Note: I understand that what I describe here is highly political. I do my best to keep my opinion on the matter out of it, and the views expressed here are representative of myself only. Also, I understand that I am being very general in the political opinions of others. This is not meant to be a commentary on the nature of Satanists in politics, but the nature of the herd. That being said, if the shoe fits, you best fucking wear it or at least reevaluate where you stand.
Recently, President Donald Trump launched a missile strike on Syria. This was apparently in reaction to the leader of the Syrian government ordering an attack on his own people. Now, I will not get into my stance on the act, and refuse to use this blog to either praise or condemn United States politics. The event highlighted a quality in the general public I had not noticed before.
To highlight this quality, it seems important to me to highlight the underlying debate that the missile strike relates to. In the United States, there seems to be two opposing standpoints that the majority of the population choose from. One can either be “pro-interventionism” or “anti-interventionism.” Here, we will operate on the assumption that interventionism is a policy that basically implores the United States to offer assistance to or retribution for victims of atrocities or misfortunes in foreign lands. Often these atrocities do not impact the lives of U.S. citizens in any major way. Those on the anti-interventionism side are often conservative, and claim that the United States should not get involved in other people’s problems because it is a waste of resources and none of our business. Those for interventionism often say that because of our vast resources, we have a moral duty to act as “world police” and stand up for the little guy. If we do not have a duty, they say, we at the very least should because it is a nice thing to do. Those for interventionism are typically more liberal than the anti-interventionists. Trump ran a largely anti-interventionist campaign to the delight of many voters, and spoke a lot about ending foreign wars. However, the strike can be considered by many to be an interventionist action.
That brings us to the important part of this piece, the part where I can happily move away from the political side of things, the part that applies to Satanism: the reaction of the public. Those who would have otherwise been against the U.S. getting involved took to social media praising the president of the U.S. on his taking action and stepping up to the plate where they saw failures by other elected officials. Those who would have been for foreign involvement similarly took to social media denouncing the missile strike as foolish and wrong. What this highlights to me is a tendency in the masses to have many heroes and villains. The herd has accepted the “good guy, bad guy” narrative and rather than hold an opinion on actions, they hold opinions on people. Those for the strike are really for Trump. They have ascribed him “good guy” status, and because of that he probably will do no wrong. Those against Trump have bestowed the title of “bad guy” upon him, and thus it is unlikely he will do anything right. The herd wants somebody else at the helm, and to them that person is either for their part of the herd or against it.
Not only is this apparent on the national level, it applies on an interpersonal level. Look to crowds in your local mall, high school cliques, or the meal areas of a local senior center. All have one leader, with many followers. In many environments, Satanists must outwardly embrace the narrative of dichotomy that underscores most all herd discourse to get ahead. People need an enemy, but they also need a hero. If you need to be at the helm of a group of people, perhaps it is best to create an enemy for your underlings and establish yourself as the hero to lead them. That way, you will build loyalty. The greater and more hated the enemy you give them is, the more loyal they will be to you. Looking at the missile strike discourse, we can see that if you fuel an us vs them narrative well enough, you can even get people to defend you when you betray their interests.
Who or what is this enemy? The ideal enemy for those under you is someone that they already harbor some level of dislike for, and someone that presents an obstacle to yourself or the object of the group you lead. Perhaps your boss shouldn’t be your boss, and everyone knows it. Simply reaffirm your coworker’s dissatisfaction, encourage them to pursue the correct avenues with their grievances, and tell them they are underreacting when they are frustrated. Soon, you will have any number of people coming to you with requests for advice any time that boss crosses them, and all of those people will encourage one another in sheep-like fashion to usurp the boss. Being a Satanist and being outside of sensationalism, the information brought to you can be compiled into an intelligent, well put together argument for the removal of said boss that you can present to those who can remove your boss. They now have more to go off of than “SoAndSo is an asshole because they messed up,” and you are the one that gave it. You have now elevated yourself above those you gave an enemy to, made yourself more likely to replace that enemy than those you lead, and gained respect as someone that stands out from the crowd in the face of unrest. You have utilized the herds need for a messiah to elevate your lot in life. This same strategy can work for any number of things, but be wary lest another clever individual seek to use your strategy against you. when that happens, simply bring them into your fold.
My point is simply that people want to be lead, to have someone to love and someone to hate. Use this to your advantage. While it is too bad stupidity isn’t painful, it is wonderful that it is exploitable. You are a God in your life, make yourself the God of others and you will ascend to new heights.