Church and State
For some the Individualism Vs Collectivism axiom comes down to a question of balancing the needs of the many with the needs of the few; The objection we often hear is that while pure individualism is a great idea, it doesn’t work out in the real world where we must rely on leaders to help us balance the needs of the many with the needs of the few, in order to insure equality and fairness.
While such proponents will sometimes try to make the case that we are somehow ‘out-growing’ individualism, or that there can be a blending of individualism and collectivism, a serious examination of the four precepts leads inevitably to the conclusion that such assertions are simply reiterations of collectivism. A blend with collectivism is a win for collectivism, just as a compromise with evil is a win for evil. It may be helpful to recall that the idea of a centralized authority with a monopoly on force that’s going to put everyone into their proper place is not a new idea. This has been the way of Kings and Popes going back to the days of the Pharos.
Notice I said Kings and Popes; this is because from the point of view of LHP morality there is functionally very little difference between church and state. This is why in The Erbeth Transmissions I began interchangeably using a common and inclusive term for them: “Central Authority.” Both institutions follow the same sort of ‘hub and spoke’ structure with an indisputable and absolute centralized organizing body. Each member of this body (a spoke) will connect with a singular figurehead (the hub, e.g. a Pope or King) at the center. From this Central Authority flows the various laws and mechanisms which form what we call the Right Hand Path.
It at first seems counterintuitive that church and state should be qualitatively synonymous. After all, so much of contemporary secular education is pervaded by the idea that there is a separation of Church and State. But if you dare to study a little closer you will begin to see that all the main contemporary justifications for the State – that it protects us from evil and bad guys, that it helps the less fortunate, and so forth – are all ideas that the Church once used to justify its authority. The Church provided the first Hospitals, the first schools, and validated or blessed the King’s army and war powers as it saw fit. Most of the early heretics and Lords of the Left-hand Path rejected precisely these authoritarian powers of the Church. Are all those same powers now suddenly legitimate simply because the final authority for their exercise has been transferred to a different organization? If we had a time machine and could go back to the days when our Left-Hand Path forebears were struggling and risking their lives to thrust off the oppression of the Church, would we try to stop them? Would we intercede saying “yeah I know none of it’s true but they do help the poor and protect us from evil!” Certainly many use just such justifications for continued participation in RHP systems, but it is safe to assume most followers of the LHP have overcome such justifications, noting that either they simply are not true, or else if there is a shred of truth in them it still doesn’t justify the sort of totalitarian power the Church exercised for so many centuries.
The more one examines the nature of society in relation to the sovereignty of the Individual it becomes increasingly clear that the patterns that form the political landscape are really just the same patterns that formed the Church, and adherence to either is really just the same pattern of collectivism, and a reiteration of the Right-Hand Path. It’s certainly not dedication to ideas like Self-Deification, Individualism, and so forth. Whether it’s a politician or a Pope the message they hand down to us is always the same – obey and conform; let us make the important decisions for you, we know what’s best.
There is nothing new or innovative about a centrally planned economy with a monopoly on force. It has been the way of society going back to the Pharaohs. Freedom of individuals and markets is (was?) really the radical new idea, which Remanifested in the Enlightenment Era with such fury that entirely new societies were formed around it. If that hadn’t happened, it is very unlikely anyone would even be talking about following a Left-Hand Path. The pattern, conveyed in The Erbeth Transmissions, was that the ideas about Supersubstantial Fire that Remanifests self-consciousness were all ideas originating somewhere in the Pre-Dynastic era.
No matter how much we may wish there were some sort of blending of Individual with Collective, in the end it really is simply an either/or question; the Individual is separate from the Collective in the same way the Subjective Universe is separate from the Objective Universe, for to blend them is simply to eliminate the former. That’s also why Hegel’s dialectic does not apply – there can be no synthesis from something that is completely obliterated. The SU is what gives rise to the very real and physical sense of individuality that all conscious beings are able to experience. Or if you prefer, our physical separation from each other has facilitated the arising of the Subjective Universe. Either way, the uniquely Setian concept of a Subjective Universe that is the core of the soul and can Xeper and Remanifest and maybe even live forever absolutely does indicate that individualism is distinct from collectivism, and the difference lies not only in their metaphysical implications but also in their underlying moral basis’.
When one can finally see clearly the very real threat to Individuality – and thus to the Subjective Universe and the Gift of Set itself – posed by Central Authority and the RHP, one realizes the dire urgency not only of embracing the LHP, but very real need to clarify, understand, and champion the LHP on moral grounds.