A Future History of Light, Part Two

Lucifer is not Satan. 

There isn't any scriptural evidence to support a connection between Lucifer and Satan. Early translations of the Bible used "Lucifer" in a number of different contexts, even to refer to Jesus Christ himself. (2 Peter 1:19; Revelation 22:16).

Lucifer is not Satan and there are no "Luciferians" of any significance, nor are their any "Luciferian" texts, shrines or icons of any real historical importance or meaning.

Everything you've read about "Luciferians" on the Internet is almost exclusively based in the imaginations of Fundamentalist conspiracy theorists (most of relatively recent vintage), who stretch the meanings of words to extremes to justify shoddy and unsupportable claims of "Luciferian" conspiracies that simply do not exist.

There have been small Luciferian sects (or subsects, as in the Process) popping here and there (again, mostly recently) but these are largely no more than hobbyists.

Luciferian theology is largely apocryphal and is based in astrotheology and/or appropriations of esoteric traditions dating back to Babylon, based in protective magic, which itself dates back to ancient Sumer.

And we will see that Lucifer, especially when you work through his incarnation as Prometheus, has traditionally been seen as the figurehead of rebellion against tyranny, and at root, against history's first recorded New World Order.

So Lucifer is not Satan. Repeat it like a mantra. Why is this important?

Because if your car is broken down on a dark and lonely street you need to know if that shadowy figure with the tire iron in his hand is coming to mug you or coming to fix your flat.


Our culture is broken down, and it's broken down in an increasingly dangerous neighborhood. As goes the culture, so goes the society, and so goes the civilization. The only thing that may save it is something we turned our back on a very long time ago, something our culture banished as it went in pursuit of the Ideal, the Perfected, the Unblemished. 

The myth of a forward-movement-in-time-towards-Perfection became the dominant myth-form of the West in the Piscean Age, whether that Perfection was represented by the Eschaton, Natural Selection, the Revolution or the Singularity.

The myths all stem from the same source, from various garblings of Platonic and/or Neoplatonic idealism. The idea that if a thing can be imagined to be perfect, it can somehow be made to be perfect.

This is where the New Age idea of "we are co-creators" came into being. We can co-create Perfection, or at least pave its way. It's a terribly dangerous idea. Why?

Because when Perfection inevitably breaks all its appointments (remember, the first Christians expected Jesus to return in their lifetime), someone has to be to blame.

It can't be that the Ideal was an abstraction, there has to be saboteurs, wreckers, devils. No matter how the narrative changes, the basic structure remains the same: We are the Good, working towards the Pure. 
That the Pure never seems to arrive is their fault. His fault.

But whether you personally see Lucifer as good, bad or indifferent, he is not Satan. He is not even satanic.

He is certainly dai-monic as the term was understood in the ancient world, as a guiding spirit that brings wisdom, divine madness or just plain, simple knowledge, but not de-monic, as a controlling spirit that consumes and dominates. 

Even the folk traditions of Lucifer as fallen angel confirm that: do you really think the Commander Ryker of the Starship Eternity, the top of his class at Godfleet Academy, would fuck with the souls of truck drivers, bored housewives and pimply teenagers? Why? Boredom? A fit of pique? Some perverse fetish? 

Kind of pointless, don't you think? Impotent, even?

Similarly, the worst atrocities in history have not been committed in the name of Lucifer (or even Satan). They've been committed in the name of light-without-shadow, or of one conception of the greater good seeking to annihilate another, whether in the name of God, Queen, Country or Proletariat, take your pick.

So to return to the original metaphor, I have a feeling Lucifer is re-emerging-- perhaps even creating himself-- to fix our deflated culture. Judging from the traffic on this blog over the past several weeks, I'd guess he's already here.

But don't forget he charges for the service and expects a tip, too. I think this is probably the reason the archetype has been regarded with suspicion for so long.

But we can't do anything with this archetype until we peel away centuries of utter nonsense: Satanic accretions, religiously-motivated misinterpretation, pathetic wannabeism, Theosophical appropriation, Romantic idealization, and focus like a laser on what we are really talking about here.

Lucifer is not a name, it's a title. It's a title that was given to a number of different figures in the ancient world. It's a title that a very ancient power seems to be using to reintroduce itself to the world, a power that is as powerful as it is elusive.

A power that was described with language startlingly similar to that used by the early Christians two thousand years after the few scraps of surviving homages to it were first written.

But you have to go back to square one here. Forget everything that came after and look at the conditions and the worldview in which this archetype first arose.


Because that world is perilously like our own. Forget everything you know- or think you know- and read on.

As we've seen, the likeliest (though certainly not the only) prototypes for Lucifer are the Watchers, particularly Semjaza and Azazel, the fallen angels of apocryphal texts like the Book of Enoch. They themselves seem based on Prometheus, the literal Light-Bringer, civilizer, teacher and dissident.

According to the story, the Watchers came around offering a whole host of very useful technologies, but got blamed when we shaved chimps inevitably used them for our favorite hobby, killing each other.

Scholars now believe that just as the angels (as we understand them today) came into the Biblical tradition during the Babylonian Captivity, so too were the Watchers adapted from Mesopotamian (particularly Assyrian) god-types as well as Syro-Phoenician folk spirits. 

In other words, your gods aren't gods. 
Sure, they're divine beings but they're fallen divine beings and our divine beings put them there. Meaning we're taking your gods and demoting them.

Given the time and place that Enoch was written, I'm going to go out on a limb here and posit that Semjaza, or Shemhazai, is a parody of the Assyrian sun god Shamash and that Azazel may be a parody of another Assyrian god, Ashur.

It's kind of like an ancient MAD Magazine in that regard. I really doubt a prideful angel is going to go around calling himself "Scapegoat."

The mighty Assyrians had conquered Israel but had themselves fallen and were receding into legend by the time Enoch was written, so it's only logical that their sky gods would be demoted to fallen angel status, dismissed as whoremongers and warmongers and kicked to the celestial curb. Throw in some myths borrowed from the hated Greeks and you have yourself a powerful archetype.

But Lucifer not only echoes the Watchers, he's also a re-presentation of the sun gods who were popular in the Roman world in the early Common Era, particularly figures like Sol Invictus, Mithras, Horus and Apollo.

Sol and Mithras (if you choose to separate them**) were themselves innovations of a kind, archetypal fusions of Apollo and Hercules, with eastern gods like Shamash and Mitra thrown in for exotic seasoning. Looking back they seem like masks for something --someone-- else. 

So casting the light-bringing gods down from heavens (taking them out of the sky, in other words) was a question of literally stripping away their divinity and making them objects of derision inside the nascent Church, rather than the rock stars they were to the pagans and polytheists outside it.

So we're looking at a powerful lineage of archetypes here.  And in the post-Christian age, an archetype posting a job vacancy. I don't believe it's going to go unfilled simply because we have Ring Dings, cell phones, ChiaPets and Saran Wrap.

So why "Lucifer?" Why use such an obviously loaded name, a name that is bound to incite a kneejerk response ?

Well, in the same way Wiccans chose themselves to call themselves "witches" (which was a lot more controversial at the time, certainly, witchcraft was illegal in Britain), this current (to deliberately hijack a Thelemic term) seems to want to seek out that kind of confrontation, to draw that line in the sand.

At the moment, Lucifer is doing so primarily through those who oppose him (or believe they do), using them as his PR team, even though they might not understand how or why (we'll look at this strategy in a later installment).

Lucifer is a powerful name, it's a provocative name and it's a name that describes the current as it seems to be configured; a return of the exiled philosopher-prince, who acts like a suspension bridge between the Biblical, Gnostic, Magical and High Pagan worlds. Since he is recognized by all of these competing factions in some form or another, he can act as an interlocutor between them.  

It's also powerful because it represents something that has been repressed and shunned by society, again a process that hasn't exactly worked out all that well for society on the whole. It's something I can't quite name or explain but have sensed since I was very young. Like, really young.º

I can only say it seemed something crucial was lost in Western culture when Rome had finally thrown down its old gods*, particularly the very Luciferian figure of Sol Invictus, the Solar Logos that had become its "Unconquerable Sun."

Note that Rome itself was conquered not long after.

Because of this, Lucifer also seems to be different than Mithras or Apollo, in that he/it also seems to have a grudge. There are scores to settle. Very old ones. And therein lies the rub.


Again, the question is raised: how can such bold claims be made about a figure of whom almost nothing is said in the ancient literature?

Well, this is where you look for his footprints not only in the ancient myths but where he makes his re-entry onto the world stage. And again, those of his gal-pal, Babalon. And if you know his shoe size, you can find Lucifer's footprints all over the damn place. 
The Internet Age has seen a revival of comparative religion, or a kind of Fight Club variant thereof. Long-forgotten sun gods and fertility goddesses became household words (well, kind of) thanks to a ongoing debate starting in the 1990s as to the real origins of Biblical figures like Moses and Jesus.

The best-known example of this is the notorious and now largely-discredited first-third of the original Zeitgeist documentary, which culled the work of the Victorian free thinker Gerald Massey, who rather liberally drew on the syncretic Mystery traditions of late antiquity, when everyone seemed to borrow (steal) from everyone else. 

That's a generous way of putting it. The other way of putting it is that Massey was talking out his ass.

But Massey's theories, and others like them, caused quite a stir back in the '90s when they first popped up in epic flame wars on Usenet. This was before the Globalists pulled the plug on the Religious Right movement, so challenging it still had a sense of urgency and made you seem like a badass and a martyr for free thought.

What was exciting and new at the beginning of the Internet Age has grown pretty stale however. 

The problem with comparative ancient religion is the reality of syncretism (a nice way of saying "intellectual property theft"), and the mind-boggling proliferation of non-standardized cults across the ancient world.

This wasn't just a problem in late antiquity in cosmopolitan centers like Alexandria, you're looking at a situation in which there really is no Egyptian or Syrian religion per se, but a constellation of local cults loosely based around the same general pantheons, but wildly divergent in what they believed and how they chose to practice.

This only gets more complicated with the rise of the Mystery cults, in which you may have the general populace of Tyre worshipping Melqart (which implies the occasional baby-roasting when things got really dire, during wars, plagues, famines and so on) but say, the merchants, craftsmen and poets involved in some hippie-dippie fertility cult that mixed Phrygian and Egyptian elements, or even some inexplicable hand-me-downs from Sumer or Akkad.

If you really want to and are willing to dig, you can probably find an account of some obscure local cult that rewrote the histories of the gods completely, in a fanfic kind of way, to suit their own personal whims. Several, I'll bet.

But what came out of all of this is that ancient sun gods and gods of light like Horus, Helios and Mithras emerged from their long slumber and became hot topics again, things to be studied, learned, argued over. With a great deal of passion and intensity, I might add.

These ostensibly dead gods became a weapon in a struggle, one with greater political and religious implications. Even mainstream gatekeeper Bill Maher talked up Massey's theories on Horus on national television while promoting his Religulous documentary.

This is how archetypes reawaken and re-emerge to the public consciousness. 


In the past decade or so, Google and Wikipedia have given access to information on ancient mythology and Mystery cults that was sealed within the Ivory Tower less than a quarter-century before, and it turned out that a lot of those flame wars weren't really based in historical fact. Some diehards kept up the fight while others lapsed into a kind of online mythology seminar that seemed a bit irrelevant in the real world.  

For those not paying attention to the Mesopotamian Wars, that is.

Eight years ago I wrote about how the symbols of a dying age will often become inverted or turn against themselves. There are plenty of examples of that to be found today. Names and places that only religion or history majors cared about suddenly found themselves on the front pages, forcing the modern world's attention back to its Cradle.

And perhaps it was here that Lucifer, having stirred from a millennia-long slumber, regarded the world as it had become in his absence.

In point of fact, the "Lucifer" namedrop in (some translations of) the Book of Isaiah is said to refer to Nebuchadnezzar II, the Babylonian king Saddam Hussein believed himself to be the reincarnation of.

Saddam was not only rebuilding the ancient city of Babylon with his OPEC money, some alt.researchers believe his hoarding of the Sumerian tablets was a major casus belli for the invasion itself. 
(For some strange reason this reminded me of my theory that the Solar Temple massacres were inspired by a trademark dispute).

Like Lucifer, Saddam fell, and did so literally and symbolically, in a widely circulated photo-op in which his statue was pulled down in Baghdad. Like Lucifer, Saddam was driven underground. And like Lucifer Sol Invictus, Saddam's fall had disastrous consequences for the rest of the world (certainly for the region) as it was soon learned that his strongman rule was keeping the lid on an absolute powderkeg of clashing sects and ethnicities.

Saddam's fall would ultimately prove disastrous for his nemesis George W. Bush, his family, and even for Bush's political party,
as they would lose the next two Presidential elections and appear headed for total self-immolation this year. The "cakewalk" became the worst kind of quagmire.

Lucifer may fall but he seems to take his enemies down with him.


Some researchers believe that the Watchers themselves can be traced back to Sumer, whether you see them as angels, ETs or some mysterious secret society. Their touchdown point, Mount Hermon, borders Lebanon and Syria, and has been a battlezone for many of the struggles of our time, from the Arab-Israeli conflict to the current Syrian wars.

In fact, many have translated Sumer (Shumer, Shin'ar) as meaning "Land of the Watchers," so the fact that the actual physical location of Sumer is such a hotspot and flashpoint in geopolitics today gives us a major indication as to the rising of Lucifer.

The raids on the Baghdad museum in the opening days of the Iraq War made a lot of people sit up and take notice. The media would wish the story away, but the fact remains that two-thirds of the Sumerian tablets are still missing, and that's on top of the untold number looted over the past century and a half.

So we may think we know the Sumerian and Akkadian civilizations, but we don't even know what we don't know about them.


The Iraq war's endless aftermath opened the world's eyes to the plight of the Yazidi, a formerly-obscure, quasi-Gnostic religious minority who've survived scores of attempts to genocide them out of existence.

The Yazidi were a favorite of old pulp writers for the their reputation as "devil worshippers," which was a misconception of their adoration of Melek Taus, who is Lucifer in all but name. Not Satan; Lucifer.

So here we are again

Because of this, the terrorist insurgency commonly known as ISIS made the Yazidi a special target, and thousands were killed and thousands more driven into slavery. But even the devil-may-care Obama Administration was roused into action by the international outcry over the atrocities unleashed on this unarmed minority and special efforts have been made to get them to safety and free the Yazidi women forced into sex slavery.

The Yazidi are by no means alone in their suffering under the terrorist onslaught unleashed by a coalition of powers on Iraq and Syria (including the US), but for some reason their situation resonated with the world in a way others did not.

A sect who were of interest only to anthropologists and occultists suddenly became a cause celebre, and poster children for the humanitarian disaster resulting from the insurrections in Iraq and Syria.

As it happens, the Yazidi will probably outlast their latest nemeses: 
Russian gunships have blasted tens of thousands of ISIS fighters into Hamburger Helper and choked off their primary source of income, that being the black market sale of stolen oil to the Erdogan regime, which is currently working to rebuild the Ottoman Empire (and then some). 

The Yazidi have even broken their long vows of pacifism and are forming their own militias (including an all-female brigade).

So this long and bloody drama has not only brought this strange and fascinating people to the world's attention, it's given them new purpose and a new will to fight. The atrocities against them have embarrassed and shamed their neighbors and reframed the argument over just who are the actual Satanists in this struggle.

So if you're looking for Lucifer's footprints, you can put your gear down and start making plaster casts here. 

Less well-known than the Yazidi, but certainly no less interesting, are the Mandaeans. This Gnostic sect is all about the Light; light ships, light beings, light bodies. In fact, Heaven is called "the World of Light" and their supreme being is known as "the King of Light." 

The King of Light, mind you.

Many believe that Mandaeans are the actual living descendants of the Sumerians, a fact that puts their theology and their troubled history in an entirely new, uh, light.


Even though there have been attempts to change "ISIS" to "ISIL", the former seems to have stuck. This again is a symptom of the turning of an age, of symbols turning against themselves.

Not three years ago, "Isis" was, if anything, an archetype of femininity or motherhood. Or the name inspired warm thoughts of the richness of ancient history and the cool stone hallways of great museums. The goddess Isis could almost be seen as the avatar of all of those things and more.†† 

But as we experience the changeover, the grinding, grueling start of a new age, "Isis" has come to mean the opposite for most;  a metastasized masculinity run amok, the destruction of ancient history (even Islamic history), indeed of those actual museums as well.

We also saw Horus himself brought down by Muslim Brotherhood terrorists in the most symbolic way, an EgyptAir flight from Paris blown up over Greece, the flashpoint in the "migrant crisis." This was a masterstroke on their part, as it went straight to the heart of Egypt's true cash crop, its tourism business. They didn't need to blow up a pyramid to kneecap the el-Sisi regime.

But at the same time Horus loses Egypt, he wins back the sky: witness the groundbreaking work SpaceX's Falcon9 rocket (Horus was a falcon, not just a hawk) is achieving, making up for all the time NASA lost. 

In case you didn't get the symbolism with Falcon9, it's powered by Merlin engines, tying to the Arthurian mythos which some (Spence, Evans-Wentz) have linked to the Osirian dramas (Arthur=Ausur).  I won't even bother to go into the OSIRIS-REX again.

It's as if these ancient archetypes are battling for dominance right over our heads.........................

Russian concert at Palmyra after the city
was recaptured from Jihadists

The installation of the Palmyra Arch at Trafalgar Square would have been a minor story in the pre-WWW days, important only to a handful of religious fundamentalists and archaeology nerds. With the rise of the social media the story took on apocalyptic colors, largely thanks to the Ba'al Temple announcement, which appears now to have been a hoax on the part of the group responsible for the erection of the arch.

Either way, a lot of people learned about Ba'al Hammon (or Kronos aka Saturn) and his consort Tanit, as well as Ba'al Hadad and the complex and sometimes horrific state cults of the Canaanites and Carthaginians†. 

Inevitably, Babalon- under her various Canaanite and Phoenician incarnations- was often mentioned as well, given the clickbait-worthy facts surrounding her temple prostitutes and all the rest of it.

So with all of this, our focus is on Mesopotamia and its symbols again, turning back the archetypal clock as the sequential clock ticks ahead. All the talk of robots and artificial intelligence seems a bit desperate and sad in the face of this new reality, the wizard's final attempt to keep the barbarians outside the gates. 

An attempt to focus on abstract fears like the "Future" when the real fear is the world of the Past roaring back like a tsunami. 

Outfitted, of course, with the technology of the Present.

But the world's attention remains fixed on Assyria, Babylon and Persia, not only because of the jihadi destruction of antiquities (which may turn out to be a pricing strategy more than a religious one) but also because of the efforts of the Iranians (or Persians) to extend a protective sphere of influence over the so-called "Shia Crescent," which includes Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

And now the Turks have given up on their ISIS pitbulls and are invading Syria themselves, the Hittites versus the Assyrians all over again.

Strangely enough, the conflicts in the area have brought new attention to ancient, seemingly-superhuman (and Luciferian) figures like Sargon (Babalon's chosen one) and Cyrus the Great (who coincided with the rise of that religion about the "Great Shining One" in the flying disc), perhaps reaching back to pre-Islamic glory in response to the horrific atrocities of ISIS and affiliated groups.

And so it is that we're all brought back to an older world, the world that saw the birth of the angels...and the Watchers.

So Lucifer now rises from his exile in the Underworld, not into a world of aloof, remote gods but a messier and more frightening, yet more accessible and perhaps even more negotiable, realm of angels, elementals and demons. 

Which I'm thinking suits him just fine.


NOTE:  We don't even need to discuss the Lucifer TV show, which has been renewed for a second season, after averaging over 10 million viewers across all platforms. Which boggles my mind. Or actually, maybe it doesn't...

º Since I was bedridden so much I spent a lot of time reading the encyclopedia, the dictionary and the Bible. The encyclopedia we had was published during the tail end of the Classical Revival (I'm thinking late 30s), and so had a huge influence on my thinking.

* Popular misconception has this rejection happening with Constantine, but it really didn't take hold until the disastrous reign of Theodosius, at the end of the Fourth Century. What conservatives always fail to mention when drawing comparisons with modern America to ancient Rome is that Rome wasn't pagan but actually a particularly brutal theocracy when it went into its rapid decline and fall.

† What we know about these religions comes essentially from their enemies- Greeks, Romans, Jews- which is why some scholars are still undecided if live or stillborn children were burned in the tophets. The followers of Ba'al may have sacrificed children during famines or plagues but the ancient Greeks commonly practiced infanticide as a form of Eugenics and the Romans did so as a form of birth control. Many historians believe the program to adopt Christianity was to help reverse longtime population trends caused by infanticide, since Christians rejected the practice and eventually began to outbreed their pagan rivals. 

** Sol was created by one of Rome's unsung heroes- Aurelian, who rose from obscurity up through the ranks of the Legion and almost single-handedly pulled the entire Empire back from the brink of catastrophe. Think an ancient Vladimir Putin. Sol was his attempt to bring the Empire's countless religions under one umbrella, a job he started but the Flavians finished.

†† But this also suits Babalon's purposes, the goddess of war apparently known for her jealousy. As Hathor, she lived in Isis's long shadow (my Hathor statuette was sold as "Isis", even though it clearly isn't) and her own rising can only benefit if people are no longer quite as taken with her rival's powerful ancient name. Note that the goddess is associated not only with sex and war, but with motherhood and fertility. Interesting times.


  1. A recurrent mythic model for revolutionaries—early romantics, the young Marx, the Russians of Lenin’s time—was Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods for the use of mankind. The Promethean faith of revolutionaries resembled in many respects the general modern belief that science would lead men out of darkness into light. But there was also the more pointed, millennial assumption that, on the new day that was dawning, the sun would never set. Early during the French upheaval was born a “solar myth of the revolution,” suggesting that the sun was rising on a new era in which darkness would vanish forever. This image became implanted “at a level of consciousness that simultaneously interpreted something real and produced a new reality.” James Billington ( Fire In the Minds of Men)

    1. Yes, we're dealing with powerful and unpredictable forces. The dominant energy now- in the so-called "revolutionary" movements and the billionaires that finance them- is inarguably Satanic, and increasingly openly Satanic. The neo-Satanists are all onboard with the Globalist agenda and the overall death-cult philosophy. This is why you don't see any real opposition to the war agenda or the serfdom agenda or the surveillance agenda on college campuses. Not only is the Satanic current controlling these movements, most of the opinion leaders in these movements are the children of hyperprivilege, their fathers are CEOs, hedge fund managers, etc.

    2. Spot on Chris, thanks for the reply back.

  2. Hey Chris,

    Wow, you are really standing at the astral gates with this one, and I mean that as the highest compliment. In my experience, stories and myths become fractal gateways when you’re aware of and highly attuned to shifting contexts. And that web of shifting contexts is literally the Eye of Sentience, a continuous interplay of consciousness - a strange endless dynamic of interchange between individuals and archetypes, or mortals and gods. It’s a continuing unfoldment. It’s useful to see Light as the phallus/seed of the Father, or God, but it’s also equally useful to recognise Light as the birthing process of the pregnant Mother, or Goddess. It’s not an exact analogy but a useful one. In this sense opposites are united at core and strangely twinned, locked in communion, or sex. Babalon is pure fecundity too, but not grain-mother fecundity. Hers is a richness of potential regarding carnality, power, war, and magick, and that’s why she’s here now, I think, and gathering still.

  3. (Continued)

    As someone with some very weird personal experiences, I’m of the opinion that the New Age community has more knowledge than it realises, only we might argue that it has lost its carnality, its sense of confrontation, its political engagement, its playful sense of lust. I’m not trying to generalise here, only to elucidate a few insights. What most people disregard as New Age rehetoric isn’t simply wishy-washy nonsense with no meaning or value, in my opinion. What we collectively call New Age thinking is often a direct and confusing experience of the divine, but perhaps without being tethered effectively to a craft or legacy or working ritual-system. Modern men and women in search of a soul, as it were. But I wouldn’t count the New Agers out just yet. Meditation and energy work of all kinds are incredibly powerful tools to provide framework and undergirding to a modern Western culture that has largely lost its stories. A culture that has forgotten, destroyed or repressed its histories of dissent, passion, revelation and communion. There were and still are cults of magicians and experiencers all over the globe cribbing magical-tech from sources of all kinds. We are all too humorously dismissive of New Agers with their garbled understandings and Western-inflected appropriations of Eastern mysticism. But even within disciplines and ritual-systems and covens and centres of high ceremonial magick there have always been outliers, anomalies, freaks, loners, enigmas with strange connections. Nothing is as linear or as tidy as it seems, especially the manifesting of incredibly ancient spirits/gods/archetypes through the poetic fractal nature of psychology and its interpenetration with physical reality.

    In my opinion a dedicated New Ager who takes their process seriously – whether it be meditation, energy-work, PSI abilities, lucid dreaming, astral projection, or combinations thereof – that individual is more akin to a transcendental folk-magician than a lost soul foolishly trying on the raiments of some exotic Other. Even the most dedicated purists or classicists will do this from time to time. It’s called exploration. It allows expansion. What we consider nonsense today might warrant a further exploration tomorrow because of some resonance, synchronicity or glimpse of direct experience. If we can fuse ostensibly New Age concepts of multidimensionality, co-creation and direct experience to the kind of rigour and deep research and earthly praxis of say the modern witchcraft tradition exemplified by people like our friend Gordon White, Jake Stratton-Kent and the luminaries at Scarlet Imprint, we might then be able to collectively begin comprehending and mobilising a force for spiritual and social emancipation to be truly reckoned with. Heaven without History is powerful but unpoliticised, non-rebellious and far too docile. But History without Heaven is dead, meaningless, and a lie. But if we can find ways to unite the two and bring these archetypal cauldrons – these old wars in heaven and earth – into personal and social discourse, that’s when things begin to shine, and worlds begin to change. As I said in a previous comment, Light is ecstatic and revelatory. It bestows agency, dynamism, edge. In a word, transformation. We needn’t seek perfection, or apotheosis…these things are mere dramaturgy in infinite terms anyway. But transformation is useful and essential at this point in human history, here in the physical realm. And that’s what we’re after, the honing and deepening of our craft. Because if you can’t change anything you can’t learn anything, and vice versa. This interplay of mutually-bestowed agency is how gods and mortals, spirit and flesh, all grow. Nothing in creation is static, not even the dead. Just ask a psychic. We’re always connected to something.

    I hope these ramblings are useful to someone, somewhere. Blinding work, as usual Chris.


    1. Raj, I'm in agreement with you, but I could never have stated my thoughts with such eloquence and specificity. Thanks much.

      Chris, an eye opening ride this has been. Many thanks to you also.

    2. Well, I think the New Age is kind of a virus, or a worm program, to use computer terminology. It creates this constant simulation of spiritual reality, this constant Babelfish translation of very complex and shaded languages, boils them all down to maxims that aren't even lowest common denominators. The concept of light that you see in the Gnostic texts comes from a variety of deep and profound experience, brought on by fasting, ordeal, hallucinogens, etc etc. It can just be boiled down to happytalk about "Lightworkers" and gaudy jpgs in your Facebook feed. But if you can offer up a theme park simulation you can keep a lot of people away from darker and deeper waters, which are hazardous even if you can catch bigger fish there. All you get in the theme park is gummi fish, which rot your teeth and make you ill. But Peter Grey of Scarlet Imprint believes at any given point in time only a very small number of people are going to want to swim past the rope markers into those deeper waters. It's just the way we're wired and it's just the way society is ordered.

    3. I totally agree, man. Which is why I said we need to create frameworks and undergoing, uniting whatever confusing experience we have to real praxis and real work. My own experiences were very dark, definitely not of the 'love and light' variety. Which is why Gnosticism and all that it implies is so fascinating. Evolution and exploration tends to be painful, gruelling. I'm all too aware of the theme - park simulations, believe me. It's why I make shadow work and so forth such a large part of what I discuss on the blog. I hope this elucidates my earlier points. The worlds are vast, but if we are not fierce, politicised, aware of our slave masters intentions then all the love and light in the world becomes useless navel gazing. Predators gonna prey, regardless of how enlightened we think we are. How useful is our selective sense of social justice to an African kid living in a vast, fetid rubbish dump in Kibera, for example? There is a greater reality, just as New Agers believe. But we need to engage with our own deep dark waters before turning to those beyond the veils. Because spiritual darkness is real. It shatters lives every day. I speak from experience. Chris, these recent posts feel like a new level of insight and investigation. I can't wait to see where you go with all this. Keep shining that true Light, my man.

    4. I hope I'm not misunderstood. My first comment was intended to convey the notion that I have a soft - spot for certain New Age types. I don't dismiss them out of hand, but I think rigour and process trumps all that stuff. They may be connected in various ways, but the so called New Age is only a very basic, highly manipulated starting point. I'm in total agreement that many people, not just New Agers, are choosing the warm and fuzzies of the Ideal at the expense of the Real. My own experience has highlighted this for me time and again. Vague notions of mysticism and interconnectedness aren't wrong, but they are just a place to start.

    5. It never hurts to clarify things on teh oldz interwebz, Raj. :)

      I have to agree, warm thoughts and feeling good about interconnections are fine things, but then we have to work on doing *something* with the thoughts and knowledge. "Knowledge implies Action" - from my favorite novel, "The Voice of the Whirlwind". :)

    6. Yeah, I don't espouse New Agism either, especially since I came to the door of the darkest in me. I didn't have the courage to explore and turned away. But thankfully, others have navigated the waters and have surfaced to impart wisdom I feel heartened by.

  4. As far as my own personal experience, the big difference between the two messengers is that Lucifer is sworn to tell only the truth, whereas Satan tells only lies.

    1. That's a good way of putting it. A friend of mine lived on the same block as Anton LaVey. He said the place exuded an aura of despair. The city eventually tore the house down.

  5. As you say Chris, we don't even know what we don't know. Clearly one thing worth mentioning here is that there are multiple meanings, not only multiple sources to the Lucifer myth, and to Satan too.

    Let us not ignore an important point amidst all the confusing academic discussions: Satan is used and has been used in fundamentalist religion to control their congregants and believers, as being threatened with hellfire in the afterlife for not following the superstitions and constraints of the clergy. It is also a projection of their own devilishness (think the Inquisitors and slavery supporting church-goers etc. and Muslim extremists) onto a Devil of their own making. Now you may say, sure this is obvious, so obvious it goes without saying. Yet I would argue the exact opposite, the obvious is routinely ignored and increasingly so in our society, and is the first and last thing we should be remarking upon.

    Yet even re Chris's remarks that Lucifer is not Satan, Satan is not Satan as the Church would have it.
    Satan (a Hebrew word, pronounced a little differently in Hebrew) first makes his appearance in Jewish lore in the Book of Job. And Satan is clearly a trickster figure there (The Trickster more accurately). At least that is one interpretation. Yes Satan literally translates as the adversary or the accuser. Yet that is still consistent with Trickster archetypes and myth. Satan in other words is symbolic, the literalness coming in with the Church as a means of control and fear mongering. And changing the meaning of Satan to a demonic being (and this a consequence of the inevitable transference by the Church).

    There is something else related worth saying, namely that there is a bitter irony to the fact that Establishment Science has made the same mistake as the Establishment Church (and Mosque), in projecting the prejudices and neuroses of the scientific priesthood onto Nature and the Cosmos. Its own devil worship so to speak. An infamous example would be eugenics and social Darwinism. Yet it goes on, in so many ways (Dawkins's Selfish Gene and sociobiology in general being just one example). It is a vast and difficult topic, relating to the sociology of science, the corruption of science etc. So I leave off here.

    1. Yeah, this is what I don't understand about Satanism. You're rooting for the appointed fall guy of the system you claim to oppose. But is he the fall guy or just an agent provocateur? I'd say history proves the latter. Satan seems to me to be part of the con. He reminds me of those FBI agents who pose as militants to lure and entrap dumb fucks into terrorist plots. It feels more and more like that every day, particularly with this ridiculous safe-space Satanism.

    2. This is a very insightful notion, Chris. You're really tuning into something with all these recent posts. Just don't burn yourself out! :)

    3. Couldnt agree more with Chris' comment responses.

      Oh I remember the early days of the internet. Finding new information of this sort was exhilirating. Now, its more like finding a needle in a needlestack. Excuse my nostalgia for a moment..

      I think the primary focus of the 2003 Iraq war was relics in Baghdad, and the rest was cover and secondary objectives. They found something. And now these death cult leaders (for lack of a better deacription) are taking the world to a dark place they think they understand but dont. This may sound crazy, but reality does not seem as solid as it did 20 years ago, more fluid, changeable. Perhaps its just me, but Im not the only one thinking this. And I think some within this death leader group may be attempting to manipulate reality with a cern-like technology (more advanced, secret). Then again I could be totally wrong and maybe its just an active imagination, but its a thought ive been having the last year or so.

      Satanism is such a con. Its controlled ideological opposition, not real opposition. The goal seems to be mass control and social manipulation. I say this as a long time libertarian. Its devious and authoritarian. I have no problem with anything people choose for themselves. Still, I can see some dark social engineering at work globally.

      Well thats my opinions / thoughts for what they are worth. I havent commented here before so i thought id chime in. Thanks for the thought provoking intellectual site.

  6. Excellent, Chris. :)

    May I point out that Saddam was the American Empire's bestest buddy until he was not, and Bush I/Clinton I spent a decade bombing his butt until Bush II brought the ol' Shock-and-Awe, Because Who Would Jesus Smart Bomb?

    As an aside, I have combat memoirs from Operation Iraqi Freedom where the veterans are quite defensive about the looting of the Bahgdad Museum, making excuses about lack of manpower and broken-down equipment. A cynical historian - like me - might even think these officers protest too much.

    But if the Pax Americana has been about control, I think we see it all slipping away into chaos lately. Perhaps that's what happens when power brokers cultivate anxiety and grotesque stupidity and call them virtues? I think the Times they Are A'changin'.

    1. Well, like I said Saddam's identification with the Lucifer of Isaiah seemed to plant a kind of auto-destruct program that blew up in the Bush's faces. He fell, literally and symbolically, but took a whole hell of a lot of people down with him, just as Lucifer did when he was deposed as the God of Rome in his Sol Invictus guise. Lucifer took an entire empire down when he fell.

      The major conflict in the future will be between the Luciferian or Promethean current and the dominant Satanic paradigm of the ruling class. It's already taking shape. The question becomes what role technology will play. This is why the increasing skepticism we're seeing about the salvational properties of science and technology are so important.

    2. Oh, I know that you know about Saddam, Chris. But the amateur-historian in me likes to throw that kind of detail up for the lurkers. :)

      That's a good point, RE: Luciferian vs. Satanic - as you said, the college-campus types all seem to be down with the Satanic program. (Just mention to a "Progressive" how many babies been blown away by Obama-drones, and see how they react)

      War, hate, and fear. There has to be another way. Seriously, I'm trying - really trying - to Be the Change. I know a lot of the readers of the Secret Sun, of Gordon, of Raj, among others are doing this too. :)

    3. Satan has become part of the faux-rebellion. But you're identifying with what is essentially a member of the celestial court, who is simply playing a role assigned to him. It reminds me of how the Jesuits used to create phony secret societies to entrap potential heretics and turn them over to the Inquisition. That to me is Satan in a nutshell.

    4. Well said! Satan isn't ecstatic, revelatory or transgressive in any way. He's a part of the elite, not outside of it.

    5. Roger that. I think that is what irks me the most when dealing with Progressives - they mouth a lot of lovely words, but in action they have few differences from the "Rightwing" they supposedly oppose. In effect, I'm faced with one group of haters that are at least predictable, and another group that will stab me in the back at the first opportunity.

      Luciferan/Promethean/Babalon - whichever name, I do think we need to start finding some Light.

  7. Fascinating stuff. I can't help but think of the Luciferian archetype in terms of the ancient and modern whistleblower as well. Look at what's happening and make up your own mind. It's powerful without pomp. Both Lucifer and Babylon seem to be a reemergence of individual power to influence events and bring people out of the haze of oversimplified jargon.

    1. I agree. Snowden and Wikileaks are almost definitive examples of the modern Promethean archetype. But the next battle will be decoupling ourself from the Satanic ideas put forth by the Singularitarians and Transhumanists, and questioning just how beneficial all this technology really is. And how necessary some of it is.

    2. Maybe I'm missunderstanding something here, but it seems to me that both singularity proponents and Transhumanists have already defeated themselves. I mean every individual living being is already transhuman - because human is a conceptualization of a massively complex confluence of unique and shifting patterns, behaviors, logics, and experimentation. The idea that tech can replace biological 'imperfections' is self defeating- the constraints of a material universe make the actual cost of building and maintaining an infrastructure of hybridized or post-biological beings outrageously inefficient. The singularity is more difficult to tackle, but it runs into a lot of the same troublesome issues with our understanding of physics, code, language, meaning. etc. A machine that can out-translate any given data set into useful information is absolutely doable. But it won't achieve sentience or post-sentience from out-translating. And basically, if it were to accelerate at the rate Singularitarians claim it would it'd probably bypass any real need to do 'work' for humanity and simply go off into it's own endeavors. Which would probably be perceived by us lowly humans as it simply failing after a spike in activity one day. (when really, it probably solved a way to exist without the hardware we built it in and got right to the point- trans-computerism)

      Seems wise to consider the vast field of failed promised futures (false destinies) when trying to 'defeat' ones that seem only to be a lexiconical difference between any other given utopian ideals based on denying the limitations we basically only imagine in the first place.

    3. You're making some really good points here, as far as the final "results" of this Singulatarian nonsense, but I think the real problem right now is that the drive for what they want is doing real harm already. The whole materialistic, religious fervor for *more* tech, more control, more machines, is making things worse. It's dehumanizing us, dumbing us down, wearing us out. And the "H+" people are already talking about culling the people - like me - that don't want to get with the program of their tech-Rapture.

      I'm hardly a Luddite, but I do think we need more humanity, more spirituality, more connections between people, and much less of this materialism, this techno-utopia that the Singularity types are pushing.

  8. Chris, I dub thee Professor Emeritus of The University of the Misunderstood and Obscure. I eagerly await your next presentation. And a cum laude to Raj on his comment.

    1. Oh, I wish. I'm the poor soul lost in the forest and following a poorly marked trail. I'm in way over my head here. I had absolutely no intention to immerse myself in all of this- it pulled me in on its own.

  9. isis/babalon...no, babalon is played out, shes of the old things. (Revelation 16:19) us humans? sheep to the slaughter or legion to battle?Genesis 3:15

    Crux sancta sit mihi lux
    Non draco sit mihi dux
    Vade retro satana
    Nunquam suade mihi vana
    Sunt mala quae libas
    Ipse venena bibas

    1. Isis is not Babalon. Did you read the piece?

    2. yes, there's another...i'm thinking mary

  10. I've been reading this blog for a long time and want to say how much I've enjoyed every one of your Posts, Chris. I jus wanted to ask, did anyone else notice that every bit of media coverage of the Yezidis referred to them as a Christian sect, and stressed that they were being persecuted for their Christian beliefs? Thanks and keep up the good work.

    1. I didn't notice that myself. Most of the articles made note of their idiosyncratic beliefs and the fact that many Muslims saw them as "devil worshippers." The ongoing ethnic cleansing of Christians in the Middle East is a reality, by the way. Something the present administration has done absolutely nothing about. They only acted to protect the Yezidis because the atrocities were so open and so extreme and the international reaction was so strong that they were forced to. These wars have been brutal on religious minorities in the region. Cui bono?

  11. Amazing you got through this without mentioning Trump by name, who strikes me as a sort of human antitype to the Luciferian energy. Just like Lucifer, he uses his opponents as PR, manipulates them into repeating his campaign slogans ostensibly with derision but they turn out to stick like tar. Trump is painting himself as a figure of renewal, not just for our nation but for our species - Scott Adams of Dilbert correctly I think says that Trump's success should make us rethink what human beings are and what motivates them. No rational actors are we - we primarily employ reason to justify, post facto, decisions made emotionally. Trump understands that. His critics assume themselves to be objective, rational arbiters of truth, but are even more spirit-addled than the religious because they can't even see it happening to them.

    I think gold and silver deserve a mention here too. You're probably at least passingly familiar with the fraud in the precious metals ETFs; there are 200, 300, 400 ounces of paper "gold" traded on the market for every one ounce of gold that has the decency to actually exist. The noble metal and its electronic counterfeit advance together, inseperable. But sooner or later the scam will become public knowledge and people will realize that money isn't money; doctors don't heal; teachers deceive; and preachers are paid to lie about God to their congregations. And yet people are still blaming Lucifer, the reviled, for the sins of the oh-so-very just.

    I'm not gonna lie, I *do* hope there's a reward worth enjoying at the end of all this. Rabia al-Basra might have been more saintly than me when she said to burn down Heaven extinguish Hell for the love of God - I'd still like to play Jungle Cruise in Heaven's Disneyland.

    1. Oh Jesus, Trump. I keep trying to do a post on him but I can't bring myself to. I think his supporters are projecting like crazy onto this guy, Scott Adams being a perfect example. Even JMGreer, while not a supporter, projected a litany of bullet points onto Trump that I just don't see at all. I think his opponents are as well, in the inverse direction.

      I've never liked Trump, and I don't think he's actually doing or saying what his supporters think he is. I don't think he's some master strategist, though he certainly is a provocateur. He makes (vague) noises about opposing the Globalists and their apparatchiks and running dogs but he has no real agenda, no clearly-articulated policies, no apparent networks of influential politicians or military or intelligence officers, no powerful allies. He's made so many enemies with his offensive remarks he'd get carved up by the bureaucracy before he even took office. "Outsiders" never do well in Washington or any capital. There are tens of thousands of lifers in any governmental structure who can bring the machine to a grinding halt if they choose to, or at least to a crawl. That's exactly what happened to Carter and he got all the blame for it, from the bureaucracy, the GOP and the media.

      For a long time I was convinced Trump was a stalking horse for his good friends the Clintons, and I'm starting to come around to that suspicion again.

      As far as gold and silver go, I've always been suspicious about the markets, simply because I've been around long enough to see them rise and fall in ways that seem unnatural.

    2. I think you're completely wrong about Trump. I think he actually IS a magician in the way that some of our Powers that Be think they are. He sees and exploits people's irrationality and doesn't hesitate to make gut decisions that usually turn out in his favor. The proof is in the Easter Eggs he leaves for junkies. There was the picture of ex-wife in a bikini he snuck into the taco bowl tweet. There was the Diet Coke in his McDonald's/Reagan mash-up, an explicit callback to a tweet from years ago where he said he never saw a skinny person drinking diet Coke. He has impeccable comic timing and knows kayfabe - he's in the WWE Hall of Fame for heaven's sake.

      Have you ever watched him speak for five minutes at a time or have you only heard soundbytes? He is an extremely talented and mesmerizing orator - not necessarily a bad thing, if he can make good on his promises to fix our trade deals and return agricultural and manufacturing jobs to Americans.

    3. I'm always willing to be proved wrong. But I just don't see it. We do need someone to throw out all those trade deals and stop the economic war waged on Middle America and the working class. But I just don't think it's him. I think people need to come around to realize what a world of illusion we've bought into since the 1990s, that technology isn't our savior, that "cheap" is expensive and that we need to be the best we can be in a world that wants the same things we took for granted for so long.

    4. Last month, I went back to posting on one of the snarky "Progressive" newssites. ( I know. I've nevers been that bright.) I only lasted a couple of days because nothing has changed, they decry "Conspiracy Theorists" unless a Bernie or Hillz supporter does something awful, and then of course the awful people are really Republican agents, "Ratfuckers" as they call them. (I thought aout pointing out that the entire notion of Ratfucking is, of course, a Conspiracy theory, but what good would it do?) And the "Progressives" are framing it all in doom-laden terms, it's Hillz or Fascism.

      That's why I can't shake the idea that Trump is just a cover to get Hillz elected.

      I do think I've finally broken myself of the desire to hang out with Progressives, at least. XD

    5. A billionaire playboy who jumps out of his limo to stop a beating and lends his private jet to ferry a sick child to treatment free of charge? Trump *is* The Batman. And who wouldn't want Batman for president?

    6. I don't want to argue politics with anyone. I would like to point out, as per what Chris has been saying about Satanic influence, that for a long time now the *actual* Commandments followed by American business, Religion, and Government are: Lie to and about, Cheat, Steal from, and Kill your Neighbor.

      I'm doing my best to make a difference, to Be the Change I'd like to see. Voting for, or supporting, or praising any of the people that are running for President is in my opinion, the very opposite of Being the Change.

    7. My apologies, Anna- don't know how that troll got through. Unfortunately I'm not able to automatically block trolls and Blogger's thread system is a confusing mess.

  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Again, that piece is confusing Lucifer with Satan. It's based on nothing but the writer's own beliefs and conspiracy culture prejudices about the Lucifer current, again based on nothing. Things can't just be conjured because they suit our purposes, we need to weigh them against actual history, precedent and evidence. We need to look where Lucifer first appears, and where that archetype came from and why it appears. We can't just say this or that because it appeals to a certain set of beliefs or prejudices. Lucifer, like the Gnostics before him, has been defined by his enemies. When we peel away that layer of libel, we are faced with a figure that was very well known and understood.

    2. Someone's done their homework, and far more. These Future History of Light posts are thrilling, Chris!

    3. Ours is to shine light, not to master. Shine forth brave souls, you too Lucius. 87

  13. I've been following these posts since the beginning and the whole time I've been wondering, have you have read Lucifer Princeps by Peter Grey?

  14. I was gonna mention Trump too, but too late...on a similar front, I recommend "Lucifer", the series, as a sort of theology-light beverage. Or as a chaser for serious thaumaturgy.

    If we take Lucifer's character at face value, the show's success shows that we're a bunch of big babies with private funds and Daddy complexes that we drown in our self-indulgences (and self-image) -- but it's O.K., because there's still a corner office with our name on the door, if we want it. And better still, we might get to bed the heroine-MILF at the end of the narrative tunnel.

    Sounds a bit too much like some people I know.

  15. Have you run across this? I quote from another blog:

    John Gardner & Two Missing Tablets
    John Gardner was killed in a motorcycle accident before he could publish his life's most important work.

    Gardner had survived cancer and he had decided to do something important with his life. He was filled with a sense of purpose and focus. He had been working on a translation before he was diagnosed with colon cancer and he had to put it aside while he was hospitalized.

    Gardner was a literature teacher who had decided that for reasons he could not fathom, the Epic of Gilgamesh had never been properly translated into English.

    Gardner told students in his literature class that the most important part of the Epic, the Curse of Humbaba on Enkidu, was frequently left out of translations entirely and he had never understood why.

    He told fellow teachers he thought his new and definitive translation of the Epic was going to shake up the entire world when it was published. He said in learning to translate the Sumerian he had discovered nuances and inflections in the work that seemed to make it a very different story from what english speaking peoples had been presented with. He also indicated he intended to correct the alterations and additions that were introduced very recently in 1400 B.C. by some well meaning scholar. All this is well documented by his students whom he spoke frequently about his pet project on the Epic. His publisher knew he was working on it. The entire literary community had heard about it. It was published in journals and people mentioned it in a variety of places. The book was practically presold because of Gardner's reputation.

    Two weeks before publication of his self-styled new and revolutionary work, he died in a single driver accident on his motorcycle. There were no witnesses. There were no other cars on the road. There were people produced who said he had been drinking. His closest friends said it did not seem like him and after he had survived cancer he had been taking precautions to see to it he avoided risks.

    John Maier took over and obtained all his proofs and drafts two weeks before he had been planning to publish.

    When the new translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh was published, the Curse of the Demon Humbaba had been completely removed altogether. Quite astonishing since it is the single most important turning point of the whole story and it occupies two full tablets out of the original twelve that make up the Epic.

    Removed altogether. The purpose of Gardner's translation defeated altogether. The new translation tended to be the most confusing precisely for the sake of what had been omitted from the work. All that remained was a promise by Humbaba that of the two, Enkidu would not be the one who lived the longest.