Politics, Freedom, and Luciferianism

Politics, Freedom, and Luciferianism

Some of you may know me, for those who don't I am one of the Hierophants from the Herald of the Dawn which is a Mercuræn Order with a differing understanding of Lucifer than most Luciferians. I was also one of the founding members of the GCoL, a Magus III° in Jeremy's Ordo Luciferi, a member of, and musical composer, for the Sect of the Horned God, ex-Temple of Set member, and I like to think myself as good friends with both Michael and Jeremy.


That said, I would like to start a discussion regarding politics and mainstream Luciferianism.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
**Satanists, Luciferians, those on the LHP are free to align with any branch of politics or remain apolitical if they wish. Many of today's (western) LHP philosophies advocate the ideal of heroic individualism and the rejection of religion, mysticism, and supernaturalism in general.

I'm sure many of you are already loathing this topic and will be quick to declare that Luciferianism (and the LHP) and politics should not be in the same sentence, but allow me to explain something I feel very strongly about in regards to this subject matter.


Libertarianism is a political party on the uprise, it is a complex philosophy. The foundation of this philosophy is individual freedom. It would enforce a limited government that would not interfere with or one that attempts to influence the economy. The best economy is powered by truly free markets. Individual freedom is the foundation of a successful civil society.
One of the central tenets of libertarianism is the belief in a "natural law" that exists independently of manmade laws. As early as the 6th century B.C., the Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu argued, "Without law or compulsion, men would dwell in harmony". The Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, can be read as a striking proclamation of the libertarian ideology. In his opening statement, Jefferson argues that the right of the colonies to secede from England is derived from the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," a reference to the natural law of classical liberalism. He goes on to write the most famous lines in the birth of a nation:


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

Perhaps Libertarianism is simply the lesser evil of the three, however, both Republic and Democratic ideals have shown us over and over again that they lead to corruption, inequality, and an owner/slave herd-mentality. As an adherent of the western left hand path, I hold Libertarian philosophy dear to my heart and cannot see how the world can ever live in harmony until Libertarianism is implemented . . . Worldwide!

Your Thoths?

Votes: 0
E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of Luciferian Research Society to add comments!

Join Luciferian Research Society

Comments

  • I would agree with the information you have posted here. I have all but decided already to vote for the Libratarian party. In regards to the danger of Luciferianism being associated with conspiracy theories and other misnomers, I think it prudent for both atheist and non theist Luciferians to focus on what they can personally do to evolve themselves into Luciferi who can adapt to any circumstance. Many who are new to the path do associate Lucifer with Satan/ Samael or Ahriman. I do understand that the Etimology of these archetypes is questionable, however, I don't think that it limits anyone's ability to grasp and understand that neither theists or atheists in our tradition supplicate or view those names from a blind faith perspective. Either way, the aspirant is the actuator and of the illumination they create. In my view, absolutism and linear thinking blinds the imagination which is the source of said illumination. If one believes they can become a living symbol of the light bearer, then they can take the steps neccecary to ignite that passion and the action that it requires. I personally do think that people are free to think and act as they desire. Weather or not they agree with my political opinions. 

  • My biggest concern and this has already been addressed in the replies, is that the majority of the people are not ready or not in the position to be responsible for themselves. Many of us on the Path may be ready and long for this type of freedom, but far too many are too comfortable having their hand held by Big Brother.

    Eric: The Libertarian Party seeks less government which will result in less meddling in our lives and put an end to nepotism which you seemed to suffer at the hands of regarding your children. I'm sorry that happened to you.

    The immediate plans for Jo Jorgensen, should she be elected, which highly unlikely, is:
    ⦁ Provide a balanced budget, end deficits, and finally address the explosive national debt
    ⦁ End the unconstitutional foreign wars and military entanglements, and bring our troops home
    ⦁ Remove barriers to free trade and the free movement of peaceful people
    ⦁ End federal civil asset forfeiture and pardon persons convicted of non-violent, victimless crimes
    ⦁ Institute real criminal justice reform and end the failed war on drugs
    ⦁ Get education out of the government’s hands and return decisions of education to parents, teachers, and students
    ⦁ Slash federal spending, make government much smaller, and let you keep what you earn

    I say 'highly unlikely' because the system is rigged here in the States, the committee that conducts the debates, which are important so that the country can see her plans in relation to the other party's plans, has been manipulated by the two-party duopoly to make it almost impossible for a third party to get on these debates. Which I find very unfair.

    Here's a bit about Jorgensen:

    Jorgensen received a B.S. in Psychology at Baylor University in 1979 followed by a Master's in Administration from Southern Methodist University in 1980. She began her career at IBM working with computer systems, leaving there to become part-owner and President of Digitech, Inc. She received a Ph.D. in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from Clemson University in 2002

    In my opinion, she is qualified to run this country, unlike Trump who wasn't and isn't. But the election process has become like a millionaire's club, if you have enough money, you can be president, no longer do you need to possess the qualities of a presidential leader/commander in chief. Tying politics to the Path, I recently butted heads with someone who tried to paint the wrong picture of Luciferianism and Libertarianism. This author of the article, Brandon Smith, tries very hard to attach an incorrect and bigoted association between Luciferianism and some sort of Illuminati nonsense, which is typical of uninformed people.

    Here the article and my comments . . . my comments are in bold with a > at the beginning. I might add that Mr. Smith was not very pleased with an actual Luciferian correcting his misunderstanding of Luciferianism and politics.

     

    Luciferianism - Brandon Smith

    Over many years of investigating the mechanics of global events and the people behind them I have become perhaps a little obsessed with one particular subject – the source and motivations of evil. This fascination does not stem from a simple morbid curiosity, but a strategic need to understand an enemy. Much like an exterminator needs to understand the behavior of cockroaches to be effective, I seek to understand the behavior and nature of organized evil. One very important fact that must first be made clear in people’s minds is that evil does indeed exist. Establishment propaganda has spent immense time, effort and capital attempting to condition society into believing that evil is nothing more than a social construct – an opinion. Evil is supposedly in the eye of the beholder; a product of religious conditioning. This is a falsehood. Just like concepts of beauty, concepts of evil are actually inherent in our psyches from birth. The “eye of the beholder” is irrelevant.

    Two particular areas of human psychology support this fact:

    First, as the work of Carl Jung (and by extension anthropologists like Joseph Campbell) exposed, all human beings no matter where in the world they are born, from the most isolated tribe in the Amazon to the largest metropolis in America, carry the same archetypal symbols in their psyche. That is to say, we ALL have the same psychological elements in our minds regardless of environment. This fact alone is so overwhelming to modern man that some people refuse to even acknowledge it as a possibility. We have been trained like lab rats to see only one path through the maze; we have been told over and over again that everything is “relative”; that each person is entirely a product of environment and that we all start out empty as “blank slates”. The vicious attacks on Carl Jung by the establishment (including lies that he cooperated with the Nazis) tell me that Jung was very close to the mark. He had stumbled upon something very dangerous to the establishment; something that could derail their conditioning of the public.

    Second, the undeniable existence of the human conscience suggests that we are born with an understanding of duality. Meaning, just as Jung discovered, our psyches contain inherent concepts of good and evil that influence our decisions and reactions. Jung referred to evil, or psychologically destructive impulses, as the ‘personal shadow’ and the ‘collective shadow’. The vast majority of people have an intuitive relationship with good and evil. They feel anxiety when confronted with evil actions or thoughts, and they feel personal guilt when they know they have done something evil to other people. Some might call this a “moral compass”. I would refer to it as part of the soul or spirit.

    In any case, there is a contingent of people in the world that do not have it – a small percentage of the population that is born without conscience, or that finds it easy to ignore conscience. We’ll get to those people in a moment, but first, we should probably define what evil is. Evil is first and foremost any action that seeks to destroy, exploit or enslave in the name of personal gain or gratification. Unfortunately, evil actions are often misrepresented as advantageous for the group, thereby making them morally acceptable. The needs of the many supposedly outweigh the needs of the few, and thus evil is rationalized as a means to a “positive end” for the “greater good”. In most cases, however, destructive actions do not end up serving the interests of the majority, and only end up giving more wealth and power to an elitist minority. This is not a coincidence. Evil begins with the denial of the existence of conscience, or the denial of the existence of choice. Each person is born with a capacity or freedom to choose. We can listen to conscience, or we can ignore it. We can do good, or we can do evil. Evil tells us the choice is relative and that morality is relative; that there is no difference between a good choice and a bad choice, or, that the evil choice is the only choice. Beyond ignoring conscience, we must also define the motivation that drives evil. Psychology would suggest that destructive self serving actions stem from an obsessive desire to obtain or control things we cannot or should not have. Interestingly, this is also what some religions teach us, but let’s stick to a secular examination.

    As mentioned earlier, there is a group of people in the world who do not see good and evil the way most of us do. Their psyche functions in a completely different way, without the filter of conscience. These people exhibit the traits of narcissistic sociopaths. Full blown high level narcissistic sociopaths represent around 1% to 5% of the total human population, and most of them are born, not made by their environment. Also, 5% to 10% of people hold latent traits of either narcissism or sociopathy that generally only rise to the surface in an unstable crisis environment.

    I have written extensively on narcissistic sociopaths and the globalist establishment in numerous articles. I have also outlined how such people, contrary to popular belief, are not isolated from one another. They do in fact organize into groups for mutual gain. There is an ideology or system of belief that argues for the exact opposite of what conscience tells us is “good”, and that system is Luciferianism. In fact, luciferianism appears to be the source influence for most existing destructive “isms” in our society today (including socialism and globalism). It is my theory that luciferianism is a religion or cult designed by sociopathic narcissists for the benefit of sociopathic narcissists. It is sometimes difficult to identify the true “sacraments” behind luciferianism because, for one, luciferians refuse to admit that the system is a religion at all. They prefer to call it a philosophy or methodology, at least in public. The system also seems to encourage active disinformation in order to dissuade or mislead non-adherents. The historic term for this religious secrecy is “occultism”. I would call it “elitism”.

    There are some foundational beliefs that luciferians do openly admit to. First and foremost, the goal of luciferianism is to attain godhood. That is to say, they believe that SOME human beings have the capacity to become gods through the accumulation of knowledge. I have written about the insanity of the goal of godhood in the past, outlining how quantum physics and Kurt Godel’s Incompleteness Proof make total scientific and mathematical observation and understanding of the universe impossible. But mathematical reality does not stop luciferian circles from destructively chasing that which they cannot have. By extension, scientific knowledge not tempered by discipline, wisdom and a moral compass can lead to catastrophe. Material knowledge is invariably abused by those seeking godlike power. The notion of self-worship is a core trait of sociopathic narcissists; Luciferianism just codifies it as if it is a virtue. Another problem with the idea of becoming a god is that one inevitably develops a desire for followers and worshipers. What is a savior, after all, without a flock? But how does a human being gain a flock and become more a god? Through force or through trickery?

    Second, luciferians claim they seek to elevate the power of the individual in general. In the minds of many people this doesn’t sound like a negative at all. Even I have argued for the importance of individualism in the midst of societal controls. That said, any ideology can be taken to extremes.

    The pursuit of individual gratification can be pushed too far, to the point that the people around us begin to suffer. Because of the elitist nature of luciferianism, they are not necessarily seeking the elevation of ALL individuals, just certain “deserving” individuals. There is a tendency to view non-adherents as “inferior”; stupid people that should be sheared like sheep by those who are chasing a superior dream of personal godhood. This attitude can also be seen in the common actions of narcissistic sociopaths, who have no qualms about conning or exploiting people around them as resources, feeding off others like parasites. They treat this as an acceptable practice because they see themselves as special; they are destined to achieve more than the ignorant rabble. They are meant to do great things, and their image is meant to be cemented in the foundations of history.

    The elitism of luciferianism is hardly hidden. Luciferians claim that they have no interest in converting other people. Instead, adherents have to be “smart enough” to come to the belief system on their own. However, their goal of influencing the public through social and political spheres is rather evident. Political gatekeepers, though not openly luciferian, tend to let slip their affiliations at times. Saul Alinsky, a high level leftist organizer and democrat gatekeeper, praises the rebellious Lucifer in the personal acknowledgments of his political manual ‘Rules For Radicals’, in which he says:

    “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

    > Saul Alinsky wrote an epigraph describing the rebellious angel Lucifer as "the first radical known to man" in his book "Rules for Radicals." Alinsky did not dedicate "Rules for Radicals" to Lucifer.

    Luciferianism is also prevalent in globalist institutions. For example, the UN seems to be highly involved in the ideology through groups like Lucis Trust, a publishing house founded by Alice Bailey, an avid promoter of luciferianism who also owned the Lucifer Publishing Company. Lucis Trust was originally headquartered at the UN building in New York, and still runs a private libraryof occult books out of the UN today.

    > Alice Ann Bailey was a writer of more than twenty-four books on theosophical subjects and was one of the first writers to use the term New Age. Theosophy, typically a mishmash of Western esotericism, Neoplatonism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. as proposed by Helena Blavatsky and Rudolph Steiner does not represent Luciferianism as understood by actual Luciferians.

    Former UN directors like Robert Muller were tied closely with Lucis Trust and the work of Alice Baily and openly promote luciferianism. Muller was central to the UN’s global education policies for children and formed numerous branch agencies with the intent of global governance. You can read Robert Muller’s white papers on the formation of a global government on his website Good Morning World.

    > It appears the author is associating some Illuminati type of world dominance that is prevalent with conspiracy theorists to that of Luciferianism. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Luciferians approach global governance like they do everything else – with heavy propaganda spin. Muller argues that the goal must be pitched to the public through the idea of “protecting the Earth”. In other words, he believed environmentalism was the key to convincing the masses of the need for total centralization of power into the hands of globalist institutions. Luciferian ideals are sugar coated in a host of flowery and noble sounding motifs. But what are they really all about?

    Some luciferians adopt a Gnostic stance on the figure of the devil and only claim to appreciate the concept as mythology rather than the devil existing as a literal force. Some gnostic texts depict Satan as the “good guy” and God the “bad guy” in the story of Genesis; God being a ruthless slave master and the serpent as the “liberator” bringing knowledge of the material world to mankind. Lucifer is presented as a kind of Prometheus; the titan who stole fire from the gods and gave it to man.

    > It is a common mistake to associate Lucifer with Satan

    This “Lucifer as heroic savior” narrative is very common. Manly P. Hall, 33rd Degree Freemason and influential New Age writer is quoted as saying in his collection of writings titled ‘The All Seeing Eye’:

    “Lucifer represents the individual intellect and will which rebels against the domination of Nature and attempts to maintain itself contrary to natural impulse. Lucifer, in the form of Venus, is the morning star spoken of in Revelation, which is to be given to those who overcome the world.”

    > It is another mistake to associate Freemasonry with Luciferianism

    One Luciferian model describes God as an archetypal concept only, a mythological comfort blanket that helps us to face the loneliness of existence. They do not believe a corporeal God figure exists, though, one wonders how they can reconcile the existence of inherent psychological archetypes with that notion? Where did archetypes come from if there is no creative design or intended meaning to humanity?

    More discreet Luciferians sometimes argue that the mythological figure of Lucifer is separate from the Christian image of “Satan”. The name “Lucifer” is not mentioned directly in the bible in reference to Satan (though the phrase “morning star”, the direct translation of the word “lucifer” is mentioned in reference to Satan). But this argument seems rather coy and disingenuous to me. For centuries the term Lucifer has been synonymous with the devil in the public consciousness. Luciferians seem to be trying to separate themselves from the negative connotations associated with satanism through a twisted form of wordplay and semantics.

    > The word Lucifer can be traced to the ancient ideals surrounding the myths associated with the Morningstar and his brother the Evening Star. Early on these myths place the Morningstar into the role of the attempted usurper who is defeated and becomes a ‘fallen’ deity. It would not be until the Gnostics of the 1st century A.D. and Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’ (1667 A.D.) found Lucifer to be the Serpent in the Garden of Eden and transformed the myth of the Fallen Morningstar into that of the angel Lucifer the principle of compassion for life and creation, defiance of corrupt authority and the current of spiritual evolution.

    > According to Jung's archetypal structuralism, the Platonic First Form of this Lucifer Archetype and as evidenced in literary history is that of an envious subservient god who seeks to overthrow the main god and fails to do so.

    But why would they care? Unless, of course, they are seeking to influence public consciousness and they realize that it’s hard to sell people on satanism, so they want to put a different face on an old and ugly idea. Satanists often refer to Lucifer and Satan in the same breath as being the same figure. In this documentary, Anton LaVey, a well known representative in satanic and luciferian circles, does exactly that.

    > Theosophy is a late 19th-century movement. The idea of Satanism or the latter Luciferianism had not been born yet. Perhaps the Theosophists were attempting to 'influence public consciousness', however, this is not the case with actual Luciferianism.

    LaVey seems to be treated as an annoyance by the more marketing conscious luciferian groups. I suspect that his public bluntness about what luciferian beliefs actually involve is seen as too honest. These people believe in secrecy and initiation. They don’t like their darker side on display for the whole world to see and to judge.

    A direct antithesis to someone like Anton LaVey would be Michael Aquino, a military intelligence officer specializing in psychological warfare who was a member of LaVey’s satanic church but left to start his own more marketable Temple Of Set. Aquino is best known for a tactical thesis on psychological warfare he wrote with General Paul Vallely (credited in the paper as “Paul E Valley”) called ‘From Psyop To Mind War’. The thesis outlines the use of propaganda and other strategies to turn a target population against itself, to either destroy that population or control it more easily without ever having to use outright military force.

    > Aquino's resignation from the Church of Satan was not in order to create a more 'marketable' form of Satanism.

    Aquino’s Mind War showcases the luciferian belief in “magic”, but not magic in the way popular culture understands it. Luciferians believe in the power of magic words and symbols in the form of psychological key phrases and archetypes. That is to say, they have adopted the use of archetypal psychology, but where psychologists like Carl Jung used archetypal psychology to heal people with mental and emotional illnesses, luciferians use archetypes to manipulate and control public thought.

    > Luciferians do not necessarily believe in magic(k). The belief in magic is not a prerequisite to embracing Luciferianism. The manipulation and control of people is understood in today's occult community as Lesser Black Magic and is in no way condoned by actual Luciferianism, which would find any act of impeding another's freedom of will to be this genuine Evil discussed earlier in this article.

    This is often done through popular culture and films. Truthstream Media has produced an excellent documentary on this subject that I highly recommend.

    There are more obvious examples such as Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner, in which androids rebel against their slave master and creator and eventually murder him. Then there is more subversive entertainment like Netflix’s Series Of Unfortunate Events, which starts out as a fun comedic children’s tale but ends with a display of essentially every aspect of luciferian belief right down to elitism as a necessary practice, moral relativism, an unhelpful and controlling god figure surrounded by sycophants, and even a serpent carrying an apple containing the “knowledge” to save the protagonists from a horrible fate.

    The duplicity of luciferianism alone should be enough to make people wary of its promises and arguments. Humanity has spent the better part of 2000 years trying to remove the influences of secretive occult elitism (the high priest class) from our political and social structures. Yet, these people are relentless in their desire for power.

    Regardless of the positive spin that luciferians adopt for their ideology, the fruits of their activities speak much louder than propaganda. Through their efforts towards globalism, what I see is a cancerous desire for control over civilization and of every aspect of human thought. I also see a perversion of nature as they seek to obtain what they call “godhood”. Transhumanism and genetic tampering carry all the hallmarks of the luciferian ideal. Regardless of one’s religious affiliations, it is hard to find anything of value in their system. Everything about it is an affront to inherent conscience. It can only become acceptable to the majority through deception.

    > Again the author is not addressing Luciferianism, rather he is wrongly associating typical Illuminati conspiracy theories with his misunderstanding of Luciferianism.

    If you have to lie about the motives of your philosophy in order to get people to adopt your philosophy, then your philosophy must be dangerously incomplete or outright cataclysmic.

    Reprinted with permission from Alt-Market.com.

    Alt-Market.com
    Alt-Market.com - supporting local economies, barter networks, farmers initiatives, and alternative currencies backed by tangible commodities.
  • With lots to do today I will briefly comment on how my attitude about this has changed. Some years ago I went to a Luciferian function in Texas. Conservative Christians were raising Cain. I say that tounge and cheek because of the origins of that term from the first Marti Gras in  Mobile Alabama. Recently, I saw a video from my hometown in Prescott Arizona. The conservatives were yelling insults, as well as the Liberal proestors. This was at the very same courthouse where a very long time ago a judge took my boys away from me simple because of the prevailing politics of the day. It diddnt help that my then mother in law knew worked for the sherrif and was best frinds with the county recorder. I found it quite ironic to see the very same types of people who tried to harm our gathering in Texas are now afraid and rage for thier freedoms. I had done nothing wrong to be seperated from my children, to be honest, with humility, they would have been better off with me and I did eventually gain coustody of them. 

         This has caused me to seriously rethink my positions politically and weather or not what others think of politics is any of my bussiness. One person may feel that right or left is the best way to utilize the rebellious nature of the LHP, one person may want to seperate themselves from any extreme of political philosophy of which I see is dominating our culture right now. I have LHP frinds who are of either persuasion. I shiutter to think of any LHP organization endorsing any party , though I do find myself leaning towards Libratarian philosophy. I always remember the sacrifices of my family in the millitary for our freedoms, regardless of the stupidity of those who send them into battle. For myself, I focus on what I need to do right now to be ready for the next leader who will think they know what is best for me. 

    Wolves among Sheep is my thoughts.

  •  I always saw Luciferianism as a Libertarian philosophy; personally I'm a Conservative. Mostly go by American Nationalist <Nationalist>, I see us being a nation built for the individual with the goal of being more individualistic eudaimonia.

     

    Beyond the balancing of masculine/feminine or light/dark, I believe we have to balance individualism/collectivism. Our constitutional republic balance individualism/collectivism well, being a nation of individuals with a shared creed/values. 

     

    Many people have this Garden of Eden utopia POV of the world, the foundation & design the nation (from the Founders to Brooker T Washington) was built upon is not invincible. The herd live & grown strength as individuals within the individualist land, but it's opposite if the roles reverse. Cambodia, Cuba, Venezuela, China; where collectivism dominate, the individual pays at worst. At best his liberty or property are at the mercy of the collective/state, Norway, UK, Canada.

     

    Holding the Gov't to the standards of our founding & mission to keep the power in the hands of the individual. Also putting the nation before other nations, keeping a more isolationist-tic-for-tac view. 

     

    America is unique among all the countries as Lucifer was in heaven. I see American as something more then the dirt your born on, but the values, principles, virtues that we embody. Power tends to reveal the weakness in a person, so even if a person have "good intentions" then can't become a Mao or the herd releases that annoying beast, ressentiment. So we can never drop the whip & be passive with a beast.

  • I personally agree with you on the premise that the political philosophy of Libertarianism proposes a system that would be most amenable to those who consider themselves Luciferian. However, most people aren't like us. There are a lot of people that crave an authoritarian nanny state that will tell them how to behave and will take care of them in terms of government sponsored social programs and having intelligence agencies, police and military to protect them from the bad guys (or at least provide the illusion of such) and are willing to give up their privacy, a portion of their income and even a measure of their autonomy in return. "If it means that me and my family are safe, it's worth the sacrifice" you often hear people saying. Or another one you'll hear is, "I have no intention of breaking the rules so this will only affect the bad guys."

     

    I'm not confident that humanity will ever get to the point where the majority of people are willing to accept the responsibilities that come with personal freedom. Maybe some individual counties could find themselves temporarily in a situation where the majority of their own citizens feel this way, but even then it feels like a long shot. Maybe I'm just jaded.

     

    As far as your musings about the defacto two party system with Libertarianism as a third option, that isn't the situation in most countries around the world. The most populated country in the world is China which has a one party system, which is a blend of communist authoritarianism and state-guided capitalism. The second largest country by population has multiple political parties which often form coalition governments, where two (or sometimes more) parties agree to cooperate to form a majority voting block in parliament. There are several countries that work similarly to India in having multiple political parties and not just two to choose from including France, Brazil, Indonesia, Germany, Iceland, etc... In Canada where I live one of two political parties usually form government but not always. We have had coalition governments in the past and we generally have elected representatives in Federal government from five different political parties that get to vote on the passing of bills and other important decisions. The LRS has a very international membership, so some of your points are going to be lost on people who aren't US citizens. Many countries don't even have a Libertarian party. Canada does have one, but it isn't among the top five most influential parties.

     

    It would be nice to see the ideas put forward by Libertarian philosophy be adopted by a majority of people around the world but I just don't see it happening ever, to be honest. I see the same general ideas playing out in the religious and spiritual beliefs of people. Spiritual and Esoteric systems that have a well defined hierarchy and set of specific assigned practices tend to attract a lot of followers while more free form or Open Source systems that require more self-directed work of adherents aren't nearly as popular, even among those who identify as Left Hand Path. People generally want to join something and are often just content with the reflected sense of accomplishment derived from their affiliation. Take for example the model of the Church of Satan. People will take pride in membership when all that was required of them was to have $200 of disposable income at some point in their life to aquire the membership card.

This reply was deleted.