they cannot let go of the past. They
attend as they feel it might be 'their turn' to talk to a loved one through the 'minister'.
However, attendees are usually regulars and are addicted to the spectacle, feeding like
vultures off the tears and emotions of others. They are all addicted to the past and the dead,
and are unable to move on. The spiritualist churches prey on such people and encourage
this morbid and unhealthy fascination. In scientific tests, frauds have lead a service and
have been deemed to be authentic by the congregation and also by 'psychics'. Often they
take cues from the audience and make open statements that could apply to anyone, or if
they make mistakes, the audience corrects them and guides them and then seems amazed at
how they got the answers they were looking for.

The 'unlimited' aspect of the soul refers to both the fact that it is capable of great things, but
that also its abilities are virtually unlimited and that higher levels of vibration and
consciousness, and a sense of freedom and creativity/spark, are based on the perception of
infinite possibilities in the here and now - in each moment. These 'infinite possibilities' can
be purely positive, or positive and negative, for the true self or for the ego. It is possible to
see a part of this window of 'infinite possibilities' but that one is only looking at one part of
the infinite (which is of itself infinite by definition) and believing it is the whole or all that
is worth perceiving.

Scientific studies of electrons that 'synchronise' faster than the speed of light regardless of
distance, and related theories and possible conclusions, that the measurable universe does
not actually exist per se, but is a representation of something bigger and immeasurable - are
discussed below in the article 'The Holographic Universe', based on the findings in the book
of the same name by Michael Talbot (1953 - 1992).

The Astral realm is not necessarily to be confused with one's gifts, of increased perception
(which do not require rituals of 'theurgy' or 'goetia', or communication with dead spirits, but
are just there), which can be 'used' or 'abused'. The ego should not be engaged in their use
or awareness of them. If one can see certain fringes of the Astral realm, some argue that the
strange sights one sees there should simply be ignored, or noted and forgotten, and not
given any undue emotional significance or importance, a bit like driving along a road and
noticing an empty Crisp packet on the side of the road. There would be little point freaking
out about it, or fantasising about it and how important you are to be able to have seen a
Crisp packet. Wouldn't that be stupid? Engaging the ego in one's gifts is regarded as a
recipe for lowering one's level of vibration. To be aware and conscious of more than the
mind perceives right now will no doubt develop as one's level of vibration develops.
However, going on an ego trip will not be conducive to further growth. One may indeed
acquire more skill in the Astral Plane the more one meddles with it (in a controlled manner
of course, right?!), and one may feel one is stronger, more aware of reality, and wiser, but
this is not to say that one is growing spiritually or indeed actually wiser, but that the ego is
more in control and believes 'he' is wiser, and more in control. The ego is preventing one
from fully realising one's oneness with totality. The ego loves to waste our times, whilst our
 consciousness is taken for the ride.

The biggest con is perhaps that the ego convinces one's consciousness, that awareness that
sits behind or above the ego and mental thought processes and is along for the ride, that it is
the consciousness, as it is wiser and seems more like the consciousness. But it is not! It is
deceiving you! Or that is how the theory goes! Excessive rationalisation is a construct used
to keep the ego and conscious mind busy, to prevent 'feeling'. If the two are integrated, is
this growth or stagnation? If the ego is not suppressed but not inflated and allowed to take
full control, is this not healthier than being a left-brain control freak who thinks he's really
clever and wise by rationalising with others and in a 'smart' position by wanting to learn
more from this experience, emulating a higher consciousness? As wise as you think you
are, unless you actually live your philosophy, then it is all really just a load of rubbish.
Philosophers may come to this conclusion occasionally, after pontificating over something
and analysing it, to later think that the conclusion was in fact an extreme, half-untrue, and
actually a load of [insert optional expletive here]. It is the conscious minds clumsy attempts
to pigeonhole reality, which is not actually possible. One can feel this to some extent, but
one certainly cannot 'think it'. To think is sometimes not to be clever. I feel like this
sometimes after discussing philosophy. It is on some level just one big illusion. If one is
going to engage one's left brain, then it makes sense to be as rational as possible. However,
rationalism and wisdom are not the be all and end all, and one's ability to leave left-brain
control and processing behind (i.e. the ego) is as if not much more important in raising
one's level of vibration. One who knows nothing can still know 'everything' or perceive
everything.

It is often said that no one can 'heal' you, but merely that you are empowered to heal
yourself, or in Quantum Touch terms, a higher level of vibration is offered to you, and your
own body raises its own level of vibration to meet it - no one is forcing your body to do
anything, it simply wants to do this. The same thing could be argued regarding
acupuncture. The acupuncturist is not actually doing anything, the body does the work.
Quantum Touch and other healing arts work on the basis of higher levels of vibration,
which are in actuality 'unconditional love' expressed in an energetic form and in terms of
intention. Whilst this may sound a little 'soft' to some, one cannot heal whilst focussing on
other emotions or lower states. A high level of vibration is necessary in order to help
someone else raise their own level of vibration to yours (at least temporarily) in order to
allow (increased levels of) healing to take place in their own body. Those who have a very
high level of vibration may intuitively be able to perceive a person's medical history,
current condition, psychological make up, personality type and emotional and energetic
state merely by glancing at someone. This enhanced level of intuition and perception is
reputed to be possible with enhanced vibration levels and perception/gifts. Those 'healers'
that are in love with themselves a little too much, who nurture their ego, and who believe
they heal YOU, rather than just being catalysts, are in general, not very good healers, a bad
influence, and are to be avoided. They may instill ideas of limitation in their patients and
the idea that they are not as 'high' as the healer, and do not have the same abilities as the
healer - what rubbish!

When it comes to the subject of angels, opinions are divided. Christians and Hindus believe
that angels are messengers of God. 'New Agers' believe in a Guardian Angel, a concept
from Helena Blavatsky's Theosophy and Aleister Crowley's Thelema religions. Theosophy
was very much the precursor to the modern New Age movement. Of course, there are many
different flavours of New Age. Some types of New Agers are very much into dousing,
tarot, seances, crystal healing, spiritualism (spiritualist churches where they can speak to
their dead relatives - allegedly), etc.

Even the 'best' mediums at seances are known to occasionally 'fake it' when under pressure
and use hot/cold reading or a variety of props with the assistance of others pretending to be
'ectoplasm'. Whilst most New Agers believe that these are results of tapping into the
Akashic record (or mind of God) or being guided by the spirit world, most occultists regard
such activities more as tapping into one's own subconscious and manifesting one's Will or
intent through accessing those parts of one's subconscious mind that are not normally
communicated with. Parapsychologists may perhaps view such activities in a similar
manner or as fraulent nonsense, depending on the exact case in question.

Some 'New Agers' view the astral realm as being populated by Angels and Demons. Angels
are just deemed to be beings of light and are not God or gods and are not meant to be
actually worshipped or prayed to, but are only 'helpers' and for communication. Some say
that angels will only help those that directly ask them, otherwise they will not interact with
one. Many who believe in using angels for healing (oriental medicine style (meridians),
quantum energy style (e.g. quantum touch or Reiki style), or otherwise), or for personal
development or for 'advice' do not see a conflict with monotheism or 'God', although their
relationship with Jesus for example may be slightly different than one who relies on
praying to God for advice. To what extent one is communicating with 'Biblical angels',
which would be regarded by most Christians as 'acceptable' or whether they are other
spirits, benevolent ones, being communicated with, in which case it would be regarded as
'white magic', 'New Age' or 'witchcraft', focussing more of spirits or 'divine beings of light'
than on God himself for healing and personal growth.

Doreen Virtue says of differentiating between 'angels/beings of light' and 'demons' or

'malevolent spirits':

'There are beings that are referred to as fallen angels. In reality, they arent angels at all.
Angels are glowing beings, filled with the inner radiance of Gods love. Angels have soft,
feathery wings. Angels always talk about, and act from, Love. The "fallen angels," in
contrast, have no light in them. They have short, bat-like bony wings and clawed talons.
Theyre commonly called "gargoyles." These beings arent creations of Gods love; theyre
creations of mans fear.

The average person with loving intentions doesnt need to worry about these dark beings.
They think that loving, nice people are boring! Dark beings are attracted to those who abuse
substances, and those who are dishonest, cruel, manipulative and obsessively afraid of evil.

"Earthbound spirits" are another form of so-called "fallen angels." These are deceased
humans who, for a variety of reasons (fear of hell, materiality and so on.), stay rooted to
earth. They are sometimes called ghosts.

The best way to clear away the presence of earthbound spirits and dark beings is to hold a
constant mindset of Love. Think about God as often as you can. And call upon the
Archangel Michael, who escorts away fear and darkness, to act as your "bouncer," ensuring
that only invited guests are by your side and in your home.'

One could view the above statements in the metaphoric sense, that 'angels' are merely
aspects of one's 'higher' self or more loving nature that one loses touch with in day to day
life; with 'demons' or 'fallen angels' being aspects of one's Destructive Shadow, i.e. one's
fears or parts of one's psyche that one has suppressed. The imagery in question conforms to
stereotypes of what we see as good and evil.

One could view it in a Biblical sense that the angels are indeed angels, and the demons are
actually earth-bound malevolent spirits or demons or representation of 'The Devil'; or that
they are all demons in various guises, and it is a form of magic tacked onto Biblical
concepts. However some might argue that excessive conceptual use of angels in the Bible is
a little 'polytheistic' and detracts from the view of an indivisible single God, unless of
course it was a Jungian metaphor.

Or one could view it in the occult sense, that demons and angels are in fact the same thing,
beings that are a pure essence of Will, and depending on the spirit in question, that Will
may vary, but if one knows how to interact with them and to protect oneself properly (in the
case of the latter 'angels' or wraiths/demons), then one can actually experience personal
growth of another kind.

Some occultists, as discussed in the section below, may actually regard 'angels' or 'beings of
light' as those beings that seek to enslave us and keep our consciousness divided, to use our
loving side to enslave us and for their own worship or reverence (like an ego trip for them
or a form of 'feeding on our consciousness') or for other reasons (that can be utilised by
society to control us) - like a 'fake' kind of love. Not all those who believe in
communicating with Angels refrain from putting them on a pedestal and praying to them.
All angels or 'fallen' angels being deemed to have a strong Will and a desire to impose that
Will on the practitioner, whatever that may be.

Presumably there is a difference between benevolent earth-bound spirits and angels? Can
they tell the difference? Some regard humans as angels temporarily in physical bodies. This
however might imply that all spirits of the departed are 'angels', which is presumably not
the case - but maybe they had/have the potential to be 'angels' or higher spirits.

Doreen Virtue is also a believer in communicating with the dead being a healing process.
This is presumably meant in the literal sense of communicating with the spirit world of
dead souls of our relatives - and not any other dead souls! Not everyone that communicates
with 'angels' for healing purposes is of course interested in spiritualism or communicating
with the dead and the past, as discussed above, as one's mind should be on the future, even
if one may try to convince oneself that talking to the dead is not dwelling on the past in
astral terms, even if it is allegedly for brief periods. Just look at Spiritualist churches, that
are full of people who can't let go of the past and addicted to their own and other's
communication with 'the dead'. I have experience of this with some of my extended family,
one of whom became obsessed with communicating with a dead sister - this was clearly not
healing or positive in any way! In fact it totally freaked her out as she felt she opened a 'can
of worms'.

Doreen Virtue presumably did not intend 'communicating with the dead' to mean in the
psychological sense of accessing parts of one's neglected psyche, restoring perspective, and
thinking of the fond memories or actual personality or Will of the relative(s) that we have
lost, in order to rebalance our negative associations with their passing or depressed or sad
feeling connected with them - turning the glass empty into a glass full as it were. A form of
indirect reprogramming or NLP.

Of course, occultists argue the exact opposite! That the Astral Realm (e.g. Akashic record,
deities, sub-deities, entities or perhaps even spirits) is an area for exploration, and that it is
essential for personal growth and development (of the ego?), i.e. individuation, and may
even represent elements of our shadow or subconscious in some sense, literally or
metaphorically. That exploring the 'dark' is essential to rekindling the 'light' and to know
the self.

Occultists often argue that there is no difference between 'using' and 'abusing' one's gifts, as
it is all using in some form, and that this is a dualistic way of looking at one's innate
abilities. This is perhaps an excuse to instill the ego into all one's endeavours and conscious
experience, to give it free reign and full control over one's consciousness (to be held
'captive'?) Regardless of whether this is true or not, everyone can agree that personal
liberation is the main goal and that holding yourself captive in any sense is not a good
thing. The exact 'fine print' however is where the major sticking point is. The truth never
changes, but the perception can. What you believe today will shape who you are tomorrow.

You are the master of your own destiny, and you may choose to raise your level of
vibration continuously or get 'trapped' somewhere, and it is for the individual to figure out
and find out! At his benefit or cost. Most people have to learn by direct experience and
from their own mistakes and so be it! Occultists may associate the Astral Plane as being
'dark' as in the unknown, and to thrust oneself into the unknown of one's psyche, stepping
outside one's psychological comfort zone, or those areas that are 'morally uncomfortable'
and exploring their meaning for you; as well exploring the Astral Realm and
communicating with deities, sub-deities and demons or spirits; and embodying/evoking
their archetypes; is to grow as a person and to gain self-knowledge and the ability to focus
the mind. Occultists therefore do not regard any aspect of astral exploration to be a bad
thing, as long as it is performed with strong intention (to match the strong Will and
intention of the spirit they are invoking) and with self-protection, and with a given purpose
or archetype in mind. Psychological exploration is regarded as of equal value to astral
 'exploration' and some may regard them as the same thing, in all extremes. Some of these
definitions of 'dark' are clearly not confined to the occult but are used by those interested in
personal development in general (the former defintions of course!)

Shadow People are phenomena that may be perceived during periods of deja vu. He cites
possible explanations, including alien, dimensional seepage, inter-dimensional beings, time
travellers or echos of the self etc. He cites specific reasons why they are not likely to simply
be 'ghosts' or spirits, that tend to be place specific and be on a replay of the past, and who
like to be acknowledged. Shadow People, according to O'Toole, are the opposite, as they
are not tied to a location, and seem to disappear when they are sensed or perceived by the
observer, during deja vu.

They do not want to be acknowledged it seems. Perhaps they are a parapsychological

phenomenon, a hallucination. O'Toole discusses the Lovecraft horror notion of the
Necromonicon, and the concept of opening a door to the astral or to other dimensions
which cannot be closed. He likens this to certain practices of Chaos Magic, which he
believes may similarly not close the door properly. This leads us on to another area, namely
that of balance in perception and leaving inter-dimensional or astral doors 'open' (if you
believe in such phenomena).

Some view that increased sensitivity to psychic phenomena is a good thing, but that too
much can be a bad thing. It is generally not something you can switch on and off whenever
you are in the mood, but can alter one's life in significant ways, some say. How does one
know when one has the right balance? How does one know when one has gone too far and
gotten too close to the 'flame'? If one's reference points for normality have long since
disappeared? At what point is one's life enhanced and at what point has it turned into a low
budget horror movie, that goes on for 30 years? Whilst I keep on open mind on most topics,
I regards many occultists as being excessively paranoid and superstitious, in the spiritual
sense, gratuitously so. Is this really helpful and enhancing one's life? The balance is in his
opinion not there to be seen. Have such individuals become too 'experience greedy' and had
their perceptions and undisciplined minds 'warped', their sense of logic and science led
them to attach unwarranted meanings to situations? Or seeking out unpleasant situations for
the sake of it, in some 'macho' quest for individuation and to punish the self in the astral
sense in the name of 'exploration', often having the complete opposite effect, or weakening
the self and blurring one's focus than sharpening it. By distracting one away from the
physical realm with esoteric and phantasmic obsessions, and missing all the 'light' and joy
that is all around them?

Interaction with phenomena one has no control over, i.e. not part of a rite, but more 'ghost
hunting' or other type of hunting, one is in unknown and dangerous territory, where no
precedent exists, and the usual luxuries or protections may not work. In what sense is this
still individuation? If by becoming more psychically sensitive one is more aware of such
deja vu episodes, is this really something that is enriching to one's life? Is it anything other
 than one big distraction.

Reptilians are a well known phenomenon on the internet amongst conspiracy theorists.
They are generally spoken of in the same context as the 'Illuminati'. Those who believe in
'reptilians' generally fall into two camps. Those who literally believe that physical reptile-
looking humanoids are alien visitors from another solar system, who evolved from 4 legged
reptiles on other worlds, who are in secret behind the various major institutions of the world
today. This is hard to take seriously. The other camp believes that reptilians are actually
inter-dimensional entities or spirits (perhaps even from a multiverse type scenario) that are
able to cross over to this dimension and influence it, mainly in the form of possession.
Some people have reported seeing close relatives features physically change up to hours
before some aberrant malicious behaviour (or 'feeding' on the fear of others), such as
domestic or child abuse. The interpretation here is that such entities are possessing or
latching onto people, influencing them to do evil deeds. In one instance, the person in
question, who was deemed to be possessed by her daughter, was seen by a Christian lady to
have a 'evil spirit' depart from the body at death. Whether this was the actual spirit of the
person or an 'evil spirit' who is to say, if it can be interpreted literally.

Those who have 'seen' reptilians also often report having seen many other entities or spirits,
not all benevolent ones. These are generally not feared by occultists as they are much less
powerful than a human being, gaining their power from fear alone, and can be commanded
to leave if one is not oneself fearful. However, some occultists who focus solely on 'white
magic' or 'healing' may be scared of such phenomena, perhaps as it relates uncomfortably
with the Jungian Shadow. Many such cases are experienced before the person has read
conspiracy theories on reptilians. One alternative perspective of such 'reptilian
transformation' is that it is a visual psychological metaphor or representation of negative
beliefs, self-hatred, or the expression of hatred or malevolence in general. For example,
some people are able to 'see' a person's negative mindset or beliefs just by looking at them.
Part of this is body language, but it can also be sensed or seen in the eyes. Thus the
'transformation' may be a metaphoric one.

Religious conversion and spirits in general may be such a representation, with the
banishing of long term addictive negative beliefs being felt as a demon being exercised. To
what extent the reptilian is a representation of the negative image of the snake that has
penetrated the consciousness of modern man through many centuries of Christian-inspired
anti-pagan propaganda.

In my opinion, these stories of blood lines are grossly exaggerated if not totally fabricated,
and are used to ascribe occult significance or to capture the imagination of 'conspirazoids'.
If there is some truth in these stories, it is often blow out of all proportion and that link
ascribed to 'all members' than than just 'a small handful of members'. The Snakoid/Reptilian
story for example could be interpreted as an attempt to discredit any research on
Freemasonry, Satanism or modern secret societies/clubs (as discussed elsewhere on this
page) so that they will not be taken seriously. Some argue that Reptilians are not aliens but
descendents of the dinosaurs, evolved into human-like, bipedal form, an evolution of a
species, that is seen to manifest itself physically as a 'reptilian'. I find this highly
implausible (and 'wacko' in his opinion) and believes that there is no hard evidence to
 suggest that this might be the case.

Aleister Crowley himself started off his occult career mainly involved in Hermeticism, in
the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. This is viewed by some as 'white magic' or
Theurgy. After leaving and publishing books on the secrets of the Golden Dawn, claiming
them to be his own work, much to their non-amusement, he went on to become involved in
Goetia, or demonology. If one follows the life of Crowley, one can see a distinct shift in his
personality, when he started to become more involved with Goetia, and he became much
more self-obsessed, obnoxious and nasty as a person. He always was slightly self-obsessed,
but it got much worse. His obsession with Goetia did him few favours, and some regard
him as having 'flown too close to the flame'.

For obvious reasons, those who are suffering from psychosis, schizophrenia or
hallucinations, occult practice is generally not recommended. If one is already hearing
voices, mostly garbage, then one cannot be objective in one's occult practice and
differentiate. Unfortunately, it is often such individuals with few psychological boundaries
who actually get involved in the occult and recreational drug abuse, and in some respects
become slightly more insane than they already were. Clearly RHP religions do not give
such warnings and one may argue are less 'hazardous'.
 Use of Inverted Biblical Imagery

The (modern Western occult) Left-Hand Path is characterised to some extent by its use of
reverse Biblical imagery or ironic use of Biblical imagery, concepts and sacraments for
psychodrama and for the purpose of deprogramming. LaVey Satanism, for example, uses
the Black Mass, inverted pentagrams and references to dark 'Gods' (despite claiming to be
atheistic). Gerald Gardner, the 'father of modern witchcraft' and fore-father of modern
Wicca, created rituals including the reciting of the Lord's Prayer backwards.

These activities are said to be useful to 'flush out' any psychological resistance to using the
'dark' antithesis of the Judeo-Christian paradigm and to 'deprogram' one's mind from Judeo-
Christian conditioning. Christians could equally view them as literal embodiments of the
worship of the deity Satan, which is where such activities gain much of their negative
publicity from - and it is hardly surprising. One could perhaps argue the gratuitous use of
Biblical terminology and so on is inconsistent also within the LHP, as sometimes it is used
as deprogramming, to negate these concepts, and at other times, literal Biblical references
are used, for humour or for artistic purposes, for example, referring to the goal of what one
wants as 'Hell' or referring to the concept of Lucifer (not seen as a deity by most modern
and gnostic Luciferians) as the Fallen Angel etc.

Is this a case of wanting to have one's cake and eat it? It could be that some occult groups
secretly enjoy the negative attention they receive, and enjoy offending those of a sensitive
religious disposition with their use of terminology and 'psychodrama'; but that they also
define themselves in anti-Christian terms, which ties them to a particular ethnographic
segment of the world's population, and whilst they believe they are changing the definitions
of the terms for their own use, they may also be influenced by the Biblical connotations of
the terms themselves (if they are not fully 'deprogrammed').

This can be evidenced in the process of Christianisation that took place in early
Christendom. The then Catholic Church sought to integrate pagan festivals and practices in
 order to quickly convert mass populations to Christianity, changing the meanings of the
festivals and practices from pagan to Christian. However, this has only served to dilute and
confuse Christianity in general, and has rendered Christianity into a 'circus' with little
credibility in this day and age amongst many populations - particularly with the
capitalist/consumer influence on these 'Christian' festivals.

Their pagan meanings and origins are still very clear and affect people's perception of the
religion. Thus it may well also be with the use of 'Christian' terminology in modern occult
traditions. In either case, at one time or other, religious terms have all been made up, and
vary from culture to culture in any case, so to stick with one culture's and religion's terms is
hardly very imaginative - indeed, if the terms/concepts are made up/created by man at some
point in the past, why not create and use new terms now? Why refer to demons as demons
if they are strictly speaking just 'elements' or 'entities'. Why not create a new term. If a term
no longer has any meaning, or has the wrong meaning, or is irrelevant to one's occult
system, why use it? Why pick on Christianity? There are many other sources of negative
conditioning in the our modern lives, and many concepts that are not important or relevant
here, so why not use those instead.

Some argue that the above approach to 'deprogramming' is LHP, as a form of 'immersion',
whereas simply avoiding Judeo-Christian concepts, is a form of 'abstinence' which may be
simply avoiding the residual conditioning in an individual. It could be however argued that
in our modern 21st Century society, traditional Judeo-Christian concepts hold less of a hold
over the majority of the population in western industrialised nations than they used to
(particularly for the current generations vs the baby boomer generation who were more
conditioned with traditional Christian values), and so the use of such reverse Biblical
psychodrama and 'deprogramming' is perhaps less important than it used to be - it may well
disappear from the LHP in the future. It would be interesting to see if LHP orders spread to
non-Christian countries or if they are appropriated in a different manner, reflecting
adversarial and inverted behaviour towards the incumbent religions rather than the
Western-centric anti-Christian forms we see today. Are those LHP orders that use inverted
Biblical imagery defining themselves perpetually in terms of what they don't want and are
tied to the very things that they reject.

However, this isn't to say that people aren't more brainwashed nowadays by hyper-
consumerism and that they don't negatively condition their own minds on account of
failures or negative suggestions by others during their childhood, and in dire need of going
through their negative beliefs and associations and purging their mind of them and
replacing them with empowering beliefs. However it could be argued that anti-Biblical
metaphors and concepts are not so useful here, but perhaps other metaphors or techniques
are required. This is what the Psychology section of this web site is all about.

Separate from the issue of deliberate psychodrama and deprogramming is the way in which
certain concepts use terminology common to Christianity and indeed other religions and
traditions. For example, the term demon conjures up a negative connotation in most
people's minds, probably largely in part on account of the horror film industry, ancient
story telling and historical and present literature. These images of monsters and demons are
ingrained in our consciousness. Occultists may also use the term demon or daemon, but it is
 used in a different sense, or rather, the meaning is changed, different - or perhaps the
individual has merely changed and does not evoke in himself these Christian type
connotations when thinking of the term 'demon'.

To an demonologist, a demon is not an evil force attempting to steal one's soul or cause
pain and suffering, but a powerful archetype or spirit that one can use or communicate with
from within the protection of a Golden Dawn pentagram or other Goetia protection means.
Demon in the occultic sense then could refer to chaotic, 'dark' or malevolent deities, sub-
deities or other entities or spirits. Equally it could refer to sub-deities like Crowley's
Guardian Angels. Are we however being tied to ingrained monster imagery that cannot
really be shifted from our sub-conscious? Or are these useful and visually entertaining /
gratuituously morbid metaphors for the 'darker' parts of our subconscious?

Anton LaVey states in the Satanic Bible that he did not choose the term Satanism, but
rather Christians has previously chosen it to represent the path adversarial to Christianity,
the traditional 'Right-Hand Path'. The antithesis to this Christian view, represented in
Christian cosmology by Satan, is that of free will and not obeying God. As discussed
above, this use of a Christian concept or reverse Christian paradigm to define free will is
very much an inverted or adversarial position by definition. Although LaVey Satanism
claims not to believe in a God, it is defining itself in opposition to a Christian concept. So
whilst Satanism is not an embodiment of the Biblical Satan, and a literal belief in the
Biblical Satan (that which wishes to destroy mankind), it is a belief in the Biblical
antithesis. This is perhaps where much unnecessary confusion results, and perhaps explains
the ethno-bias towards Christianity as opposed to other religions, and the gratuitous use of
knee jerk opposition and 'Psychodrama', of defining itself in terms of opposition to
something else, rather than just free will and something new in its own right and non-
dependent on Christianity.

This is also perhaps where Luciferianism goes wrong, as it is defining itself often in reverse
Biblical terms or adversarial terms, and indeed Gnostic Luciferianism, which depending on
interpretation uses the dualistic Gnostic cosmology of Jehoviah bad - Monad good. The
association and definition of the path in terms of Left-Hand Path sets itself up to be in
opposition to the Right-Hand Path by its definition, rather than just existing as an
expression of the self in its own right.

Many LHP practitioners believe that one should not just 'shut away' one's Judeo-Christian
conditioning and ignore, but to deal with it and to let it go. This is the same argument used
by those with the 'opposite' viewpoint, it is just that the method of 'dealing with it' is
different. For LHP practitioners, this is the use of inverted Christian imagery and
psychodrama. For others it may simply be identifiying the core negative or disempowering
beliefs, and reducing their power through questioning their referencing 'props' or
references, and placing empowering beliefs in their place. The latter approach would not
advocate repeating the memory or idea of the negative belief, as whatever you focus on,
you ingrain into your subconscious and it becomes a habit or reinforced. That is not to say
that psychological approaches do not change the meaning of past painful memories, as they
 indeed do so in order to take their power away - the power/significance is removed,
rendering the past memory meaningless, or having little interest or significance ('so what?'),
and can be forgotten about rather than obsessed about and regularly focussed on. It is
possible using NLP to attempt to undo one's fear of rejection but attempting to change the
literal meaning of rejection to something positive, like pleasure, by regularly repeating the
term rejection in conjunction with pleasure (ad infinitum), so it comes to mean pleasure.
However, no one would do this as the original meaning of the word would be hard if not
impossible to shake, few outsiders would understand the new term, and just by changing
the meaning of the term or attempting to do so, does not necessarily mean that one has lost
one's fear of rejection as a concept and experience. Inverted symoblism is however not just
of one type in Satanism for example, but there are numerous applications.

There is name 'Satan'. If you read enough about Satanism, then the term Satan in a Biblical
or general conversational context does not perhaps hold such an emotional charge or neuro-
associative connection. However, this is no reason to name one's philoosphy after 'Satan'.
To merely study Judaism and the Old Testament and to realise that Satan here is not the
'devil' is sufficient and more educational. Naming a philosophy after Satan merely changes
the association, so rather than think of a New Testament figure that holds little power over
us, we associate it with a gratuitously 'dark' and knee jerk philosophy that attracts many
'goths' and which has some redeeming features. Is this useful? Is holding a Black Mass
really necessary? It was originally a joke of debatable humour but is it still funny or a
necessary psychological tool after the 'n'th time?

NLP uses some similar principles to the occult, and is a form of magic in a sense, but no
NLP or NAC practitioner uses a painful/disempowering connotation with a word or
concept, and uses the same concept but with a different meaning, repeated ad infinitum
throughout one's life, as a method of deprogramming - and there is probably a very good
reason why not - as highlighted above.

It should be noted that Aleister Crowley's Thelema philosophy/religion is a precursor to

modern LHP groups and practices, yet it did not recognise Satan as a deity or archetype
(and neither did Albert Pike) nor tend towards inverted Biblical practices to 'deprogram'
members, but members of his occult organisations simply practised the ceremonial aspects
of the Thelemic occult philosophy, and through magical practice, and communication with
one's Guardian Angel, one could grow spiritually and psychologically. No requirement for
Black Mass or use of the terms '666' was deemed necessary (although he perhaps did
ascribe '666' as referring to himself), and if anything, Christian indoctrination was much
more severe at the time. So is the use of inverted pentagrams and '666' really necessary in
modern LHP groups? It is highly debatable.

The South Park Season 11 'Cartman sucks' episode springs to mind. Cartman was playing a
series of practical jokes on Butters, an innocent and gullible boy (much like the young me!)
On one occasion, when Butters was sleeping over at Cartman's house, Cartman
photographed himself putting Butter's 'wiener' into his mouth when Butters was asleep.
Cartman showed the photo to all his friends (horror). When they told him that it wasn't so
much Cartman making Butters look gay, but Cartman being 'gay', Cartman was flustered
and wondered how he could reverse it! Kyle told him that he could 'undo the gayness' and
'reverse it' by putting his 'wiener' into Butters mouth. Cartman believed him and attempted
to do this whilst Butters was blind folded. Anyway, one could perhaps compare the use of
antithetical Bibical imagery and terminology to 'deprogram' one's mind to putting one's
'wiener' into a man's mouth to 'undo' one's 'gay' conditioning! And even repeatedly putting
one's 'wiener' into a mans' mouth to ensure one remains fully purged of one's
'homosexuality'.

By seeking to oppose something, one often just makes it stronger or gives it more
significance, not less. Simply ignoring or valuing something else would diminish its power.
If you believe in the 'Law of Attraction', then opposing Christianity only fixates and
focusses your mind on Christianity. e.g. 'I hate rainy days' vs 'I love sunny days'. Try saying
each statement. What do you think of each time? Which makes you feel bad and which
makes you feel good? Adopting a reactionary stance in all things and conforming to certain
aesthetics and modalities means that one is in effect just as fetishistic as those in the RHP,
perhaps more so.

This is the ultimate irony and what we are left with now is not often freedom of thought at
all but another, slightly niche way of being predictable and enslaved. Many LHP
practitioners become bad stereotypes. It is often said by those experienced on spiritual paths
that repulsion towards anything (be it Christianity etc.) or creation or manifestation (as in
the Gnostic interpretation) is a preoccupation with material existence and the ego, and
experiencing repulsion about certain things or concepts is a major impediment to true self-
actualisation and spiritual evolution or self-mastery (or enlightenment whatever your goal
is). To feel repulsion is an archonic addiction. To calmly analyse something in a detached
manner is a sign of higher mental progression than a knee jerk reaction or ego trip (wanting
subconsciously to be offended so one can enjoy a shadow projection temporarily).

If LHP philosophies did not use any reference to an 'adversarial' nature or to be the
'opposite' of anything, then it might encourage 'freer' thinking, less focus and fetishisation
of the 'dark', and be less restrictive. As soon as you start to define yourself as opposed to
something, you define yourself by others terms and focus on what you don't want. As with
many things in life, contradiction and paradox, and the unification of conceptions is quite
commonplace and reflects the reality of physics in many areas, so adopting one side of a
dualistic pendulum is perhaps unwise or not reflective of objective reality, and is not a path
towards non-dualistic totality and a tolerant and open society.

Perhaps the ultimate irony is that by being fixated on 'deprogramming' Judao-Christian

conditioning by arguably childish inverted practices, and adopting hedonism, often at the
expense of one's health, it overlooks the ultimate act of Satanic defiance, which is the
empowerment on the lowest, most basic level - that of creating a physical body that is as
powerful and energetic as possible, able to best live out a life to the full; and the act of
cleansing the body of toxins accumulated by that dogmatic society and its food, agriculture
and pharmaceutical industries - detoxifying the body - is the ultimate act of defiance against
such a society and its physical dogma against the Self. As described in the health section of
this web site. Yet few Satanists embrace this philosophy to the full. Irony indeed.
 Astral Vampirism

Astral Vampirism is different from the term 'Psychic Vampirism' which is a term used by
LaVey to describe emotionally draining people. Some do however use the term 'Psychic
Vampirism' to actually describe Astral Vampirism. Astral Vampirism is sucking 'energy'
from other people, like the opposite of Medical Qi Gong which is the act of putting one's
own Qi or life force directly into a person without simply using needles as acupuncturists
do to save their own energy. Astral Vampirism is a practice employed by numerous LHP
practitioners, mainly those who are chiefly interested in Black Magic, including many of
the more militaristic or predatory LHP orders, whether Satanist or Luciferian. It is
presumably the Qi one is therefore stealing from others and hopefully not their Jing. Rather
than build up one's own Qi using Qi Gong exercises, Chinese Herbs etc., practitioners
prefer to steal from others (if you believe this is possible), much like a mugger steals a
handbag from an old lady or a stranger might steal candy from a baby, some might suggest.

Astral Vampirism, practised by 'Vampires' or 'Vampyres' is different from the gothic

subculture in the fetish scene where adherents, calling themselves Vampires, sharpen their
canine teeth and bite each other a little during sex and lick up the blood.

It could be that some LHP practitioners who practise Astral Vampirism, are also trained in
internal martial arts, and may also practice Yoga, meditation and/or similar, and may
practice all of these. One would expect the energy thirst should be quenched with Qi
building and healing techinques alone, but the desire for Vampirism for its own sake may
be part of exploring one's own sinister nature and expressing oneself. I am unsure exactly.
One might argue that becoming accomplished at such activities might come in useful one
day (in an extreme situation, e.g. hostage situation where one could put one's captors to
sleep from a distance etc.) and too much knowledge is never a bad thing.

Contrary to the Darwinian bravado of many Satanists, some practitioners of psychic

vampirism admit to being weak and needing to 'feed' regularly in order to feel well, which
is rather 'non-Satanic', even if the actual act is (depending on if the intended victim
'deserves it' or not). This might suggest that practitioners own bodies perhaps become lazy
in producing their own Qi if they are reliant on external sources, creating a type of
addiction pattern.

Ford states in his book, The Vampyire Gate - The Vampyre Magickian, that one should not
harm the other person but merely steal a little energy, so as not to make them too ill (maybe
this is evidence of LaVey style morality or is perhaps a disclaimer and P.R. exercise).
When picking a victim, it is clearly relevant the exact state of the person's energetic health
as to what effect stealing a little Qi from them might have, as it may prevent long term
physical health or recovery that cannot be easily perceived by the Astral Vampire. Clearly
some people can afford to 'spunk off' a little Qi here and there and others cannot. Those
with very low Qi may well be having their Jing depleted. A discussion of Qi, Jing and Sex
can be found in the Health section on the Energetic Therapies and Deficiencies page. I am
unsure of the extent to which practitioners assess their 'victim' and the effect it might have.
I doubt there is a comprehensive screening process however!

A friend of mine who has practised Astral Vampirism reports that it can become a
paranoia-inducing experience, as fellow order members may worry about others preying on
them. There is a code amongst some, that they will not prey on each other as it is more
aggravation that it is worth. Vampirism is reported to be highly addictive by my friend and
his friends, which is arguably also a negative. Some vampires wear sunglasses so that they
are not detected whilst staring at their victims during the several minutes of the operation.
This should not be confused with goths or emos who like to wear shades because they are
posers or have low self esteem. Theistic Satanism does not always have the same
limitations as LaVey Satanism, which has more moral restrictions, despite claiming to be
amoral. Psychic Vampirism is an activity described by Ford in various books of his own
magic and compilations of magick from groups such as Order of Nine Angles and the
Werewolf Order

It should be noted that not all Luciferians who are interested in Black Magic practice Astral
Vampirism and some just stick with Goetia (summoning of demons), which is not deemed
to be malevolent or predatory in the same sense as astral vampirism.
 Chaos, Destruction, Malice, the
'Anti-Cosmic' current and the
'Natural Order'

I have noticed that there is a heavy bias towards 'destruction' amongst many Satanists,
Gnostic Luciferians, dark occultists and followers of the Left-Hand Path. This is no doubt a
metaphor that is popular amongst those that favour Chaos and/or Chaos Magic, and also
those of a somewhat nihilistic philosophical disposition. Destruction can be taken as a
metaphor for deprogramming, but the metaphor seems to be stretched somewhat and taken
completely out of context in other occasions.

Destruction (of oneself, of others, of one's environment, of the 'universe' even) could be
considered a lower form of self-actualisation, more in keeping with the more anti-social
aspects of Satanism, or indeed a perversion of modern Satanism. Perhaps it is a
combination of Gnostic views of material existence being 'bad' combined with a
gothic/nihilistic outlook, and a love affair with the idea of being 'evil', 'the ultimate in
adversarialism' or 'bad ass'. Satanism is supposed to be about rationalism after all, and an
addiction to destruction is clearly against rationalism and the idea within Satanism not to
impose on others. Perhaps it is a reflection of (teenage-style) knee-jerk rebellion without
the self-confidence or self-knowledge to do something creative or positive; perhaps it is an
interpretation of the negative view of Gnosticism that physical existence is bad/wrong/evil.
Talk of destruction, whether for its own sake, or under the pretext of allowing creation to
take place afterwards, is a 'cool' thing to be associated with in certain circles, and there is an
unhealthy obsession with this within some parts of the certain LHP groups in general. It
seems to me a low-level way of appeasing the ego.

Perhaps what is said (posturing or over-rationalisation/idealisation) is not necessarily the

same as what is actually believed. Sometimes we dwell on one aspect of our character
without discussing or acknowledging the other aspects to such a degree. For some, it is
because the 'darker' and more 'destructive' is more attractive and adversarial. To others
however, it may be a philosophical standpoint, reflecting one side of the natural order (the
destructive side) and simply an acceleration of the process of extinction which most species
will face at one point or other, often brought about by changing environments, disease or
competition from other species. This type of 'helping nature along' is the same logic used
by Eugenicists and those who have conducted ethnic cleansing programmes.

The ultimate belief in destruction and misanthropism to bring about the early end to
existence and the end of the human race / existence, and perhaps even the universe (the
latter being a clearly unattainable fantasy or metaphor) is not representative of the LHP,
even though some adherents of the LHP may adopt some of these views to varying degrees.
Some particularly dark Gnostic Luciferians, who are realy Gnostic Satanists of some
description, perhaps ascribe more to this type of view that many others, although it is more
coming from an anti-Demiurgic and hatred at/sulking about creation perspective, where
'LHP black magic' is seen as a form of rebellion and 'fight' against Demiurge (perhaps
ironiconally embodying the qualities of Demiurge!) Is this fighting fire with fire? Or
merely misguided machoism

Destruction then is perhaps viewed as form of 'anti-humanism' or a representation of 'evil'.

It is perhaps thought to be a reflection of the natural order, a stance of malice towards
others and embodying chaos and the natural processes of destruction in the universe and
animal kingdom; but then Satanism (and its claimed representation of a 'superstitious'
humanism) also claims to represent the 'natural order'.

One has to define what really is the natural order, whether one is talking about the chaotic
but to some extent predictable processes of the universe, where there is some semblance of
order on a high level, in pockets, and chaos on a low level. Then one should consider the
earth, where all members of occult groups spend their physical time! Here we have 'chaotic'
physical processes, but are fine tuned at this part of the planet's evolution to provide 'self-
leveling and 'self-cleaning' processes which life can thrive in, interspersed with the odd
destructive weather pattern and seismic event etc.

Then one has the 'natural order' of the animal kingdom, where destruction of others or
fighting is part of the need to feed (amongst carnivores), to maintain position within a
group, and to defend oneself from predators or rivals. Destruction is not a 'philosophy' but
usually a minimalist activity. There are exceptions, e.g. cats killing for fun, dolphins in
gangs attacking other gangs, etc. There are moments/times of altruism towards others, e.g.
kinship altruism in animals and humans e.g. raising a litter, dolphins protecting humans
from shark attacks. Altruism is examined below.
 There is perhaps too much gratuitous revulsion or opposition in the anti-cosmic gnostic or
Satanist communities, and in a sense the whole focus is a case of 'cutting off one's nose to
spite the face'. Perhaps it is akin to a childish denial or temper tantrum, of not getting
everything one's own way, some commentators might argue. Consciousness is tangential to
nature, and we are perhaps only an imitation of it in this place of existence.

Sometimes we have to lose something to appreciate it. We may lose our sense of
perspective if we have abundance regularly, unless we really draw our focus to what we
appreciate in our lives. It is easy to become borgeois and ungrateful, and not enjoy your lot,
if your mind becomes too familiar. Joy comes from viewing everything through new eyes
each day. In some sense, if we damage or destroy something we love, we may only then
come to really appreciate what it was. This may apply to a car wreck or through having a
partner leave you, rather than literally destroying someone!

However, as Nietzsche wrote, man is the cruelist animal. To nurture destruction and malice
as a state of natural being at the expense of other states is in my opinion fundamentally
'human' in its bias and has little basis in fact in the animal kingdom. The animal kingdom
reflects survival of the fittest, but there is altruism in small pockets, and most the time
animals spend in a state of 'no mind' in the Taoist sense, acting instinctually. No animals
wish for the destruction of others, excessive revenge, nor do they wish for their own
destruction, nor the destruction of their species, because of a disregard of wider society and
humanity as a whole.

Perhaps 'evil' or 'cruelty' is a human construct, as being the 'opposite' of 'good' and
'decency', but this construct does not exist in nature (non-human animal environments). In
nature, there are acts of killing, torture as well as acts of altruism, and indeed much time
spend in between in a state of nothing. Judgements are made by humans, who try to split
good and bad into categories and stigmatise them. However, in modern societies, 'natural'
laws or patterns may have rather serious consequences, and this is something Darwin was
very keen to avoid, as he knew he would be opening a can of worms.

If you try to civilise society, how does one deal with chaos, lawlessness, rebellion, war,
killing and murder. If society is to have any structure and interdependency, then there must
be some common understanding and code of morality on some level. Lascivious
destruction is very much a borgeois human construct, one that one can afford to have when
one is safe, comfortable and bored, unappreciative of one's lot!

One may argue of course that anything an animal does or a group of animals is observed to
do on a large scale is 'natural', without human interference, as are phases of 'equilibrium'.
However, equilibrium is just a conflict of opposites or conflicting positions, or competition,
where no observable short term swing is observed. An equilibrium in chemical terms may
indeed occur, when two solutions mix and react, depending on temperature and pressure
etc. But in the natural world, an equilibrium is a transient concept, and change inevitably
 results. Species evolve or die out. It could be argued that anything humans do is also
'natural' as it is merely a reflection of what humans are able to do. The classification of
what is natural and what isn't is difficult, as virtually everything on the planet is human-
managed to some degree, even the 'natural environment', e.g. grasslands, artificial lakes and
channels, coastlines etc. On a physical level, one might argue that certain types of diet are
not natural, as the body is not designed for them, taking in account large population
numbers and health statistics, but this is perhaps still for some a matter of debate.

It could be argued that pure evil or a strong predisposition towards evil or is as unnatural in
the animal kingdom as pure good is. Such polarised concepts are not really applicable to the
animal kingdom and are not natural.

Those who claim to embody this form of 'destructionism' may be over-philosophising or

'wishful thinking' as they do not appear to embody the whole of this philsophy in their day
to day experience. Or those that do, in a controlled manner, are perhaps reflecting the kind
of Satanism that most people detest, and which gives other Satanists a bad name, i.e. those
Satanists that are cruel to others just for fun. This is perhaps the stereotypical Christian
view of Satanism. At what point does 'destruction', 'malice' and 'evil' become a rule? And
thus not a reflection of freewill anymore.

Perhaps this whole way of thinking reflects a fundamental distaste for life or deep rooted
nihilism. Nihilism usually results in hedonism or suicide, but excessive cruelty towards
others perhaps goes beyond this and provides a purpose, where nihilism has no purpose,
and does not usually result in such behaviour. Self-destruction may be viewed as a 'phase'
for growth, but willful self-destruction, e.g. drug abuse, abusive diets, thinking or lifestyles,
may simply be a reflection of ignorance or low-self esteem. The chaos of life throws up
many opportunities for growth, pain and challenges to overcome.

To purposefully seek one's own destruction may be seen as foolish or borgeois, and typical
of a 'human', as opposed to an animal that does all it can to survive. It is important to
understand the difference between distaste for society, distaste for one's own life, and
distaste for the universe. If one has never been off planet Earth, how can one take such a
pessimistic view of the Universe? One could argue that one's expression of distaste should
result in action directed at the cause rather than in all directions, e.g. don't kick your dog
just because you can't stand up to your colleague at work.

One wonders what influence the Biblical themes of Armageddon and the Final Judgement
have in influencing this vision of destruction. And perhaps in formulating the antithetical
terms (e.g. malice, evil) used to describe the concept (if not the philosophy behind it), of
Good and Evil, the stereotypes of Jesus and the Devil? The themes of destructive or dark
magic are not uncommon in the Left-Hand Path, and in particular Satanism and Gnostic
Luciferianism.

Some state that very few if any occult groups or political organisations have really
embodied 'destructionism' or misanthropy towards (and the desire to destroy) the whole of
the human race, including themselves. 'Darkness' usually only takes the form of tendencies
to be a little antisocial, selfish or morbid/gothic in those that claim to embody it.
 However, if one examines the propensity to destroy the self, then there are countless
examples of occult groups, political organisations/movements/governments and also
lifestyle choices that seek to destroy the self, sometimes a little at a time, and in other
instances in the space of months or a few years - through horrifically self-abusive lifestyles,
poisoning the body or disfiguring it - all for the titillation of the ego as it finds simply being
alive in the natural state 'boring'. Such practices can include heavy drinking and drug use. It
smells of desperation and low self-esteem, intoxication and self-mutilation being an attempt
to feel significant or close to oneself and others. On the other hand, one has cult groups that
commit ritual suicide, for example, certain cultish 'Christian' groups whose leaders
predicted armageddon, and when their prophecies failed to materialise, felt they had
nowhere to go, and in order to feel congruent and because of psychological deficiencies,
they pressured all their followers, often living in isolated communities, to all commit
suicide together.

When it comes to the desire to destroy others, then one need only look to certain violent
criminals, violent gang members, serial killers, certain soldiers with bloodlust towards a
specific ethnic group or population, suicide bombers or indeed famous dictators and
despots. The remit of their wanton desire for destruction may not include the whole of the
human race, but specific sub-groups of a population or other populations. Hitler it could be
argued, was one of the few leaders in modern times to come close to this model of wanton
destruction.

With the pretence of wanting to 'unite the Germanic people', he enslaved the Jews into
forced labour camps and concentration camps for extermination, sought to invade as much
of the world as possible, and destroying all opposing forces. The 'patriot' Hitler, towards the
end of WWII, when the allies were invading Germany, he bombed his own people and
country's infrastructure, and sacrificed loyal, elite SS divisions on pointless suicide
missions, as he felt 'he' had nothing to lose (and he felt he may as well use up all the lives
of his soldiers), with no regard of what was best for his country after he was gone (or whilst
he was alive arguably). There are numerous examples of atrocities in Southern Europe and
Central Africa in the last 20 years, and various imperialist wars that have inflicted large
numbers of casualties. Is destructionism really just a rare myth? Or a political and social
reality? How far must one go in order to embody the philosophy in its 'purity'?

Satanism, in the LHP sense, is not really about destruction at all, but more hedonism, as the
ultimate meaning of life - which many occultists find a little crude and distasteful, even
though they recognise the importance of hedonism. This is really just a regurgitation of
Thelema philosophy. Satanism and other LHPs like to flirt with 'demonic' imagery but they
are really just an occultic form of humanism. Arguably, Christianity, the alleged polar
opposite is also about humanism on one level. So both LHPs and RHPs are really both
concerned with life, using different approaches, rather than the LHP actually being about
anti-humanism per se. None of these philosophies, in their theoretical sense are really 'evil'
in the misanthropic sense. Of course, there are Christian offshoots and cults as well as LHP
offshoots that are misanthropic in various ways.
Some Satanists or those who call themselves Satanists do embody certain misanthropic and
Biblical style 'demonic' characteristics (especially those that fantasise about Hitler), perhaps
as an insecure, macho statement and expression of underlying grief or self-hatred.

Conceptual Issues of the

LHP and RHP

Some may argue that the modern usage of the term Left-Hand Path has little in common
with Vamachara in the Tantric tradition, just as the modern view of the Right-Hand Path
(e.g. Christianity) has little in common with Dakshinachara. Whilst the concept of the two
paths (LH and RH) was clearly inspired Indian Tantra, whether it was ever literally meant
to describe them is another matter. It is clear that the concept of Left-Hand Path has
evolved somewhat since then, taking a big leap from Blavatsky to Crowley, and against
from Crowley to modern Satanism and related traditions/groups. The concept of the two
paths were originally representing related but different traditions within the same 'religion',
whereas the modern usage is dualistic, dichotomistic and setting the paths in opposition to /
against each other. The Tantric Vamachara was never 'in opposition' to anything. Indeed,
the spirit and discipline of Vamachara is distinctly at odds with the modern, self-deification
and self-serving nature of the LHP.

Regardless, we are here mainly concerned with the modern application and usage of these
terms. Some may see a 'wiser' route in the occult to represent elements of both of the
Tantric definitions, rather than a binary choice between modern definitions and a more
'conformist' approach. How useful are the modern applications of the terms and do they do
 more to lock people into fixed, dualistic and arbitrary modes of thinking that provide
genuine wisdom and a realistic description of religion?

One could argue that focussing and dwelling on oneself all the time is psychologically
unhealthy and is inevitably going to pander to the ego to some degree. Focussing on onself
alone may also result in an excessive tendency to rely on one's left brain thinking,
rationalising and controlling, rather than trusting and going with one's instincts. This of
couse does not necessarily have to be the case. Many Left-Handed Paths draw heavily on
Taoism and Buddhism. It is perhaps important to understand the relationship and also
difference between the Self and the Ego. One can consider the True Self or Will to be one's
core personality type, spirit or perception and consciousness of these things. It is often said
that by losing oneself and one's ego, one can find oneself. Perhaps the Left-Handed Paths
rely more on quieting the ego and losing the sense of self than they would like to admit.
Perhaps quietening the ego is seen as a path towards the Self, in the same way that
Buddhists view quietening the ego is a way to losing the self. Clearly some of the practices
of Taoism and Buddhism can be used for different purposes and with a slightly different
intention behind them. We are of course talking about principles and techniques rather than
necessarily belief systems in their entireties.

In the same way, the state of 'bliss' or that feeling of being 'high' that some Right-Hand Path
adherents experience could be considered to a sensory experience that is far superior and
pleasurable to just gratifying the senses, which may become staid and boring after a time.
In this sense, experiencing a spiritual state of bliss or enlightenment may be 'Left-Handed'.
It depends on whether you believe it comes to you from a divine source, an understanding
of divinity or Nirvana, and/or a relationship with God, or whether it comes to you from
self-discipline and you making the effort to feel good and to connect to this spiritual source,
energy and/or to maintain and be responsible for this relationship yourself. Depending on
how you look at it, it could be considered Left-Handed or Right-Handed. If the actual
reason why you are feeling good and enlightened or illuminated is just a concept, but the
net result is very similar, then are we splitting hairs over whether it is Left-Handed or
Right-Handed.

Clearly the ways of getting there may be radically different. But there are no doubt many
areas of overlap that people would not like to admit. Are enlightenment and illumination
completely different and diametrically opposed concepts in all cases? In many cases and
religious systems they are very similar if not identical.

Ironically, many Left-Handed groups draw on many concepts from Buddhism, Taoism,
Tantra and Hinduism as part of their practices, in particular meditation. Whilst these
religions and philosophies are often labelled as Right-Handed, they are highly heterogenous
in conceptual terms and contain elements that can be used by both Left-Handed and Right-
Handed philosophies and magical traditions. Some branches of these philosophies are
considered Right-Hand Paths, e.g. Philosophical Taoism, Mahayana and Vajrayana
Buddhism etc., whereas other branches of the same religions are considered Left-Hand
Paths, e.g. Alchemical Taoism, Vamachara etc. Does this mean that one can generalise
about these religions and philosophies and state they are all Right-Hand Paths? Clearly not.
Classification is not without its problems, and the convenient concept of
(Monotheism/Satanism) dichotomy is highly flawed.

LHP/RHP is perhaps a metaphor for chaos vs control; self-control vs outside control;

hedonism and self-gratification vs acetism and restraint; being a slave to ones desires vs
rising above one's desires; self-self-interest vs sacrifice and serving others; abundance vs
sacrifice; abundance through self-actualisation vs abundance through faith and non-
attachment. The definition of LHP and RHP leads to an inevitable perception of a
philosophical war and duality of philosophy, an appreciation of what lies in the middle.
Even those 'higher' LHP philosophies that believe they embrace some elements of
abstinence or Eastern Religions, still house themselves very firmly in the LHP camp, rather
than rising above the definitions of either LHP or RHP.

Does the 'dark' versus 'light' or 'light' versus 'dark' paradigm perpetuate the 'dark' forces in
our society and consciousness? Or is it a result of lower forms of self-actualisation of those
lacking in self-belief, confidence, self-honesty or self-knowledge? A representation of the
crudest expressions of lower consciousness in those that are unable to self-actualise and get
in touch with their higher levels of consciousness? If the followers of the RHP were more
prepared to acknowledge their fears and lower levels of consciousness, would they know
more inner peace rather than internal conflict of different levels of consciousness?

Would a shift away from instilling values of 'good' in the national consciousness, and an
acknowledgement of both sides of our nature and how they relate to society as a whole
result in less desire to self-actualise on a low level in response to this, and ultimately, less
'evil'? Or does 'evil' result from a lack of 'good', i.e. too little love, support and so on,
resulting in personal issues and a lack of proper and balanced personal growth? Do RHP
values fuel a desire to 'sin' or indulge the flesh and create conflict (or building up of
pressure in a blocked pipe that later on explodes spraying boiling water everywhere)? Does
'fighting evil' always result in ironically 'evil' actions? Not necessarily but it often can.

Would followers of the LHP feel a sense of fulfillment on a deep level if they did not deny
part of their higher consciousness and nature? Perhaps if people acknowledged the factors
resulting in the beliefs and actions of others and saw their position from the other party's
view, perhaps there would be less conflict and dualism, and less perception of a 'crusade on
evil' on both sides. An insistence on 'evil' is often associated with a concept of one's own
position being 'good' and perhaps a lack of willingness to objectively look at the facts and
case history and admit mistakes.

Some people believe that the Left-Hand Path offers the only true path to the true self and
against the conditioning of mainstream religion and society. However, it should be noted
that many occultists are simply representing their own conditioning or inverted response to
this and expressing this in their occult biases. For example, white magicians may simply be
expressing their Christian conditioning. Or 'black' magicians may simply be expressing
their child state from school where they were picked on and their retrospective desire to
'lash out against bullies'. One's occult world is often thus just a reflection of one's physical
world and one's conditioning therein, and often occultism does not really present anything
 different. It depends on how 'dark' one sees the dark elements, whether they are simply
neutral or actually 'dark' or 'malevolent' towards others. Dark can be seen as simply the
absence of light, and that the absence of good does not necessarily mean conscious
decisions towards malevolent action.

Occult groups seem to reflect the same hierarchies and character flaws present in wider
society also. There are some leaders, who creat their own magic, whilst most follow.
Hierarchies are used by some to massage the ego and to feel self-important. Many enjoy the
elitism. Much as people do in other clubs, societies and on the greasy pole of the corporate
ladder. If magical practice is so 'deprogramming and liberating', then why is this? Of course
everyone should tread their own path, and hierarchies may be functional rather than for
massaging the ego, but all self-development thought teaches us that we are all leaders or
rather, we follow our own path and own purpose. If this is so, then magical groups and their
philosophies don't seem to be cutting it in many instances, not liberating people from the
sheep mentality of wider society.

Some occultists and philosophers believe that the LHP is the panacea, the answer to all
their problems. Their current psychological problems they feel can be overcome but trying
to adhere more rigidly to the LHP and to follow it's practices to achieve one's Will.
However, as noted, the LHP may be somewhat narrow in its remit, and some practitioners
appear to be seeking to fulfil some of their unmet Human Needs including love and
connection. Softer emotions are often discouraged or ridiculed by peers who follow the
LHP, and I have observed some followers of the LHP who seem to be reaching out and
really want to share a close connection with others, and no doubt to be loved or feel loved.
They try to reach out but no one seems to be really listening or if they do communicate with
others on this path, there may be philosophical discussion and banter, but on an emotional
level there is often very little there - and certainly very little if any love. Such individuals
may be destined to remain depressed and unsatisfied if they insist on their social circles and
this rigid philosophy.

One could perhaps say in general that followers of the LHP dislike 'brotherly' or 'sisterly'
associations with their peers, as they find that such feels inspire weakness and assure one's
own demise on account of the flaws of others. This is not universally true, and depends on
which LHP group one is referring to, but it seems to be present to some extent in all groups.
Some embody this philosophy more than others of course.

Those that follow the LHP should be aware of the teachings of Tantra upon which it is
based, the whole of the Tantra, and not just the parts that are 'LHP'. Tantra holds that LHP
and RHP type approaches are equally valid, but that the LHP is inherently more dangerous,
requiring a great deal of discipline. Not many people seem to acknowledge this and regard
the pursuit of the self as a form of undisciplined occult hedonism, or rather discpline when
one is in the mood, and undisciplined the rest of the time - not exactly the embodiment of
Vamachara.

Most LHP practitioners do not also acknowledge that the 'RHP' is an equally valid method
or discipline, like their Tantric brothers once did. In the vast majority of cases, they regard
it as an inferior or backwards method of psychological evolution. Clearly what we call the
RHP today, including Western religious dogma, has very little in common with the Tantric
version. LHP practitioners have clearly introduced additional philosophical concepts, from
Nietzsche, Darwin, (late) Crowley and LaVey; but as stated above, many of the early
Tantric concepts have become very diluted or taken out of context and much of the mental
discipline has disappeared, or the method has disappeared, replaced by a 'made up'
discipline or method, depending on the mood of the practitioner - rarely a systematic and
tried and tested approach. It also makes the practitioner susceptible to delusions and
paranoia, whether spiritual/astral paranoia and delusions, or conspiracy theory type
delusions, on account of a lack of mental discipline and perspective.

It is possible that certain personality types are drawn towards the LHP more than others, or
at least those who are seeking to develop a certain personality trait as it has been
underutilised or underdeveloped (i.e. imbalanced personality type). The personality type
that is desired to be promoted could be deemed to be the Red personality type. Please see
the Personality Types page in the psychology section for more information.

LaVey Satanism is heavily influenced by Ayan Rand, a 19th/20th Century philosopher and
advocate of free market capitalism and in a sense, LaVey Satanism is just an expression of
modern capitalism and hyper-consumerism. It is philosophically based in capitalism and is
therefore not really a break from capitalist/consumer culture conditioning as is not really
that different from mainstream society. It is not in this sense 'rebellious' or 'anti-society' but
pro-capitalist status quo, but objecting to the fine print of social conditioning. It is not
'spiritual punk rock'! This concept is examined in more detail on the CoS page.

One could argue that philosophical discussion within adherents and hangers on of the LHP
can be beneficial in evolving one's sense of what God is, in terms of breaking past ties with
traditional monotheistic precepts and feelings of obligation/guilt; and breaking certain parts
of one's low self-esteem (whilst no substitute as such for full psychological reflection and
NLP etc.); and seeing certain aspects of reality; but beyond this one could argue that
continuing immersion in the LHP philosophy merely results in merely excessive titillation
of the ego, and reinforcing and strengthening the ego's hold over the consciousness, which
is counterproductive and an obstacle to spiritual growth and a higher level of vibration.

Some regard Satanism as a necessary step in one's personal develop, in order to 'deprogram'
the mind, and in a Jungian sense, embracing 'darkness' of the self. Satanism is regarded
then as a stepping stone, rather than a final destination. Luciferianism or Gnostic
Luciferianism is regarded often as the next stepping stone or even final destination for
some. However, this in itself is often just another stepping stone. The final destination
depends on the individual, but one could argue that a genuinely great philosophy does not
require stepping stones, but is a continuous journey - the process is the destination - and
that one does not need to jump ship and pursue another path, as it would contain more
elements of truth and part truths than any other philosophy or set of philosophies. Why zig
zag and go through 'half false' processes when you can go straight to the source.

An experienced occultist friend of mine has commented that the occult in general used to
attract some of the greatest and most brilliant minds, filled with originality and creativity.
 Now, he says, it is filled with sh*t, wannabes and wiccans. my friend admits to being a
snob, but reiterates that there is so much drivel in the occult world today. He liked Anton
LaVey and his ideas because they were an interesting take on Satanism, in modern
packaging (of course not everyone agrees that Anton LaVey was anything special).
However, as with most great thinkers, especially those that create institutions, orders,
temples or churches, people tend to flock to those and reproduce what has gone before,
hero worshipping LaVey and not really developing his ideas in any meaningful form. The
same happened to Aleister Crowley.

Whilst Crowley was indeed a publicity whore in some respects, he did at least contribute to
the occult world (albeit regurgitating much Golden Dawn thinking initially) in a meaningful
way, and his influence is still felt today. Very few occultists are creating anything new
today. Many LHP groups are simply copying The Temple of Set's ideas from the 1970s. my
friend states that he likes the fact that it takes decades of study and practice to reach any
kind of level of skill worth self-warrant. Only after decades of study would one consider
oneself to be a Magister Templi in hermetic terms, and not a 'one year wonder' that appear
in the hierarchies of some temples, whose adherents sing their praises and talk them up to
be something far beyond what they really are in terms of skill and knowledge. Many
temples take on too many students or initiates, and it is quantity over quality. Any occultist
worth their salt (even beyond initiate level) does not believe in the rigid definitions of the
LHP and RHP, according to my friend. If a strict LHP approach is a fundamental tenet of
one's belief system, then one is perhaps in trouble.

Another acquaintance of mine stated that there are too many people in occult circles that
have appropriated ideas from others, who have in turn appropriated them from elsewhere,
with no real understanding of what the core concepts are and where they have come from.
Historical knowledge is increasingly weak with concepts being watered down and blurred
until they are bordering on meaningless. Few make the effort to read widely enough and are
not really qualified to have a meaningful and intelligent conversation with.

I am perhaps guilty in this respect, but then again, at the time of writing, is not actually an
occultist, so whilst it is bordering on pointless to even comment in the way he has done, he
can kind of get away with it (providing an outsider's initial impression but nothing more).
Modern occultists are similar to RHP followers, such as Christians. They expect a kind of
'conversion' to the LHP and a simple formula and core belief system to attain a goal state of
'wisdom', a level where they feel comfortable that they know it all, rather than acquiring
wisdom through reflection, study and life experience.

Is there really such a thing as a purely, 100% Left-Hand Path and a pure Right-Hand Path?
This is probably impossible to keep up all the time. Are some people emotionally stunted
because they are slaves to a prescribed exclusively Left-Hand or Right-Hand Path? Or is
this a sign of enlightenment? Most people lie in the middle somewhere, some closer to one
extreme than the other. Is a harmony between the two actual balance? Or merely a confused
state? Surely one should follow one's own Path, one's own Will, whatever this is - first one
has to figure out what it is of course through self-knowledge! I myself considers there to be
value in both stereotypical Left-Hand and Right-Hand paths, and clearly embodies
philosophies from both areas on this web site. Whilst I try to be open minded and to grow
emotionally, spiritually and philsophically, to gain wisdom and illumination and also
spiritual enlightenment, he feels that besides all this, his religious base and core beliefs are
still rooted in the 'Right-Hand Path'; despite very strong inclinations towards 'Left-Hand
Path' beliefs and philosophies about life and getting out there and doing it yourself.

This is something he is aware of, and is considering whether this is empowering and a
bonus, or something that is holding him back in some capacity. This perhaps slight bias
should be obvious from the pages in the Religion section. I have however tried to be as
objective as possible but clearly complete objectivity is impossible for any mortal! I do not
like to categorise myself, if pressed could call myself an Individualist, a Christian
Existentialist, a Nihilist, a Jungian, a Relativist, a part time Agnostic, a Process New
Thought-ist, a Philosopher, someone who likes some aspects of philosophical Hermeticism
and Gnosticism (not theological or religious/occult practices of these movements), a
Conservative Anarchist, an Intellectual Illuminist, a 'punk' and an amateur Anthropologist
and Psychologist. I appreciate some non-occultic and philosophical concepts of the Left-
Hand Path and to some degree its view/relationship to God (as an ally rather than from a
God-fearing perspective).

God is in my view a universal fact, not completely anthropomorphised, but the force of all
life, healing and good in the universe, something to align oneself to, respect and love, but
not fear. In this sense, he shares certain attitudes with Freemasons, but does not share many
of the other attitudes and practices of Freemasonry, let alone the organisation and structure.
I see belief in God as a choice, and not something that should be taken on board through
fear of God or fear of 'going to Hell', through guilt. This is not freewill in his view.

For every LHP person who seems emotionally vulnerable, repressed and hopeless, I come
across one who has a high level of self-knowledge and a cool head with deep philosophical
understanding, almost to the point of being surgical/clinical. I like the rationalism of LHP
adherents and lack of pretentiousness, which he finds extremely refreshing. However, in
some cases he does not regard it as a pure form of rationalism, as it is often tainted with a
'knee jerk' feeling towards RHP faiths and indeed some Eastern faiths. Anything regarded
as 'dogmatic'...except of course that many LHP beliefs or views may be their own type of
dogma or narrow in their remit in some cases.

I have noticed some levels of rationalism in neo-paganism in general, although to a lesser

extent than the LHP. As with the LHP, there seems to be a similar 'knee jerk' response to
certain ends of the religious spectrum and in other areas (like Capitalism), and a 'dark-bias'
although to a lesser extent than the LHP. I take what I like from the LHP but do not take
what I regards as lacking in rationalism, to nurture his own form of rationalism, or a purer
form of philosophical thought (in my opinion).

Of those adherents of the Left-Hand Path that I have interacted with over the internet, I
very much enjoy philosophising with them at length, and discussing religion etc., probably
as much as if not more than those RHP or other philosophers he knows. But on a personal
level finds many (or at least many of those he has encountered) 'leave a great deal to be
desired' or seem to have something missing - they are like 'hollow shells' often - or perhaps
excessively negative -perhaps this is a perception of a lack of 'brotherly bonding', emotional
closeness and even 'God'! However, no one is 'perfect' and D-Tox tries to respect other's
beliefs and focus on areas in common and to explore 'unexplored philosophical territory'. I
am happy to discuss pretty much any type of philosophical, psychological, personal,
spiritual, religious or esoteric matter with anyone, as he believes there is something one can
learn from anything. However, whilst 'mingling' with LHP adherents on the internet, mainly
of Gnostic Lucifierian groups and forums, I am always likely to remain an outsider or
'visitor' as he is fundamentally not an occultist, but rather a philosopher.

Those of a fiercely individualistic persuasion may bemoan organised religions or religious

institutions. Some refer to those who follow Monotheistic, RHP religions or certain new
age 'religions' as the 'great white brotherhood'. Some say that white light has its place, but
that the 'great white brotherhoods' that see division in both moral terms on a personal level
and between groups of people (in a hierarchical basis) are 'neurotic products of their own
divided and often times unjustly righteous minds.'

As discussed on the Jungian Shadow page, mass psychosis is often a result of pride and a
sense of righteousness, creating a thick shadow and if groomed enough, a mass projection
of that shadow onto others, who are the scapegoats or the 'dirty' or 'wrong doers', who can
easily become victims at the hand of the righteous. One example in Nazi Germany.

The notion of cleanliness being close to Godliness is an amusing one for many. Many of
the cruelist and most evil people on the planet have been very clean and well scrubbed up!
And Jesus himself probably walked around in dirty clothes. Obsessive cleanliness is a
product of 'civilisation' and particularly, modern hyper-consumerism. To suppress or deny
part of one's mind and to try to be 'clean' could be argued to be as far from 'godliness' as it
is possible to be! The definition of the 'good side' or 'love side' contains its own failing or
flaw, in a Jungian sense. It is like trying to have separate a plant from the soil, or a finger
from the hand. Of course, one cannot blame religions of 'light' for the abuses of
monarchies, armies and churches in their persecution and suppression of 'primordial
tradition' or 'natural religions' as they saw an ugliness or 'darkness' there that they wished to
stamp out with decidedly 'ungodly' means. However, unfortunately, the two are often
lumped together, and people blame the teachings of Jesus for example for the Crusades
which had nothing whatsoever to do with Christ or Christianity, which were the opposite of
the actual teachings they claimed to be fighting for or representing. Perhaps this is the irony
of these religions. Or perhaps not.

Is the love of the 'religions of light' a true love or a false love, like an enforced love? Or are
those that resist it merely in denial and prefer their own self-loathing or self-oriented ways?
Perhaps a little of both. However, those that try to enforce a religion onto others or stamp
on that which they do not agree with are not embodying love and if they claim to be doing
so in the name of 'love', then they need to look in the mirror. This is probably what is meant
by 'false love'. Love of course has its place, even in those that follow the LHP or the
individualistic, anti-religious path.

The problem that many LHP or followers of no path have is the addiction to having to
follow the path of 'false love' but mainly the self-denial or emotional suppression and
 conditioning that is necessary to keep their own shadow at bay, whilst trying to create
'division' in others. If one were to give love to others but without trying to make them
squeaky clean, then this would be unconditional love and would not conform to this
Jungian Shadow creating ethos. A more integrated approach.

Some argue that 'religions of light' are responsible for harvesting negative energy of
stagnant chi - what does this really mean? Many who espouse freedom, actually express
their freedom in a self-deprecating manner, through self-loathing and low level self-
actualisation. Is this positive energy? Freedom? Or just an low level outlet for trying to
express themselves that they are allowing themselves to use as it is considered 'freedom'
whilst denying any high level or higher forms of self-actualisation that actually require a
love of the self and positive energy and action?

It could be argued that intentions are hard to measure in the astral realm, where illusion can
be more engaging than in the physical realm; meaning that astral awareness can create
illusory realities around itself, such that what one perceives to be definite truth is a slightly
distorted version of one side of the truth; and perhaps one coloured by the God or entity's
awareness.

Are we actually seeing the reality or the God/entity's deluded view or image of reality and
himself and his own importance in the universe? What is their purpose in wanting to create
followers? Is it really for their own benefit or is it a big divine ego trip?

Is 'light' really an idolic image of real love, rather than actual love and light? It is important
to try to recognise the difference. Is the idolic image of love just a way of ensnaring minds
into fitting into a 'matrix' or slotting into a machine, to keep people in line? Is it merely a
bright light to blind you from being able to see? Would a divine entity really about such
things in the physical world, or would such an outcome only be of interest/benefit to actual
physical beings, i.e. humans, to create? Or is a being of light really just a collective
manifestation of the 'light' side of the human psyche, or rather the 'false light', which is
created and exists because the 'polar opposite' has also been created or refined, and
suppressed deep into the psyche, demonised and to become the 'enemy' of the light - or
anything else that threatens one's sense of 'light' and 'wellbeing'? Like creating male and
female from what was once just unity of matter.

One could perhaps view this in a 'Icke' type sense as being anodes and cathodes of a big
cosmic battery! Whilst an amusing concept, this is most likely not true! It is more like a
source of conflict and war, the conscious mind and the shadow fighting each other
endlessly. Perhaps on some level a sanitised consumerist environment will always have an
element of division as it's basis is delusion and creating 'needs' and 'dreams' based on the
ego - otherwise consumerism would not continue to exist.

If we are to view the ordered or indeed chaotic cosmos that our physical bodies have
'condensed into' or manifested within is the 'Demiurgic Essence' (or representation of the
Gnostic anti-God Demiurge, the enslaver of the souls of humanity inside of a physical
prison of reincarnation and physical existence). But indeed, as that 'Demiurgic' essence is a
confining vessel, it is also very beautiful and mind blowing - and can be whatever you want
 it to be - so why not! This is the opposite viewpoint of the Gnostic cosmology, or the flip
side of the coin, that there are two sides to every story, and one side of each story is always
that of wonder and beauty.

Most people perceive 'evil' as the result of one will(power) intersecting another
will(power). Will exists in different degrees and in different ways, and the denser, low will
may force the higher, lighter, less restricted willpower of the Christs or Buddhas
downward, killing the dreamlike ideals or the lighter will power may pull the lower, denser
will power up to the higher level of vibration, so that it resonates with the higher. It
depends which is the most 'grounded'. If the higher vibration is grounded however, it will
always pull up the lower. It depends what you want to call 'higher' as sometimes it may be a
complex mixture of higher and lower, positive and negative will.

Chaos and entropy is the force that disperses the cosmos - it manifests as death and
destruction - it is a catalyst, speeding up annihilation of form. It is the principle upon which
life exists however. It could also be viewed as the force which disrupts and shocks
consciousness back into it's 'normal' state, whatever that is deem to be. Most people could
not look into their own psyche and shadow and see it in its entirety. This is what H.P.
Lovecraft wrote when he said that if man could see the entirety of the truth, he would go
catatonic, and it is an act of mercy that he cannot.

This is not entirely true, and some can handle more 'home truths' than others, depending on
how in touch with their own shadow they are.

People often assume that darkness means 'gothic', 'evil' or 'malice', when it has been
historically used to describe 'the unknown'. It is hard to sometimes differentiate what
someone is referring to when they talk of 'dark'. Sometimes people like it to mean both,
when they pretend it just means the unknown, as it titillates their ego. This maybe is a
politically correct view of 'darness'.

A large body of black magic is the study not only of getting what you want and self-
actualising, but also malevolent and vampiric actions towards others. This is definitely
'politically incorrect' and rather uncool by many people's standards. However it depends on
whether one sees such malevolent action as an intrinsic part of your character, preying on
the weak for your own ego's amusement, with no real purpose - rather than in reaction to
hostilities from others.

To what extent does this constitute emotional suppression and hiding from your true self,
clouding the mind? And to what extent is it truly exploring one's Shadow? Using 'dark' to
mean genuine exploration of one's own suppressed emotions one minute; then using 'dark'
to signify the horror genre and glamorise brutal killers and (arguably ineffectual) dictators
such as Vlad the Impaler the next minute; and then complain about restrictions of one's
civil liberties in the next breath.

Clearly there is some use of archetypes going on, and one has to interpret it in a symbolic
or poetic manner, but few LHP practitioners would use modern western figures of
oppression as archetypes, as they are not as antiquarian, gothic or 'cool'. Horror and gothic
 imagery is often used gratuitously as a kind of front to hide from one's weaker emotions
and brag; as much as it is used as a genuine aesthetic. One could argue that the use of the
term 'dark' is often associated with 'evil', 'death' and 'malevolence', depending on how one
wants to portray it - in a kind of 'cake and eat it fashion'.

The true energy of chaos could be said to be the state of permanent free will with no
interference. Some may find this horrifying or terrifying as it is truly infinite, in both
directions, to the primordial and to the cerebral. Perception of time space in all its entirety
would be enough to make anyone's brain explode.

Some minds may be so idealistic that they are not operating on the basis of freewill, but are
living according to the will of others, and their beliefs and values, 'absorbing' the will of
others. This leads to conformity, depression, resentment and in extreme circumstances of
'collective psychosis' war and genocide. Those who utilise this 'should' or idealist mindset
are often those greedy for power, and to manipulate others for their own gain, either
political figures, fat cats of business, military leaders or even malicious occultists.
Ironically, at the top of the hierarchy is the mind which wishes to self-actualise in an free
manner, at everyone else's expense, much like to perverted form of the LHP. Perhaps the
manipulations are a projection of the shadow inside the psyche, a desire for a perverted
form of order, based on pride, greed or self-denial.

It is easier for the mind to dehumanise its enemies that to accept that they are humans and
with feelings and reasons for what they are doing. People who have made a set of choices,
and chosen a certain path to get to where they are today. During times of war, leaders tend
to demonise the enemy, telling stories of extreme barbarity, to motivate people to want to
fight them. If they told their recruits that actually they rather liked their enemy and that they
weren't that bad really, and that he actually socialised with the enemy's leader of parts of his
extended family, it would not motivate soldiers to do their job! Such tactics were used
during the Crusades, and they were used during WWII to motivate the Americans to fight
the Japanese.

This is often why atrocities occur during wartime. Soldiers are fed propaganda and the
enemy is demonised to a huge extent, the soldiers are all hyped up and pumped up with
adrenaline and when they encounter the 'enemy' on certain occasions they just want to kill
everything that moves. The military use special terminology to describe lives, death and
killing with words like 'collateral damage', 'personnel', 'target', 'eliminate' or 'neutralise' to
describe quite horrific acts of violence, but dehumanising them makes them more
reassuring and palatable. It makes it easier for soldiers to go on killing without worrying
too much about what they are actually doing, although more and more people suffer from
PTSD. When a serial killer is caught, he is always demonised by the media so the public
want to see him die, and they are more concerned with killing him than they are with the
actual victims' families.
 This is why I am personally interested in seeing TV programmes about combat, life inside
prisons, profiling murderers and serial killers, and stories of survival and life or death
situations, as it gives one a chance to explore the minds of those involved and analyse their
motivations, pain and thoughts in an intelligent manner. It is easy to shut out the 'dark' as it
is too horrifying and simply class it as what you are not, and lock it away in your 'shadow' -
but which will inevitably come back and haunt you.

Labelled a 'New Age Luciferian' and a 'Right-Hand Path Luciferian' by an ex-LaVey

Satanist back in 2008, which is rather amusing! This was based on his discussions on
Gnostic Luciferianism and psychology and not on my whole cosmology which is of course
much wider.

This no doubt reflects personal spiritual view of a Universal

Spirituality/Consciousness/Creator. I wish New Agers good luck, but find this term
personally somewhat derogatory and has embarrassing connotations! Labels are ultimately
meaningless as each person is different and shouldn't just follow a path set by others as
being 'enlightened' for the sake of it, but think for himself. As stated earlier, Right-Hand
can sometimes be Left-Hand and vice versa!

AD MAIOREM LUCIFER-SATANA GLORIAM

CHAO AD ORDO !
 Bibliography

AGHORA, At the Left Hand of God by Robert E Svoboda

The History of British Magick after Crowley by Andrew D Chumbley

Lords of the Left Hand Path By Stephen E Flowers

Qabalah, Qliphoth and Goetic Magic by Thomas Karlsson

Liber Azerate by Frater Nemidial