A Future History of Light, Part One


I've read a lot of material while working on the Lucifer's Technologies series, searching for answers as to true identity of this enigmatic figure, this question mark of esoteric history. 

The title itself is an old pun on Lucent Technologies, a company that had a major influence on my own family. I know that Murray Hill campus quite well, that Dreamland where the future used to be born. My wife worked there when it was still Bell Labs and left when it all started falling apart, due to gross mismanagement. 

We cashed in our Lucent stock before it crashed and it kept us afloat when things got tight after 9/11. So parsing the true nature of this technology and its implications for all of us is somewhat of a personal quest for me. 

I don't know where I am as far as this process is concerned, there's obviously a lot more to the story. I just don't know where I want to take it all at the moment.

RISE

All the work that I've done to date, starting with Our Gods Wear Spandex and The Secret Sun all springs from the article I published in Classic Rock in 2006 on Lucifer Rising

That article was a magical working in and of itself, in that I was able to get Kenneth Anger, Jimmy Page and Bobby Beausoleil to talk about the film for the same piece, something they'd refused to do to that point (believe me, it wasn't easy). 

It's all the more remarkable considering I was just a glorified fanzine writer at the time and that more established writers had tried and failed over the years to nail this story down. 

The Lucifer Rising cover story was the best-selling issue of Classic Rock at that point, and given magazine sales trends, probably remains so to this day. It was later reprinted in Ultimate Guitar. Clearly, this archetype has a power of its own, distinct from the dark, dismal energies of Satanism. 

It's a power that gets peoples' attention, even if they don't understand exactly why. 

The Lucifer Rising article gave me the cred I needed to land the deal with Weiser, and my editor was yet another of my many Mothman connections (she was actually born and raised in Point Pleasant and remembers the Silver Bridge collapse). 

Strangely enough, our first meeting took place at a literary rep's office on the same block in Manhattan where Crowley began the Amalantrah Working.

So having personal experience with the power of this archetype drives to me to understand its enigmatic nature, to observe its movements as it reemerges in these chaotic, fractured times and to try to define what has been not only misperceived but is in fact entirely misunderstood by nearly everyone (particularly the neo-Satanists).

Throughout the Lucifer's Technologies series I've presented the question as to the nature of the technological explosion we saw in the late 40s; is it Luciferic in the Promethean sense, in that it is a power taken from authority and given to the rest of us, or is it in fact Satanic, in that it is a hierarchal force that only increases authoritarian power? 

The answer to that question seems face-punchingly obvious now, in the age of drones, surveillance and pre-crime, but the story is still being told. We don't know what kind of counter-technologies hackers are going to develop or discover, a process that will probably be the byproduct of state-sponsored cyberwarfare. 

They could literally change everything, in the way equal access to automatic weapons ended Colonialism. They could herald Lucifer- again, in the Promethean sense-  in and of themselves.

The question is also important because the two figures we can point to in mythology as being distinctly Luciferian-- Prometheus and Semjaza-- were themselves prototypical hackers, using Heaven's own technologies against it. So the Lucifer archetype seems inseparable from technology.†

After giving the issue a great deal of thought I've come to the conclusion that Lucifer is not a historical figure or myth: Lucifer is a reality yet to come. What little we know is foreshadowing. 

Or as Gordon White put it, we've seen the trailers but haven't seen the film yet.

There are a few things we do know: 

• Lucifer is not Satan nor is he Satanic. It's an entirely different frequency. In fact, you're looking at a diametrically-opposed paradigm; Luciferian prototypes practicing self-sacrifice (or enlightened self-interest) and Satanists like LaVey et al preaching radical selfishness, or at least some kind of Nietzschean self-glorification. 

The TV show (and YouTube) helps perpetuate that Lucifer/Satan confusion but it has no basis in any serious theological sense. We're talking about a TV show based on a comic book, after all. But even the TV show has Lucifer quitting the role imposed on him-- kingship of Hell-- and pursuing his own (often absurdly altruistic) agenda. 

• Lucifer is not a ruler, he seems more interested in upsetting established structures, in anarchy. We get this sense quite clearly from the mythological precedents.

Satan is interested in ruling, that much is clear in scripture, in the literature and in Satanism itself. He can do the job all by himself. Satanic groups themselves have always separated the two figures, with Lucifer being a subordinate figure, often a kind of a dandy (LaVey was a bit of a homophobe). 

• As we've seen, the word 'Lucifer' had a number of meanings in the ancient world; early translations of the Bible even refer to Jesus Christ as Lucifer, again a title and not necessarily a name. 

• Also, there are no "elite Luciferians" because there is no Luciferianism for them to follow, or at least anything existing outside the imaginations of certain YouTards.

There are no legitimate Luciferian texts, no Luciferian rites, no shrines, nothing. Unless you count the Yazidi, and that's an entirely separate (and very interesting) conversation.

• Gordon also reports that Lucifer, Satan and "the Devil" are three separate entities in the Medieval grimoires, with three separate domains, functions and forms of spellcraft. 

My own investigations seem to bear this out. When I was working on the Lucifer Rising article, ten years ago now, it's hard to explain but I seemed to notice that Lucifer was often confused with Satan or even distinct figures like Crowley's Crowned and Conquering Child, and that seemed not only to muddy the waters but create a kind of spiritual blowback, like two powerful chemicals being mixed and creating a toxic gas. 

That's one way of putting it. The other is that I couldn't shake the feeling that Lucifer was offended by this mix-and-matching, particularly of figures associated with existential evil and spiritual darkness.*

Lowlife spiritual scum, in other words.

.................................
Lucifer is no choirboy, the archetype seems to resonate more with the Gnostic concept of Abraxas, a figure that transcends dualities. You don't get the sense that Lucifer is about turning the other cheek or loving one's enemies. 
.......................
He/it's not to be taken lightly, that I can say with absolute certainty. Keep a very safe distance unless you know what you're doing, would be my advice. 

Maybe keep a safe distance anyway.
.....................
But that doesn't mean you can identify Lucifer with (kako)demonic powers. Even the Watchers are members of the Heavenly Court who had a falling-out over policy issues, an event which was later applied to literary and folk stories of Lucifer himself. 

But even the grimoires are not based entirely in scriptural precedent, they're also the products of a long tradition of esoteric, magical and apocryphal conceptions of the spirit world, often informed by late-period Gnosticism and Hermeticism, often inspired by visions, dreams and other extraordinary experience. 

In other words, we're still left without an authoritative voice on Lucifer. He's history's great rumor.
..................

LUCID GNOSIS

You'll probably see the term "Luciferian Gnostic" thrown around out there, by those who use Gnosticism as a placeholder for nearly every religious (and non-religious) belief or attitude that irritates them, regardless of whether it relates to actual historical Gnostic sects, beliefs or practices. 

The same can be said of Lucifer; since so little is known of him, Lucifer becomes a blank screen onto which every calumny can be projected, all the better if it actually has no basis in fact. The rebel angel condemned to act as the eternal scapegoat and so on.

But if Lucifer himself is MIA, the concept of a Divine Light is all over Gnostic texts, particularly the Pistis Sophia. Here Christ and Sophia are very much light-bringers or light-bearers, and the Kingdom of the Light is the work's conception of Heaven. 

Light is in fact the highest expression of spiritual attainment in Sophia as in many Gnostic texts, something to be struggled after, kept in a "treasury" or actually worn like a garment. 

This itself seems to reflect Gnosticism's Egyptian roots, in that the Egyptian gods were said to be beings of light who took on physical form to interface with the world. A general consensus would emerge in ancient magic that the gods were made of light, humans made of clay and elementals such as Djinn made of fire.

You can feel the struggle of the writers to articulate mystic- and probably psychedelic- experience in the loose context of the Christian story (often very loose) and usually fall short of the mark. 

Gnosticism's concept of the "Light" relies on the listener's experience of that Light, or at least something like it. It's not hard to see why Gnosticism appealed to a self-selecting audience, who often had the kind of unusual spiritual experiences that would make sense of concepts like the "Light," which might seem too abstract to other seekers.

As you probably know, modern science would later affirm some of the efforts of ancient mystics' attempts to describe all matter as an illusion (often made of light) when it became apparent that everything is made of constellations of electromagnetic energy collecting themselves as subatomic particles, then as atoms, then as molecules and so on up the ladder. 

But the space between the component parts of atoms is infinitely wider than the parts themselves.

But there's some debate as to whether the photon- the elementary particle of light- is in fact the irreducible building block of all matter. Particles of matter have reportedly been constructed out of photons. 

Meaning you can construct matter out of light. Were the Gnostics onto something after all? 

I've argued that the Gnostics were 2,000 years ahead of their time, and that they lacked the external models- or rather, the technology- to really sell their revelations in the crowded spiritual marketplace of their time. Because of this they eventually lapsed into philosophic navel gazing and lost the ecstatic visionary power that gave the movement such a mule kick in its early days. 

It's why I believe Gnosticism is a description of a work- in-progress, not of a historical phenomenon.

But if Gnosticism as a praxis (as opposed to a philosophy) has yet to be fully established, the same can be said of Lucifer, that he is a player yet to take the field. 

One might even argue that the demonization of the name and the figure is a preemptory strike on behalf of the forces most threatened by what this figure represents, an attempt to salt the fields and poison the well before he actually arrives. That effort seems to be losing its kick as we get closer to the launch date, however.

One could even argue that "Luciferianism" as it is presently misunderstood is a false flag construct, created to counteract a force whose emergence is inevitable, no matter what name it actually comes to be known as (my guess is that this archetype will be wearing a clever mask when it finally emerges). 

How can I say such a thing? Well, there's already a precedent out there.

Gordon recently had Peter Grey and Alkistis Dimech on his podcast discussing Babalon, an archetype which seems to be quietly ascending in esoteric circles, ostensibly of her own volition. 

Babalon is a relatively new incarnation for one of the oldest figures in myth and magic, the goddess known as Inanna to the Sumerians, Ishtar to the Babylonians, Astarte to the Canaanites, Hathor to the Egyptians and Aphrodite to the Greeks.

I know this force well and recognize its power. She's not to be trifled with either.

The Romans would identify her with Venus (itself the Morning Star, or Lucifer) as well as recombinant fusions of earlier figures, such as Isis-Aphrodite (Isis-Hathor, essentially). As Astarte, Babalon was the consort of El in the proto-Hebraic Ugarit religion, but she was written out of the story and then demonized as the Great Whore or Whore of Babylon, most notably in the Book of Revelation.
...........
"She stirs confusion and chaos against those who are disobedient to her, speeding carnage and inciting the devastating flood, clothed in terrifying radiance. It is her game to speed conflict and battle, untiring, strapping on her sandals." -- Sumerian Hymn
Babalon is not Isis though, she is not the Mother figure, the Earth goddess of the corn. She's not Diana or Minerva either, the archetypes that seem dominant today, particularly with radical feminism. 

Babalon represents an entirely different consensus, one which represents something that is forming, gathering strength, something which will take shape in the future as the contradictions that we see unfolding explode and the present roles and identities change and mutate and wither under the blast furnace of the inevitable conflicts to come. 

Babalon is a god of love and war, and many other things besides. But it's that essential dichotomy-- sex and violence-- that defines her and separates her from less... complicated archetypes. The esotericists who sense the presence of these archetypes are the early adopters, the ones with their ears to the rail. 

The conflicts taking place in Mesopotamia today give Babalon a particular resonance today, so do deliberate provocations like the Ba'al Gate psyop. 

The places in which ancient battles took place in her name are in the news every day now, pointing us all back away from the more comforting conventions of the Greco-Roman and Egyptian mythologies to the thornier, more complex, more textured worldviews of Sumer, Babylon and the Phoenicians, where divinity and demonology are sometimes difficult to separate. 

That's also as good a definition of our future as I can manage.


TO BE CONTINUED



† Jimmy Page's soundtrack for Lucifer Rising is notable for its pioneering use of guitar synthesizer, relatively uncommon at the time. So the archetype was inspiring innovation even then. 

* I'm tempted here to cite Jack Parsons as the most extreme example of this blowback, but I don't know how involved he was with the Lucifer archetype, or if Marjorie Cameron grafted it onto him. 








29 comments:

  1. Hey Chris,

    Man, I’m really starting to feel (or more so) that we’re all connected by gossamer filaments of meaning and sentience and resonance. This post is at the heart of everything you’ve been exploring in this Lucifer Rising series. If patriarchal slave-systems make demons, demonesses and devils from wild nature, then wild nature will force humanity to gaze upon these feral forms. I really don’t think you can outwit Love, and Love is the Law. I don’t mean that in a simple Crowley sense, nor do I mean it as simple romanticism or New Age soft-focus spirituality. I mean it in a kind of cosmic witchcraft, shamanic technology sense. Love is the ultimate lucid-technology.

    This force came to me first as Hecate, because that was the only name in my lexicon at the time to which I could attribute these energies. But truly, she was far more than the queen of witches, or even Aphrodite. Indeed, she is Ishtar, Inanna, an embodied divinity of Love, Sex and War. She is walking sex magick, the Goddess of Fuck, and we would do well to heed what she has to tell us. She’s been patient long enough. I think you’re on to something when you discuss Lucifer as a force yet to fully manifest itself, and as something feared and demonised by the predator-elites who claim to rule us. When you live in a world of such strict fundamentalist dualism anything you don’t like - anything transgressive, sophisticated, liminal or rebellious - is deemed adversarial or satanic. People level this accusation at me all the time, in my work on the blog and in my day to day life. I want to say to them, are you really so lacking in nuance and contextual finesse? How can you read me discussing freedom, empowerment, love, empathy, compassion and fearlessness and then accuse me of being something satanic? Not that I mind so much, seeing as how I kinda like that I scare certain people.

    I think my goddess – the force behind everything I do at Amid Night Suns – is declaring war on the Desecration Kings. She is saying, “You will look upon me, eventually, and you will love me. Not just as I was, or as I will be, but as I am now. As you made me.” After all, let’s get real. Inanna-Ishtar is a rape survivor, as is Norea and Eve and by extension Sophia herself. The appropriation of female magick towards abusive, dehumanizing ends is what enrages her the most. Turning the black and red of the goddess into the black and red of the vampire. Disembowelling the womb of creation and feasting on the new life within. It’s in this sense that the goddess of love and sex and war turns her baleful eyes to those who call themselves the Highest in the Land. You cannot claim that your cold, male singular God endorses the rape of children, the selling of humans into perpetual slavery, making heinous art of your pathology – and then call another culture’s rites and rituals pornography. It is the ultimate hubris, and those fallen one who do these things will pay a terrible price.

    These words here are not meant to idealise the cults of Inanna-Ishtar, or Babalon. We as humans have lived and traded with slavery since the beginning. I would hope to see some future aeon where we collectively and individually evolve out of this toxic need/desire to enslave, debase, desecrate and disarticulate our own brethren and our own children. The sickness is dark as obsidian, fathoms deep, and has built so much of our world. But the goddess is not static. Hear this: the Inanna-Ishtar of the Babylonians is not the ‘true’ goddess because she, like us, has agency, and agency necessitates change, growth and evolution. She is still unfolding, just as the absence by which we attempt to define Lucifer is still unfolding. Love has much to teach us yet, about ourselves, our perversions and how to heal from them. She has a lot to still teach us about seed, starfire, knowledge and love. Thank you for this incredible post, Chris, speaking as it does directly to my heart.

    Peace

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Raj, dude, you can certainly articulate your minds eye. What a joy to hear such words. Chris, you certainly have evoked/ shone the light with this Lucius adventure. Respectfully Dennis.

      Delete
    2. some lovely alliteration there Raj.lol. I think you have nicely elucidated and expanded upon something Chris had alluded to. When invoking Luciferic archetypal energies, one is almost constantly labelled as Satanic. The fear and loathing that inspires is actually rather useful - flattering almost - and is often exploited for the helpful synergy. So i have found anyway. The old 'be careful what you wish for' Caveat; as always, applies.

      Delete
  2. Lucifer Technologies series, I meant. Apologies. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. just a personal opinion, so take it or leave it, of course, but I feel like the way this piece lays out the "bullet points" of the different archetypes and misconceptions of them, I think that if you turn the 'Lucifer' series into a book, this would be a perfect intro chapter. it really gets you in the right head space.


    and I've had 2 mystical dreams in my life where I was explicitly shown or made to pay attention to indescribable Light...they will never be forgotten. once when I was about ~12 and another in '09 that happened right before (a couple of weeks, at the most) I found "Isis Unveiled" and dove very deeply into Jung, so I really didn't have the topic on my mind, and I certainly didn't have the vocabulary/imagery to even begin to talk about it.

    excellent as always, CK.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Raj - that was awesome, my Friend. :) I'm not as articulate as you, so I'll give you my favorite quote (Haha, it's from a "Star Trek" novel) "The best part of the Ruling Passion is this: Hate has a reason for everything. But Love is unreasonable."

    I took a break from internet posting for a few days, just because I needed a rest. It seems that those that live on hate and fear never rest. Do they never tire of it? Afraid, angry, hateful, always. Anything outside of their narrow vision is monstrous and evil.

    Perhaps they've simply never been told that it's OK to be different, feel different, and to not know all the answers? If so, let me tell them: "It's OK."

    And that's why I call myself Gnostic. There were no answers in anything else I've tried. Now that I've set aside virtually everything of my old life, I'm getting some answers, and more useful questions to ask. Who was it that said a bird has to break the eggshell to fly?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wise words, Anna. And thank you. ;)

      Delete
  5. "Where to go next" is to connect the historic to the prophetic through the secularized present. Take for instance "Death" as the ancient war-god(s) and their armies currently manifest secularly as the military-industrial complex. Channeled through the WWII 5-star generals while Vannevar Bush remains a techno-messiah.

    The prophetic end-time amalgam of collective hyper-dimensional entities have the character of fallen humanity (sons) driven by the unholy angels (fathers) and their demonic offspring (spirits).

    Their collective forms manifest as: the beast (lucifer), false prophet, death (& hell), babylon, abaddon, the ten horns, and the dragon (satan).

    The-beast is the collective of false messiahs, i.e. superheroes, saviors, rescuers ... including the prometheans (semjaza). They take the place of Christ especially in the sense of altruistic self sacrifice, whether the-beast is a wolf, scape-goat, or lamb with two horns speaking as a dragon.

    So yes, the dragon seeks the throne not merely as ruler (cp. ten horns, hive minded) but as the father-god and judge. While the-beast is the son-god and babylon-the-mysterious is the hermetic (pan-gender) holy-ghost.

    The arc of history to prophecy via the current (or recent) events simply concludes that it's the same old story all along. Humanity cut off from God is a carcass, a zombie, in which which demons have taken residence, directed by the gods (unholy angels).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hit refresh for days, waiting for this post. Well articulated, really connects the dots. I think perhaps real illumination. Thanks Chris.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I seemed to notice that Lucifer was often confused with Satan or even distinct figures like Crowley's Crowned and Conquering Child, and that seemed not only to muddy the waters but create a kind of spiritual blowback, like two powerful chemicals being mixed and creating a toxic gas." I wonder how much of that confusion is ignorance and how much is deliberate psyop to appropriate Lucifer's power/attributes/audience for other figures. I'm getting the impression that Lucifer was once well known but has been forgotten by the modern masses.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I thought this article was absolutely fascinating.

    http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/the-forbidden-legacy-of-a-fallen-race

    ReplyDelete
  9. As the pantheons were combined ala Ezekiel 8 then the god-stories merged.

    apollo (now secular cupid) is the lucifer character

    saturn/kronos (now secular chronos/father time) is the satan character

    And the pop cult(ure) way of saying "satan faded," is "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist" (see youtube for The Usual Suspects)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Chris, when you mentioned Babalon as being different from Isis/Demeter and Hathor/Aphrodite, it struck me that in the African-Brazilian religions, you have Yemoja and Oshum, who correspond roughly to Isis and Hathor, but there is also Iansan, warrior goddess of storms and lightning. She is said to have had many passionate love affairs, and she also rules over the spirits of the dead.

    I also just read that Iansan is synchretized with St. Barbara, "patron saint of armourers, artillerymen, military engineers, miners and others who work with explosives because of her old legend's association with lightning, and also of mathematicians"

    ReplyDelete
  11. If you haven't seen Walid Shoebat's "Hell Across The Border" then you'd miss the power that syncretized entities have in current events.

    http://shoebat.com/2016/05/11/donald-trump-you-need-to-build-that-wall-watch-the-new-documentary-that-just-came-out-that-reveals-the-most-horrific-massacres-and-atrocities-being-done-in-mexico-and-how-terrorsts-are-infiltrating-t/

    The documentary has 3 parts. The middle part draws a straight line connection between the blood sacrifices of the Aztecs with their death cult gods to the current blood sacrifices and rituals of the cartels (with their syncretized saints and abominations) all stewed together with rituals from palo moyombe and santa muerte. Complete with demonic possession.

    My point is that it's all headed toward apocalypse. The national and global actors (pols, etc.) are possessed. The spirit behind one major candidate in the US is babylon the great. The other candidate seems to match the ten horns (merchants and kings). The current heads of the superpowers channel the dragon and death respectively -- if their egos are any indication.

    Spandex is fantasy -- but the point has been with the Nazi/WWII/Bell Labs posts -- that the actors in each generation are playing out their scripts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And....this kind of thing is why I feel I'm on the right path. Literally everyone else is spreading fear.

      If fear is the weapon, our counter-attack is to raise our own consciousness and reject fear. I think the Archons use darkness because they know they can be defeated by light. :)

      Delete
  12. Light is ecstatic and revelatory. No need for middlemen. Can't have that. No shamanistic practices allowed in a world controlled by nefarious elites. Light is more than it seems. It is union, communion and direct experience. This is anathema to those who wish to rule and enslave. We cannot have sacred whore or shaman exploring ingress and congress with higher frequencies. Sex is feared, Light is feared, storytelling and magick both feared. Why? Because they are all from the same Rose Well. These things bestow agency. And a populous with agency is a controlling elite under threat. Mark this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, Damn, Raj. :)Well said indeed.

      We all need to increase our agency, our consciousness, and our connections to our fellow human beings.

      Delete
  13. I had a dream last night; the first bits aren't really relevant, but as I was riding a train towards awakening, I went past a Game Stop where they were setting up a demo for Playstation VR, which is scheduled to release in September. Right after passing the store, an ID4 fighter-sized ship crashed next to the mini-mall. More portents than sense, as usual.

    Philip K. Dick at least was totally convinced that the next advent would be the last, and it would consist of the reëmergence of the long-rejected feminine face of the Divine. There's something strangely reäctionary about groups like Daesh or the House of Saud - not to mention your mainline Evangelical churches - as if they're afraid of what might mist out from the woodwork if they don't violently subordinate women.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been remembering my dreams much more often lately than I have in literally a decade. Saturday night I dreamed of my cat, Maddie, that disappeared while I was hospitalized when I was 17. It seems like most of my dreams recently are trying to set right things that went wrong for me.

      Delete
  14. Your final note about Marjorie Cameron possibly grafting something (a Luciferian technology?) onto Jack Parsons is very interesting, as she (like many others you've written about lately) was involved with Naval operations during WW2.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I wonder what Dr. Ted Kaczynski, currently housed at ADX Florence, would say about all of this. Perhaps he was too literal-minded. Nonetheless, it was remarkable in and of itself that he should have his "Industrial Society and Its Future" printed in its entirety in the NY Times.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well, if paradise turned into a blood cult, then some shiny ones would just be refugees. Probably not very visible in the written history. Best to not be a dog in the fight.
    Best to work on the physical constants to change the intial conditions, and such.

    That way being mortal can be the alchemical marriage of bones being carried off by coyotes, and eagles, and such.

    Or a curious drone. Not like that ever happens.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I've read your "Lucifer" series with much enjoyment but find there are a few nits that need picking. One of the problems with using a myth to "unfold" a topic is that the wider the topic, the more one needs to "stretch" the myth to fit the subject.

    If there is a "flaw" in your line of reasoning it is that you are "shoehorning" a Christian theological "light bringer" into a role that never existed for him. Lucifer is, for the most part, a Christian "construct". To be certain Lucifer does have antecedents in the Mandaians and the Zoroastrians but the true wealth of his "lore" is Christian where he is painted as being prideful and disobedient.

    Lucifer tends to get conflagrated into Satan. Satan who, in truth, was not a "bad angel" was borrowed from the Jews where he was known as "HaSatan" [The Accuser] which was an "office of the heavenly court" who's duty it was to act as the prosecuting angel [i.e. an office provided by "God" to reveal the sins of humans].

    Lucifer on the other hand was allegedly the angel that refused to accept the idea that "man" should stand above everything except "God". From this bit of Christian myth making came the whole idea of the "war in heaven".

    There is a parallel story of "The Watchers" ["The Gregori" again from Christian sources] who fell from grace for having done the same crime as Prometheus and gave "knowledge to" mankind and while they were at it picked up on the local women.

    Both of these story lines are exclusively Christian and to my knowledge have no precedent in any "earlier" religious myth. If we're looking for "patterns of engagement" by an "unearthly source" shouldn't that source show up in more than just the context of one religious myth?

    The "foundations" of the "Old Testament" [which for a Jew is the *only* testament] was given a "new meaning and import" by Christianity. That meaning does not exist in the source material of the Jewish Bible. "The Son of the Morning" who was named Helel ben Shahar of Isaiah was more than likely an Assyrian king [much as the infamous "666" was the name of Nero written in gematria].

    The Jewish scriptures never had any "fallen angels" nor did they have a "war in heaven". "Angels" at least in Jewish myth. A "core" Jewish idea concerning angels is that they have no free will. They were designed to be "God's Messengers"-- to carry out "God's Commands". One more odd thing about Angels-- One might say that angels that visited earth were were "androids" or "robots". There is in Jewish myth the belief that when visiting "man's world" angels must *always* look human.

    Keep up the good work...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi Chris --- I just listened to the Rune Soup discussion with Peter Grey and Alkistis Dimech about Babalon, which was kind of synchronous to your post that I discovered afterwards much later. You mentioned, "I know this force well and recognize its power. She's not to be trifled with either."

    That was enticing statement and I was hoping you might be able to give some further details about your experience to help us understand it better? Perhaps we will see this further in your posts to come. I am looking forward to your latest and thanks once again for all your work and willingness to share your insights with so many.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Coincidentally after reading this i went back to the book i am currently reading, called Minding the Light: Learning to See With Spiritual Eyes, and the very first section I come to mentions a practice I haven't heard of before called the Via Lucis or Stations of the Resurrection, similar to the Stations of the Cross, but celebrating the time between Easter and Pentecost rather than the time leading up to Easter. "walking the Via Lucis helps us to see ourselves as light bearers in a darkened world."

    ReplyDelete
  20. minor quibble, but as far as I can tell, Page used either an ARP 2500 or Odyssey for "Lucifer Rising". The ARP Avatar was the only ARP that was designed specifically as a Guitar synth w/ the hex pickup needed to convert the guitar string vibrations into electrical signals to be controlled/manipulated by the ARP, and the Avatar didn't appear until 1978. either one of the other ARP's were definitely able to process external signals (ie guitar), but they definitely weren't exclusively guitar synthesizers.

    from the liner notes of Page's personal release of 'Lucifer Rising':

    "5) Lucifer Rising - Percussive Return
    The main title with a surprise visitor. I had forgotten about a percussive overdub courtesy of the ARP Odyssey synthesizer.
    Instruments: Phased Chants, ARP Synthesiser, Mellotron, Twelve String Guitar, Tabla"

    and as an addendum to some of my comments from the earlier 'Lucifer' series about .mil sound technologies finding their way into recorded music, the ARPs were built by "former NASA engineer Alan R Pearlman (hence ARP) who was responsible for amplifier design on the Gemini and Apollo space programmes."

    http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1996_articles/aug96/arp2500.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARP_Avatar

    http://www.vintagesynth.com/arp/avatar.php

    http://musicfans.stackexchange.com/questions/480/whats-the-origin-idea-of-guitar-synth


    nerd shit, sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hey Chris,awesome meme you got going on,I am through 4 parts of your last one,and when I opened your page tonight,I seen the Satan is NOT Lucifer,and you are 100% correct on that,to add a little more to that,only flesh and blood look at him as a "winged creature" in fact the Universe has him recored as a Local Universe Son of God,same with his running mate Satan.I am going to give you some links to some of The Urantia Papers,the first one is a link to a Paper on The Creators of Local Universes(like the one we are currently partaking of....The Paradise Creator Sons....http://www.urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p021.htm....next a paper on Local Universes and their purpose...http://www.urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p032.htm....this next paper deals with the above mentioned Local Universe Sons...and this blows the he fell from heaven meme to smithereens, as Lucifer's and Satan's only connection with Paradise and Perfection is their Creator Son...http://www.urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p035.htm....now the bit about the watchers, you will find this paper on the planetary prince and his 100 interesting...http://www.urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p066.htm....the following paper(67) after that one is of interest in connection to these last 2 that deal with Lucifer's folly and aftermath....http://www.urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p053.htm...and...http://www.urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p054.htm.....as far as The Papers go Chris, back in 1978 in late August until about the middle of October, a span of 55 days,high strangeness took over my life,in such a manner that towards the end of those days, the folks around me were so scared for me, that they put me in a hospital because I had gone into what the doctors call a cationic state for 3 days, and they ended up taking me in on the 3rd day.There is much more to the story of those 55 days, but to make this short lets just say, I seen a lot of head scratching 'stuff',as well as hearing a lot of "stuff",one of the things I was told in response to a question I asked was that sometime in the next 7 years I would come into possession of the revelation?huh?You will know when you have it. In 1983, a friend turned me on to this big blue book,took me a couple of years to realize just what it was, but it dawned on me when I realized I could read it front to back, back to front, or from the middle both ways that IT was what the 3 guides had told me 7 years before.there are over 200 Papers within it, with LOTS of stuff,but I just turned you on to those Papers that are connected with your current train of thought.How I know that what they say is true in it, is because THEY themselves are STILL evolving AND they openly admit they do not know everything, peace

    ReplyDelete
  22. actually also Chris you do not even have to post that if you do not want to, I just wanted you to check out the leaks

    ReplyDelete