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 motives of organized evil.

One very important fact that must be established 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 inherent in our psyches from birth.

These concepts are evident in two particular areas of human psychology:

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 element 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. 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. But 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 or enslave in the name of personal gain. The problem is, evil actions are often presented as advantageous for the group. The needs of the many supposedly outweigh the needs of the few, and thus evil is rationalized as a means to a “positive end.” 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 inherent archetypal dualities. Meaning, we have an inborn 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.

Beyond ignoring conscience, we must define the motivation that drives evil. Psychology would suggest that destructive self-serving actions stem from an obsessive pursuit 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 non-religious 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 behaviors of narcissistic sociopaths. Full blown high-level narcissistic sociopaths represent around 1 percent of the total human population, and most of them are born not made by their environment. Also, 5 percent to 10 percent 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 my view, luciferianism is a religion actually designed by sociopathic narcissists for 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 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 their own gods through the accumulation of knowledge.

Of course, the notion of self-worship is a core trait of sociopathic narcissists. Luciferianism just codifies it as if it is a virtue.

I have also written about the insanity of the goal of godhood in the past, outlining how quantum physics and Kurt Godel’s Uncertainty Principle make total scientific and mathematical understanding of the universe impossible. This does not stop luciferian circles from destructively chasing that which they cannot have.

Second, luciferians seek to elevate the individual in general, which in the minds of many people doesn’t sound like a negative at all. I have argued for the importance of individualism in the midst of societal controls often. But any ideology can be taken to extremes.

The problem is that 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, there is a tendency to view non-adherents as “inferior;” stupid people that perhaps deserve to be sheared like sheep by those who are chasing a dream of personal godhood.

This attitude can 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. 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 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.

Luciferianism is also prevalent in globalist institutions. For example, the U.N. seems to be highly involved in the ideology through groups like Lucis Trust, a publishing house founded on luciferian beliefs. Former U.N. directors like Robert Muller are tied closely with Lucis Trust and openly promote luciferianism. Muller was central to the U.N.’s global education policies for children.

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.

Other Luciferians try to dissociate from satanism by claiming that Lucifer as a mythological figure is Satan “before the fall” described in the bible. Yes, they believe there are two versions of Satan that are distinct from each other. This amounts to a sort of laughable good cop/bad cop representation of Satan.

Satanists often refer to Lucifer and Satan in the same breath as being the same figure. In this documentary, Anton LaVey, a former circus performer and well-known figure in satanic and luciferian circles, does exactly that.

LaVey seems to be treated as an annoyance by the more discreet 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 to condition adherents to the darker side of the system. They don’t like the 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. Aquino is best known for a tactical thesis on psychological warfare he wrote with then General Paul Vallely called “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.

Aquino left LaVey’s more theatrical but more open satanic church and launched his own Temple of Set, which appears to fall in line with the disinformation and secrecy inherent in luciferianism.

The duplicity of luciferianism alone should be enough to make people wary of its promises and arguments. Humanity has spent the better part of 2,000 years trying to remove the influences of secretive occult elitism 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. 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 trickery.

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.