The Morning Star
One’s first introduction to Lucifer in Christian nations is typically the suggestion that Lucifer is another name for the Devil, or Satan, particularly before being cast out of Heaven. By this view— which I was first exposed to by way of Seventh Day Adventism—, Lucifer was a powerful angel who started a War in Heaven between his own angels and those led by Michael, the Archangel, in an effort to displace God and take the throne. Lucifer lost the war with Michael and was cast down from Heaven. The source for this idea is the Book of Revelation from The Bible. It was reinstilled in the public imagination of the West by figures such as Milton and William Blake.
Before the Christian conception of Lucifer as Satan before his Fall from Heaven, the word lucifer— taken from Latin, an informal rather than formal noun— simply referred to the planet Venus in its capacity as the Morning Star, the brightest star (actually a planet)[1] of the morning sky, and still does, even among some Catholic congregations. The Morning Star—sometimes known as the Green Star because it glows green— is the brightest object in the sky besides the Sun and Moon, but does not rise as high in the sky as Jupiter or Saturn. It ushers in the Sun before retreating beneath the horizon for three days, leading to myths about it trying to steal the Sun’s throne and being cast down because of it, but also, like the Sun, of dying and being reborn. Besides being the Morning Star, it is also the Evening Star. Venus is known for having a synodic cycle of eight years that produces five “petals” or “points.”[2]
The sense of Lucifer used in The Bible, such as in Isaiah, wherein Isaiah refers to lucifer in the symbolic manner of the planet Venus but in reference to the Babylonian emperor, whose power was symbolized by Venus due to mythology surrounding Venus in relation to the Sun (the Sun representing God and Venus a powerful second), was that of celestial symbolism. This “Lucifer” was perhaps Nebuchadnezzar, who destroyed the First Temple of the Jews, captured them, and who may have built the Tower of Babel (Etemenanki[3]),[4] though others have suggested that it was instead Sargon of Akkad. Nebuchadnezzar was the world ruler who captured the Jews, and who is called God’s servant in Jeremiah. Regardless, in this sense, Lucifer, still associated with Venus, might refer to a title or seat of authority—similar to that of Son of God, a popular title of royalty— rather than to a particular mortal who fills it, such that there may be many lucifers as there are many kings throughout time. Indeed, The Bible speaks of multiple Morning Stars.
The translation of “Shining One” or “Morning Star” into English as the Latin lucifer was done by John Wycliffe, who was a major part of the proto- or Radical Reformation and of proto- or early Protestantism before its co-optation by Lutheranism and Calvinism as part of the Moderate Reformation. John Wycliffe is known as the “Morning Star of the Reformation,” though he curiously also decoded Cardinal as in the Church position as “Captain of the Apostates of the Realm of the Devil, Imprudent and Nefarious Ally of Lucifer.” In his use of Lucifer here, he seems to be following an earlier conflation of Satan with Lucifer by Jerome. This is curious considering his title as the Morning Star of the Reformation and his own translational use of Lucifer.
Many proto-Protestant groups of the proto- or Radical Reformation were decried as Luciferians. Among these were the Waldensians, followers of Peter Waldo. The Waldensians, of course, were early Protestants whom many Protestant groups even today trace their origins, at least in part, to. Others too, however, such as the Stedinger— perhaps Saxon and Frisian pagans— were also known as Luciferians. In the case of the Stedinger, though they are likely to have also had Christians among them, they are likely to have been worshippers of Frigg or Fria, after whom the Frisians (and the day Friday) are named, to some degree or another, representing a relict or influence from Anglo-Saxon paganism.[5] This deity was itself a rendition of Venus, the morning star, and, by extension, then, of what would come to be known as Lucifer. The Stedinger may have recognized some similarities between Christ and Fria, embracing them both. However, they could have genuinely been Christians and the entire Luciferianism bit a political smear.
Proto-Luciferianism in Logos and Lugh
Interestingly, the Christian-adopted concept of Logos might itself reek of Luciferianism, or what we may now more properly refer to as proto-Luciferianism, those disparate ideas from which the Luciferian motif is now widely drawn. A concept from within the secular philosophy of Heraclitus, the Logos is the rationality or Reason—the logic— that holds the disparate parts of the Universe together. Within Christianity, the Logos would be known also as the Word, such as in John, where it says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God […] In Him was life; and the life was the light of men.” This Light would be worshipped as Christ.
As with Lucifer, and as suggested by thinkers like Joseph McCabe, the origins of the legend of Jesus[6] is likely also polygenic, as there have been many mythological anticipants with characteristics later attributed to Jesus, such as a virgin birth, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection, and so on. Among these, a long list of dying-and-rising gods and other deities associated with the legend of Jesus that includes Horus, Osiris, Adonis, Dionysus, Mithras, and Odin, among many others, may be the Celtic version of Lucifer, and perhaps the closest we get to a namesake outside of the Latin, who has gone by Lugus, Lugh, Lugg, Llew, and other names. In these various epithets, this god could be known as a master generalist of a craftsman, or a jack-of-all-trades, skilled in the various arts and humanities, and also as a warrior, king, and savior—even King of the Gods—, and an inventor of ball games.
Lugh was at times, and among other things, associated with Venus, and his name has traditionally been associated with origins from the Indo-European word Leuk, meaning “to shine” or “Shining One.” Interestingly, and though phonetically unrelated, the name for the original Indo-European deity—indeed, the word deity itself— is similarly traced to a word meaning “bright” in reference to the daylight sky. As with Hermes, however, Lugh was also associated with Mercury and contracts, and had three faces, being a triune or trinitarian god, and was hung on a tree or cross. However, he was also compared to the Sun god Apollo. Other times he was said to be Mars or Jupiter. Some etymologists trace Lugh’s name to meanings corresponding to the Moon, while others to terrestrial meanings such as “bog” or “swamp,” in which case it may be that some of the bog bodies that have been discovered and are of interest to archaeologists were those of individuals who did not uphold their contracts and so who were sacrificed to Lugh.
This quandary of stellar as well worldly associations seems befitting of a general craftsman god who is the King of the Gods, or the King of Kings, and is perhaps an example of his being a multifaceted, cross-disciplinary deity, or perhaps speaking of some relation to the Hindu god Vishnu or to Vaishnavism, a kind of polymorphic pantheism or monotheism that sees many expressions of a singular diety— not entirely unlike Tengrism— which upholds a doctrine regarding Vishnu’s recurring incarnation on Earth in different forms (one of those forms being Krishna, sometimes considered the Hindu version of Christ).[7] One of the faces of Lugh was known as Esus, and was compared most especially to Odin, who had been crucified on a tree, representing the World Tree. Another of his names was Tautitus, which was shortened to Tot, perhaps a rendition of the Egyptian Thoth, another example of Mercury.
Neo-Druidry holds that the Celts followed a zodiac that was not governed so much by the stars as by the trees of their sacred groves. This would suggest that the Celts did not practice astrotheology as it might have been made popular by peoples such as the Chaldeans, and as interpreted by their Roman counterparts, but that their practice was more related to ecotheology or ecoshamanism (as well as to geomancy and other practices). However, we do know that the Celts were certainly attuned to the stars, and built their structures in ways fascinating to archaeoastronomists, and that one of (if not the major) the symbols attributed to them was the pentagram, or five-sided star, which is understood quite regularly to be a symbol for Venus, the Morning Star. Venus and the pentagram symbol had been used early on in Mesopotamia, but were otherwise prominent among the Phoenicians (Venusians), Celts, and Pythagorean Greeks, among others. This symbol is still in use by the descendents of the Celtic-Phoenician Druids, the Druze, and is shared today with Freemasonry, such as in the Order of the Eastern Star, the Eastern Star being Venus, which would also be known as the goddess Inanna or Ishtar in Mesopotamia,[8] and is remembered as Easter.
Laurence A. Waddell suggested, likely with some degree of accuracy, that the Ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia, the Phoenicians of the Levant, and the Egyptians of Northeast Africa were essentially part of a composite, pan-Sumerian culture that he associated with the early Aryans, and that he believed later developed into peoples such as the Anglo-Saxons and Scots.[9] The Anglo-Saxon god Fri or Fria, etc. is arguably derived from the Sumerian-Phoenician-Celtic complex.
Venus was also a symbol of great importance to the Mayans, as was the Great Mesoamerican Ballgame. Could this ballgame have been related to the one invented by Lugh? The Egyptians depicted Venus as a phoenix or heron. The Greeks knew Venus as Phosphoros or Heosphoros and adopted Prometheus from the Scythians. Prometheus is the one who gave humans fire and whose son, Deucalion, was the hero of the Greek flood myth. The Sumerians knew Lucifer as Enki, and the Norse as Loki or Odin. Enki is the one in the Epic of Gilgamesh who warns humans about the Flood. The list goes on.
The Serpent
While there is no certain argument for the monogenic origins of gods and goddesses such as Lugh and Fria, there is an argument for an element of psychological universalism, perhaps, or shared telos, and perhaps also for reticulate or multiregional evolution. The archaeologist Ephraim Squier, who knew better than to look for completely monogenic origins for such things, concluded that, despite the disparate origins of primitive and ancient humans, that they had nonetheless been led by the laws of the Universe to convergently conclude the same as one another in an inescapable fact, that there are two forces in Nature, male and female, and that from the magnetic interaction of these forces arises the greater unity that is Nature, or the One. This ancient pantheism, which Squier deduced from in his examinations of the serpent mounds, could be found across the world wherever there was some kind of civilization to be seen, and this had led others to believe they had monogenic origins.
This ancient pantheism, worldwide, was oddly found associated with the serpent symbol. The Orphics used the symbol in their cults, as depicted wrapped around the world egg, and also for Ananke, who was the goddess of necessity. The Hermetics used the serpent on their caduceus. The Kundalini of Indian yogis is a serpent. And the serpent was on the crown of the Pharaoh of Egypt. The Nahuatl, or Mayans, used the serpent as well, becoming the serpentine Nagas of India. This is only scratching the surface. The serpent was an important symbol for ancient people because its shedding was a universal curiosity. As such, the serpent became renown as a symbol of the dualistic forces in the universe, of life and death, but also of the cyclical aspect of rebirth or regeneration and renewal. The serpent may also have come to represent progressive balance because it moves forward while shifting from side to side.
The serpent is widely associated with Lucifer in the West today, due to the serpent’s enticing Eve in Genesis from The Bible to partake in the knowledge of good and evil, a form of Enlightenment, and due to the subsequent fall of humanity, which mirrors the Fall from Heaven apparently taken by Lucifer. In mainstream Christian tradition, and as with the Tower of Babel within it, this signified a rebellion against God, while there are some strains of Christianity, and especially of Gnosticism, that differ in this opinion.
Marcion, for instance, who produced the first compiled canon text that we would come to know as The New Testament, believed that the Old Testament was a compilation that was under the authority of an evil god, that of the Jews. In such a case, the rebellion against such a god, in the eyes of this early Christian, or those of Christians like him among the Gnostics, might not be something damning, but an act of liberation.[10] Apparently, the earliest text to conflate Satan and Lucifer was Tertullian’s Against Marcion.[11]
Gnosticism can be associated with Indo-European and Semitic sources derived from them in cultures such as the Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Scythians, among others, and tends to view the serpent in the Garden of Eden as being synonymous with Christ or Sophia or some other such entity. The Gnostics have seen Yahweh as the Demiurge, Yaldabaoth, an evil creator or sub-creator deity, and the serpent as a rebel against such a deity.[12] The Ancient Egyptians had likewise identified the Hebrew God Yahweh with their own god Seth or Set, a donkey-headed god, though also comparing him to the serpentine god Typhon after Hellenization. There are different possible reasons for the simultaneous polarization and shared characteristics, but name-stealing is a major one, as it has long been a strategy of warfare for the victor to parade behind the gods or totems of the loser—to “wear their skin,” so to speak—, as if no change of powers has occurred, while tailoring the meaning of those gods or totems to the victor’s tastes over time. Thus, histories become legends, which are reduced to myths, and then become fictions.
If we are to consider that Lucifer—like Jupiter, Deus Pater— might be at least partially derivative or expressive of the original Indo-European deity, but that it may be in competition with a separate Semitic deity, we may consider further that the Semitic deity—if not content to name-steal aspects of it in order to co-opt or hide— might go through great means to demonize the deity of the Indo-Europeans. And if it was indeed the Indo-European deity that was demonized, this deity might have once looked something like the fire god of Zoroastrianism, the God of gods, Ahura Mazda, or like the Sun god of the Pharaoh Akhenaten, Aten.
Indeed, it seems to be, at least in part, from the Mazdan and pre-Mazdan tradition that the conception of Lucifer is derived, being of relation to the peacock deity of the Yazidi. The Yazidis acknowledge seven deities, perhaps in accord with the Seven Wanderers—the seven planets seen by the naked eye—,[13] chief among whom is Melek Taus, a peacock angel whom is associated with Satan or Lucifer, both by a relative group the Yarsani, as well as by Abrahamic faiths around them.[14]
The identity of the serpent in the Garden of Eden may have been the Samaritans, Celts, or Phoenicians in the area, but most likely is speaking of the proto-Saxons in some form or another, who may have understood one of their gods in a way similar to that of the Yazidis.
Satan, the Adversary
The relationship of Lucifer to Satan is complex. Satan is the Adversary, which is a role Lucifer is willing to play at times. The Yarsani, influenced by Islam, refer to Lucifer in this role, as the Shaytan. But this is not to be understood as an evil role. It is much more like the role of Satan in Judaism, that which is widely used in astrology for the forces of the planet Saturn.
In Judaism, God allows Satan to do things such as torturing Job, showing that Satan answers to God and is an agent of God. In astrology, and while ultimately seen to be of benefit, Saturn is that which tests one’s capacities and tries to hold one back from achieving one’s goals. Saturn was also known to the Greeks as Cronos, the god who castrated his father to usurp power and who devoured his own children. Saturn is also associated with the day of the week after which it is named, Saturday, and with those who hold Sabbath on that day, the Jews, who Jesus associated with the “Synagogue of Satan.” Jonathan Cahn has told us that the Titans or “gods” are back, and Derek P. Gilbert has told us that the Great Conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn was a coronation of the Age of Saturn.
Generally speaking, and though different systems and usurpations allow for many correlations between them, Lucifer and Satan might actually best be understood to be at odds with one another. Saturn, or Satan, is known as the Adversary, while Venus, or Lucifer, is known as the Light Bringer. In the Old Testament, Satan does the work of Yahweh (or Jehovah), such as in his testing of Job by torturing a righteous man, and in his accusations of Joshua (said by some Christians to be a foreshadowing figure of Jesus, their names both translating to Yeshua), while Lucifer is the serpent who tells Eve to become enlightened in rebellion against Yahweh. Satan opposes the efforts of goodness in humanity, while Lucifer encourages the goodness in humanity. Only in the New Testament do Satan and Lucifer get conflated.
The occultist Rudolf Steiner came to conclude that there was a battle between Lucifer and Ahriman, equating Lucifer with Ahura Mazda, the Zoroastrian god of Light, Being, and Wisdom, and Ahriman with Angra Mainyu, the god of darkness, nonbeing, and ignorance, much like Satan.[15] Christ, he suggested, was that which stood between the two forces and kept a balance between them. While Steiner was mostly a quack, there is a way in which this can make sense, such as if Lucifer is equated with the Indo-European deity, Ahriman with the Semitic one, and Christ with the means from Hell to Heaven, from out of Semitic captivity and into Indo-European freedom, as Logos. Of course, this requires that all other interpretations, which are also founded in rational logic, must be put to the wayside, including that which understands the Morning Stars Christ and Lucifer to both be personifications of the Logos.
The origin of the conflict between Lucifer and Satan—which, however, is not universal— might be traced back to Ancient Canaan. In Canaan, Ishtar (Venus) was Attar,[16] who tried to dethrone Ba’al— commonly associated with Satan, or El, the high god, and with Cronos— before claiming rule over the underworld instead. In Greece, and in this capacity, Lucifer might also be known as Hades, the god of the underworld.[17] The Romans referred to the reign of Saturn as the Golden Age, a time of partying and carefree living without rules. This was remembered in celebrations of Saturnalia, and later, during the Renaissance, in the Feast of Fools of the Goliards and, today, in Mardis Gras. In contrast to Saturnalia, the Bacchanalia events celebrated the god Dionysus in the form of Bachus, or Liberalia (or the Procession of the Argei) for the god Liber Pater. Saturnalia had human sacrifice, but Liberalia did not, and even tried to deter it, though Bacchanalia did have rumors of human sacrifice and was known to involve the ingestion of raw meat (to represent ingestion of the god, similar to Catholic sacrament).[18] Celebrations of Liberalia were rustic (countryside) free speech events that included the carrying of a large phallus, reminiscent of the Celtic tradition of the May Pole.
The Marriage of Satan and Lucifer
Despite the outward demonization of Lucifer by the Saturnalians’ exoteric religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam— the Saturnalians have nonetheless attempted to hide themselves among Venusians so as to co-opt them and maintain cover among them. Thus, not only is the Indo-European Venus demonized by Saturn-worshippers, they are also made to be confusingly the same.
In spite of their conflict, Lucifer and Satan have been equated since the development of Christianity. Christianity demonized the fertility rites and pagan gods wholesale, and attributed them all traits of Moloch, such that, over time, both Venus and Saturn, in their various inceptions, were conflated together with other gods into a single devil figure bearing resemblance also to the Greek god Pan. Nonetheless, Catholicism carried on in the form of the fertility rites and maintained their memories in forms such as Easter and the Mass, as well as in Lucifer and Satan, who were now, since the time of Jerome, seen as two names for one entity. At the same time, Satan remained the god of the Jews and of the Pope.
Satan and Lucifer naturally have things in common from a philo-Semitic, Judaeo-Christian standpoint, as Satan is the opponent of the God of Jesus, whereas Lucifer is the opponent of the Jewish God Yahweh, and so the Judaeo-Christian perspective (distinct from the Gnostic or Marcionist one), which sees the Jewish and Christian gods as one and the same, naturally sees these opponents as the same being. This is greatly different from dualistic worldviews, such as those of Zoroastrianism and Gnosticism, which oppose a good and an evil god to one another. One might consider that Lucifer and Satan, disconnected from their astrotheological foundations, are different aspects or orientations of the same being, relative to spacetime. That is, the being might be the same absolute entity, but is referred to in a rebellious capacity as Satan relative to the Big Crunch and as Lucifer relative to the Big Bang, similar to the polar orientation of a magnet inhabiting the same chunk of metal. Similarly, one might consider Lucifer and Satan to be different aspects of a common god, such as Vishnu.
Perhaps the most famous exposition of the combined figure of Satan and Lucifer comes from Milton’s Paradise Lost. This is an epic poem about the Fall of Man that began with Adam and Eve’s acceptance of temptation by the serpent. It follows The Bible’s narrative fairly closesly. In it, Satan declares that it is “better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven.” William Blake would follow after Milton, believing that Milton intended for Satan to be the hero of the story, with his own renderings of the story, despite also saying that Satan was a “state of error” he associated with industrial misery, and was followed in this interpretation by many of the Romantics, such as George Byron, Percy Shelley, and William Hazlitt. It was perhaps Blake and Shelley who made the largest impact on the free thinkers. Shelley, in particular, had married into the family of William Godwin.
Sympathy for the Devil
Over time, there have been various peoples found to be sympathetic to the Devil. Some of them, such as those who practiced the Black Mass— a ritual of witchcraft often involving blood from a baby being poured onto the body of a naked woman and perhaps drank—, particularly among the royalty, but also among various witches and cave cannibals, may actually have been theistic Satanists, much as we have today. Others were faced with accusations of Satanism, though they distinguished their pagan deities from Satan and their green magic from black magic, being instead rustic worshippers of Nature deities such as Pan. In this way, the rustic folk and petty burghers were often the ones to bear the grunt of the accusations involving Satanism and witchcraft, and this provided a useful distraction from the elite practitioners who had surplus to spend on such hobbies. It also served to quell concerns about Satanism and witchcraft, because many innocent people were accused and punished in the process.
Unfortunately, this led many free thinkers and truth seekers to reject the idea that there were Satanists and Devil worshipers altogether, and even to align their interests at times with Jews and other Saturnalians hiding among Freemasonry, in fact defending them against persecution as if they were one of their own, and even at times expressing sympathy toward Satan, often for the Luciferian characteristics that he had been tied up with, disregarding the actually-existing cause for concern. The anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and his name-stealer Mikhail Bakunin, for instance, both expressed sympathy for the Devil, using the name Satan favorably and as a figure of rebellion against an evil god. While Proudhon may have had some Gnostic or actual Luciferian humanist tendencies, being describable as a misotheist, he is also, like Bakunin, described quite often as an atheist. While Proudhon and Bakunin were both opponents of Semitism, they have since been disenfranchised by their philo-Semitic successors as “anti-Semites.”
Eventually, sympathy for the Devil would be carried on by two others, a free thinker and truth seeker named Moses Harman and an esotericist and occultist named Madame Blavatsky. Both of them, around the same time—Harman first—, put out magazines called Lucifer. Moses Harman’s was about various “liberal” causes of the day, including freedom of conscience and speech, the rights of women and slaves, anarchism, and etc. Moses Harman, like most free thinkers and truth seekers, was a radical. In fact, he was an anarchist. This places him squarely in the tradition of the Radical Enlightenment. His publication called Lucifer the Lightbearer was dedicated to freedom of thought. Blavatsky’s was about topics involving mythology, esotericism, and the occult. While Blavatsky’s Lucifer said it was designed to bring “to light the hidden things of darkness,” in reference to religion, her project—called Theosophy—, in practice, has served to inspire the occultation of science and to promote identity politics. Blavatsky used the names Lucifer and Satan interchangeably.
The two Lucifers were not at all the same. Their existence was in fact an example of the competition between modernism and Modernism that I have written on in the past, between values of the Enlightenment and those of the proto-postmodern Counter-Enlightenment. Evidence of a similar sort of tension is seen prior between the Proudhonist Realists, such as Gustave Courbet, and the Satanic Symbolist artists, such as Charles Baudelaire. While Proudhon had similarly used Satan in a Romantic light, Courbet depicted the Symbolists as drinking from a tainted fountain.
What we seem to be looking at is that the Anglo-Saxons, and Indo-Europeans more generally, were waking up to the fact that their gods had been demonized and co-opted—Moses Harman being an Anglo-Saxon man—, and a Jewish backlash to this led by Blavatsky, a Slavicised Jew, up to bat for Satanism guised as Luciferianism. Madame Blavatsky, that is, was name-stealing the efforts of Moses Harman, taking up the same name for her magazine four years later. According to John Algeo, in “Viewpoint: What’s in a Name?” Madame Balavatsky— like Moses Harman, I might add— was not a believer in literal devils, but “identified Christ with Prometheus, who brought fire and thus light to humanity and who was etymologically a Lucifer or Light-Bearer. Christ, Prometheus, and Lucifer were all symbolic Bringers of Light to the world and consequently savior figures.”[19] In this, she seems correct. However, she is connected with a trend of Devil worship that would begin to express genuine approval of evil. Eliphas Levi and Aleister Crowley, like Blavatsky, were likewise associated with Devil worship and Symbolism.
It was Anton LaVey, however, who finalize the work of co-opting free thought—particularly atheism— and its sympathy for the Devil into the form of Satanism, going on to form the Church of Satan and to author the Satanic Bible, among other works of Satanism. Today, however, there is some effort to distance Luciferianism— though not entirely and certainly imperfectly— from Satanism, spearheaded by people such as Michael W. Ford and Jeremy Crow. However, Adversarial, Saturnalian, and Symbolist elements are clearly still present in such attempts, showcasing an affinity not pure with Enlightenment (and so with Lucifer the Light Bringer) or Logos, but with Counter-Enlightenment (and so with Satan the Adversary) and the state of failure.
“The Gods” and Trickster Origins
The Great White Brotherhood (which is also associated with the Seven Rays), the cult that runs the world— at least up here—, worships its own “Lemurian” version of “Lucifer” on Mount Shasta in California, as part of the I Am Activity and synarchist groups, where she goes by the feminine name of Bethelda, apparently a creation of Geoffrey Hodson that Richard Shargel has also written about in regards to synarchy.
It was around the Great Basin area or on Mount Shasta itself that the ancient war chiefs of the people surrounding the Yana met with the Yana’s ancestral war chiefs. The Yana chiefs are known for sitting battles out and engaging in diplomacy with other war chiefs, an anticipant of contemporary synarchism, meaning “rule together (in secret)” particularly as between elites. This sort of Luciferianism seems to be an example of common priestcraft, whereby the population is encouraged to believe that wisdom is condemned by God in the exoteric version of the religion, only to find out that in the esoteric version it is the most godly of pursuits, a form of Tricksterism.
My research suggests that the Trickster motif—which is connected to Luciferianism by way of Loki, the Norse Lugh— may be synonymous with some of the older relict races of the Earth, perhaps late versions of Neanderthal, Otamid, Homo erectus, or Homo antecessor, and perhaps also even Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yeti, or Yowie (who may have come to be known as Yahweh). In such a case, the Indo-European and Jewish traditions are likely born on the worship of older races as a form of ancestor or Nature worship, perhaps as a tendency developing in the Americas or Siberia and transported back to India, Sumeria, the Levant, and Egypt (and perhaps less likely into the Americas) by Uto-Aztecan peoples and others from the Great Basin, California, and Mexico, and perhaps also the Nagas of India as well as some early relative to the Jews and Saxons and the Nahua, Utes, and Shoshone as well as peoples such as the Yana.
As with the Jews, the Utes view the Trickster or Adversary— in the form of Coyote— as playing an essential role, whereas the Shoshone tend to shun Coyote outright, viewing him as an evil Demiurge-like figure, a false creator. This is similar to the Jewish and Saxon outlooks on Satan.[20] Like the Greek Prometheus—often equated to Lucifer the Lightbringer—, however, Coyote is seen by some of the Uto-Aztecan people as a benefactor to humanity, such as by bringing it fire, and even as a progenitor of humans of some varieties. Here there is a connection between the Light Bearer and the Adversary by way of the Trickster, further contributing to the idiosyncrasy of mythological archetypes and cast-roles.
Whether these relict races of human—Homo erectus to Bigfoot— are existent or are remembered merely in the form of the Otamid phenotype, activities such as the Duk-Duk, in the Native American lodges, and in various mythologies used as fictions to scare people and hide oneself in the form of, it appears as though they are in some way, shape, and form responsible for the governance of the planet. Indeed, Mount Shasta has long been associated with myths of Lemuria, Sasquatch, and UFOs, as well as being of central importance to the synarchist cults connected to the globalist organizations, as Shargel also tells us of.
Atheists who are “in the know,” or who at least think that they are, from the lower rungs of the synarchy—perhaps the Discordians—, will scoff at the idea that there is something like a Bigfoot that is worshipped by the synarchists. Indeed, it does seem silly at first, without doing deep research on the matter. And indeed, Bigfoot and other tales could be entirely fictional creations of elders, such that the Duk-Duk costumes I have referenced in my work are not representative of any entity that had ever lived, and this would certainly suggest the creation of religions by atheists.
However, the tendency of elites has been to wear the skins of their former opponents and to usurp their lineages and legends. If this trend continues as far back as the life of the last Bigfoot or Yowie[21]—assuming its extinction—, then those who established its extinction may have continued on with its terrors by becoming “sheep in wolves’ clothing”—to turn the phrase around—and by terrorizing “trouble-makers” in its memory. This would have been a political move that made use of existing fears, well-established in the cultural psyche or collective unconscious—archetypes— and in legends and myths, to wield greater influence than that which could be gained by a common human understood in their capacity as such. And it would represent an early form of realpolitik, the use of others’ beliefs or ideologies—real or imagined— against them. Of course, this also does not require the full extinction of Bigfoot, and neither does it eliminate the worship of Bigfoot and other ancestors as it might have occurred across the world during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic if not also since the time of Homo heidelbergensis sacrificing its children to Homo antecessor.
Perhaps what we are looking at, in the myths such as Prometheus, Enki (his earlier, Sumerian counterpart), the serpent, and the others, is that if one tries to help humanity against “the gods” as a Light Bringer, one will be demonized as the Adversary of humanity by those same “gods” (the godis, “chieftains”). Another consideration may be that human ancestors—Homo erectus, Bigfoot, etc.— have played a neutral role in our lives, being both the Adversary or Evening Star and the Light Bringer or Morning Star, either fighting with or against us (like Native Americans did).
No Universal Source
There are many instances of proto- or actual Luciferianism in the ancient world. But in tracing these origins, it is necessary to come to terms with the polygenic nature of human evolution. That is, unlike what the Monogenic Cult of Theosophists,[22] Abrahamists, and Darwinists would have one believe, the natural process by which humans and their societies come about is not simply one of divergence and drift away from a common source, but—at least also— of convergence and recombination, or of reticulation and hybridization. This means that as we look for “the source” of Luciferianism, the further back we go the more distant the various actual sources will be from one another.
So, we cannot go looking for an original, untainted Luciferianism from which we may all draw from as central tradition, because it never existed, except now as a composite of previously disconnected parts. Many contradictory beliefs and astrotheological systems existed, from which contemporary Luciferians draw idiosyncratically from, even sometimes considering Lucifer an aspect of Satan despite good reason not to do so (but with some good reasons for doing so, too). And, because of this, it is possible to speak also of various Luciferianisms, rather than a singular one, even today, as Luciferianism is not an objective phenomenon but a subjective noumenon taking multiple forms. Luciferianism was never a tradition or a religion. Rather, Luciferianism is a convergent aesthetic, or an archetypal or sympathetic phenomenon, a combination of different inputs from different sources that, over time, have been found to be compatible for one reason or another or— more oftentimes— not.
It is for these reasons, among others, that secular Luciferians such as myself have often taken an agnostic or even atheistic stance toward any meaningful existence of an actual or meaningful historical-mythological-religious figure, though may entertain the possibility of an organizing principle similar to the concept of Logos or else an archetype or aesthetic motif. Instead, the words of the great agnostic, Robert G. Ingersoll, may be heeded, when he describes the myriads of contradictions resulting from various human imaginings. Motifs and archetypes are not actual things that exist materially in the world, though they may have some formal or categorical causation to them the way that any idea or aspiration does (but nonetheless have failed in universal recognition).
The uniting features of proto-Luciferianism appear to have been the veneration of Venus and of Titanic rebels who acted in favor of humanity and humanitarian values such as Reason, Truth, Freedom, and Enlightenment, as well as an emphasis on sexual love, lust, fertility, and marriage, and an embrace of the mundane, relative, or grey or dualistic aspects of moral life as a part of natural existence. Today, myths have been reduced to cartoons and comics, the gods and demons becoming the superheroes and supervillains worshipped in fictions (only goofballs—some of them very influential— literally worship demons). Indeed, religion means “to bind” while its later development, entertainment, means “to hold among.” Myths are artful literary expressions rather than objective phenomena. As such, they are prone to idiosyncrasies and contradictions rather than to correspondence and coherence with physical reality. There is no such thing as the Devil, because the Devil is the agent of nothingness, and, as Parmenides taught us, nothing has no existence. Nothing is not. Similarly, Zoroastrian tradition holds that Ahura Mazda is Being, while Angra Mainyu is nonbeing, and Plotinus affirms that God is the Source and the One, in which all inhere and without which nothing can be. Natural philosophy trumps religion. If Lucifer is of any use, it is as a symbol for natural philosophy and for values such as freedom, truth, enlightenment, evolution, progress, and righteous rebellion, as understood separately from Satan, who represents the opposite of these things.
Luciferian Philosophy
I would say that a very good approximation to an emerging consensus on Luciferian philosophy was stated by Luciferian Owl (Sasha James) recently, in the Luciferianism subreddit, who defines her relationship to God as follows (strongly copyedited):
For my part, God is a general entity that comprise everything that is.
Light, darkness, good, bad, individuality, multiplicity, all of this exists in the spectrum of existence. All of the elements are simply an amalgam of polar opposite, and the different degrees of it. Like some sort of multidimensional spider web. But all of this is simply God experiencing itself. And so, by aligning my own part of godly essence to the source of that Universe, I can communicate with God and see messages in everything, even if it is often very cryptic.
I used to be angry about God, about the dark part of the Universe, before realizing that since God was everything, it was simultaneously living the two sides of a situation. By example, a murderer. God simultaneously enjoys the power it gives him to kill, while also feeling the suffering of the victim. Hence why there are killers and why there is resistance to those actions, like if he was lost into the different aspects he was experiencing because of the strength of these experiences.
I see God as a sort of self-conceived baby. When a baby is born, he only experience reflexes. Reflexes of survival. But the more he grows, the more he becomes conscious of himself and his environment. He then needs to mature, to confront parts of himself and contradictory desires to be able to survive.
When the Universe was born, it seemingly only existed with the laws of physics, gravity and all the other laws of the universe. Non conscious laws that simply make it work. But the more the Universe advances, the more it becomes complex because of conscience. Conscience focuses the forces of the Universe.
A simple ladder, or a door, by example, couldn’t exist from the Universe alone, But with the conscience of humans, it is easily created. And so, the way I see it, God is slowly awakening from his slumber, and slowly, with the Universal conscience of all conscious creatures, understanding the way he wants to take. And the beautiful thing in this is, since I believe we are all part of that conscience, then we also get to decide the future we want to see. But for this, it takes cooperation.[23]
Indeed, Luciferians are apt to recognize that the world has evil in it, and they even want to know the workings of that evil, the world of physics and of illusion. This is not for the same motives as a Satanist, however—those of wielding the evil wrathfully—, because a genuine Luciferian will be interested in using this wisdom to surpass and overcome those evils, to enlighten humanity to them for the purpose of progress. After all, evils that are widely known, that have light shed on them, cease to have the power that they do when one is unaware. This is, after all, the story of growing up and scraping one’s knee in learning how to walk and run.
The evils in the world oftentimes provide us powerful lessons in escaping those very same evils. The darkness is the world compels us to seek out the light. For these reasons and more, philosophers such as Leibniz and Spinoza have argued that we are in the Best Possible World, one containing just enough evil that we may have contrast against which to know and love the Good; for it is through contrast that we derive distinctions.
Yet, even while it is through contrast that we derive our distinctions, it is not contrast that gives goodness the nature of light, nor is it contrast that inheres in evil’s darkness. These are innate to the Source and the pleroma, and human beings likewise have an innate position within the Universe that drives them to do good, however much goods may at times conflict with one another. This is why Luciferian Owl’s conclusion, that deciding our future requires cooperation, is a particularly mature statement of the Luciferian philosophy. Without co-creating a consensus as to a Greater Good which all participating will readily accept, individual, relativistic goods will continue to conflict—good will be bad—, and that is just a part of life.
Luciferian Owl replied to my affirmation of her view, saying
I believe this interpretation will become more and more popular with time, because it contains every belief system together. Then it will be possible to expand on the theory with the massive amount of knowledge that all the different religions, spiritualities and science has learned throughout time.[24]
I think that she is right.
Perhaps the quintessential example of a “proto-Luciferian Christian” from the ancient times would be Aristotle. Not only because he was a philosopher, and because philosophy itself might be said to be Luciferian, but because of his particular philosophy, which aims toward the Good by striking a balance between vices. The goal of Aristotle’s philosophy is to achieve magnanimity and eudaemonia—literally “having a good demon”[25] and meaning “happiness” or “flourishing”— through virtuous action guided by Reason. Magnanimity, in the Ancient Greek, meaning “Big Souled” or “Big Minded,” has also been translated as pride, suggesting that the goal of Aristotle’s philosophy is pride. Pride, of course, has Luciferian connections not only by way of Lucifer himself and the hubris that drove him to rebel against God, but similarly through the myth of Narcissus, the prideful Lucifer-like god of Ancient Greece. Aristotle also suggests that the Good is found through balance rather than by getting caught up in this or that or some other polarity. Aristotle’s is exemplary of the sort of whitening grey moral reasoning that is also found among Luciferians of the Radical Enlightenment and modernism.
Aristotle’s eudaemon, of course, was demonized early on by the Catholic Church, though Aristotle’s philosophy would nonetheless come back to influence thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas after the Golden Age of Islam. Demonic possession is a great fear of certain religious peoples, including Christians. Indeed, it does appear that there are phenomena that could easily lead one to believe that certain malevolent spirits exist in the world. But today’s science would prefer to refer to these as forms of dissociative splitting or as disunities of one’s psyche into compartmentalized “sub-selves,” such as may occur with certain forms of schizophrenia or multiple personality disorders. The psychologist Julian Jaynes has argued that the gods and devils that were experienced in the ancient times, before the proper fusing together of the hemispheres of the brain, were actually the phenomenological experiences of the two hemispheres communicating while unfused, which Jaynes suggests was something like hearing voices in the manner of a patient that is experiencing dissociative splitting.
Spinoza, a follower of Aristotle, and like him, had a philosophy that is also able to be considered Luciferian due to the moral relativist aspects of his philosophy and his pantheism, as well as for reasons similar to, and in part inspired by, Aristotle. Of course, other pantheists before and after him, such as Eriugena, Amalric of Bena, Nicholas of Cusa, Giordano Bruno, John Toland, and more, are in the same boat. The philosophies of pantheism and eudaemonism serve to unify the consciousness by treating all of existence as an interconnected and interdependent whole.
The Light and Dark Side of the Shining One
In the Middle Ages, there were competing Luciferianisms, as there are today. The Knights Templar were charged with being Luciferians, but so too were the peasant groups I have mentioned, such as the Stedinger, who Crusader groups had waged crusades against. This was a class war occurring between “Luciferianisms,” which is to say, between Islamicizations or paganisms, because Venus came back into Europe after the Golden Age of Islam under the black flag of Islam[26] and settled in the black flags of piracy and of anarchy, and was associated with classic European paganism, Islam worshipping on Friday, the day of Fria, and including the Druze in its ranks. This Lucifer the Devil motif was established as a slander, perhaps, by their enemies in the Catholic Church, and possibly one against Islam and paganism, but would over time come to represent—especially among the lower classes, and inconsistently for the upper ones— a European rebellion upheld for the purposes of Truth, Enlightenment, and Freedom and in opposition to dogma, ignorance, and domination. The Templars represented an encroach against Church authority through the development of international banking operations, and the Stedinger represented a tendency toward mutualism, both being at class odds with one another as well as being in ideological competition with the Church.
There appears to be in the Luciferian philosophy—which is to say, in my opinion, pantheism—, as it was remembered in and came to Europe, a Light and a Dark side that represent a cosmic battle, perhaps best exemplified in the modern day myth of the original Star Wars, a childhood favorite. In this myth, Luke Skywalker—obviously a name connected to Lugh— eventually goes to Dagobah—which takes its name from the Irish Dagda, the chief deity— to learn from Master Yoda, a green man—“Green Man” being a motif in Celtic paganism—and possibly yogi. This is clearly about Lugh learning green magic. In Spaceballs, the spoof on Star Wars, Master Yoda is represented as being Druish, obviously a reference to the Druze remnants of the Druids. Luke, again in Star Wars-proper, learned about the Light Side and the Dark Side to which his father turned. After having lost his father’s blue light saber—a sort of fictional lazer sword— from before his father’s turn to the dark side, Luke builds his own, new, green light saber, once again suggesting that the knowledge of a mature Jedi—the warrior cult connected to the Light Side of the Force, a kind of preternatural, fictional energy— is that of natural wisdom.
Similar to the story of the Light and Dark Side in Star Wars there is a battle between the Light and Dark Side of pantheistic philosophies on Earth. On one side, pantheism had brought about all of the world’s religions and legal systems, and so has been instrumental to the establishment of civilization and the development of moral and ethical conduct and good character, and domesticity, bringing people also closer to a rational or allegorical conception of God. On the other side, and in its corruption, pantheism has been divorced from classical theism completely, as well as from benevolent humanism, and has been used as an excuse for some of the worst of pessimistic worldviews, such as those of Phillip Mainlander or the Theosophists, and for the kakistocracies—“rule of the worst (worst meaning “pessimistic”)”— that followed as agencies to the synarchy.
In the role of the Light Bearer, Lucifer may represent a worthwhile organizing principle, similar to Christ (though certainly not someone existent to be worshipped or revered or even respected), who called himself the Church, the corporate body of believers. After all, both Lucifer and Jesus are the Morning Star. Jesus became well established. Lucifer has been utilized as a figurehead for free thought, truth-seeking, rebellion, and philosophy, and in this role may be worth preserving (if, indeed, any literary or mythological figures at all are) against further encroachment by his successor.
Christian Luciferianism
The Satanists—who have embraced the worst of the Adversary and the Trickster, and who worship a false conception of time in Cronos-Saturn, the god of entropy— have lied to the people and have split and compartmentalized their psyches into various dissociations that take the form of the myriad of unnatural (but still within Nature, just not affirming it) and irrational religious and political ideologies adhered to the world over, such as false Christianity and malevolent atheism, exploitative capitalism and oppressive communism.
Ambiarchy accepts that Satan can make his moves, but counters as another kind of Trickster—the Trickster of Tricksters[27]— that Satan’s moves can be used against him, and that people who lie to themselves may at times be best given their own medicine until such a point that they will be willing to hear the truth. Indeed, it must be understood that people’s ignorance is an offense and is often costly, leading to infringements of natural and social principles, and that wielding a weapon against one’s opponent—particularly their own— is quite often an acceptable act of self-defense.
However, it is worth recounting another myth, one which has Lucifer regret his decision to save humanity and which finds him disgusted by the lack of human progress, finding that he sides with God in destroying them in a great flood. These flood myths also find themselves into the work of secular philosophy by way of Plato, whose telling of the destruction of Atlantis similarly warns that God sends floods to destroy the wicked, suggesting that there is some agency still regarding God and Creation, and that natural laws may exist to enforce universal adherence to morality through events that create punctuations in the equilibrium of our evolution, in which case the Luciferian perspective could be dangerous if it leads one to do things that God sees as worthy of punishment.
This establishes a conundrum, whereby Luciferian humanism, which might see human progress as an instrument of God’s creative process, comes up against a need for classical theology and the Rule of God. If Lucifer takes one away from God, one is damned. Lucifer, if one is to take up a role model, is no substitute for Christ, though he may inform one’s conception of Christ and balance the popular understanding of Christ as a motif of Love. Christian Luciferianism might be summed up by the phrase, “everything is perfect, including the impetus to change it.” Christ here might represent the love of God’s perfect Creation, while Gnostic Luciferianism represents the desire to rebel against the way things are. Alternately, Luciferianism might represent the perfection of the world despite its profanities, whereas Christ represents its transformation through Love. It’s an arbitrary and non-dual fairytale that is really just about aesthetics and subjective emotion anyway—Romantic bullshit—, so take your pick.
Lucifer vs. Jesus
The problem Lucifer ultimately faces is that there is really no such thing as Lucifer in any kind of materializable sense of the word, Lucifer instead being relegated to the realm of a fiction, “his” existence being completely nominal. Nonetheless, there may be some use in this emerging aesthetic, in that the archetypes—plural, because there is no single archetype of Lucifer— speak to something worthwhile that can, perhaps, be made intersubjective through education in the topic or by being made culturally familiar.
One is reminded that there is even disagreement between the Gospels regarding the life of Jesus. But, while Jesus may have been a real person around whom a legend was developed involving syncretic material from previous mythologies, however, there has never been a religious or historical account of an actual man named Lucifer, so if there is an entity to believe in between the two, it would have to be Jesus. Whether there was ever a Lugh or Loki, and Astarte or Inanna, a Frigg or Fria, or etc., in the same way—folk heroes, perhaps—, we lack evidence that suggests with the same strength of Jesus to know. And while some versions of Venus may have demanded human sacrifice, we know that Jesus was contented with sacrificing himself for others, and that is a much nobler action. But it does appear that there is some relationship between these pagan archetypes of Venus and that of Christ, the Logos.
As far as I can tell, between the Morning Stars, Jesus represents the Good while Lucifer represents the Right. Many who have come from narcissistic families[28] will recognize that there may be many affirmations of Love and the importance of family that come off as completely bogus or empty when the intellectual content is considered. I, for instance, came from a household where Love and the importance of family was strongly expressed, but in which I felt completely ignored and stifled, to my great detriment. Thus, I have tended to devalue Love, despite its also being one of the ruling features of Venus, the planet of Love and my ruling planet, and which is also important to my life, and to instead uphold the importance of truth-telling, Truth being another attribute of Venus often symbolized by light, which has served to keep me sane and contented. To be truly benevolent, which is my goal, one needs to pursue objective truth as well as subjective love, and this seems like striking a balance between the two conceptions of Logos, Lucifer and Christ, as Lucifer has tended to represent Reason (though can also represent Love) and Christ has represented Love (though can also represent Reason), the two possibly representing different emphases of a converging path known as the Way or in the East as the Tao.
I think that it is important to distinguish between Lucifer and Satan, and to associate Lucifer with Christian qualities in recognition that Jesus is the successor for the Morning Star title, coming from out of the same archetype. If one is going to use the Lucifer motif, it should be at primary odds with Satan, and only at odds with Jesus to the extent that Jesus demands the irrational, not to the extent that Jesus has granted us the Golden Rule. There is something to say of the Satanic Brass Rule, however, which suggests that one should do unto others as they do unto oneself. Unlike the Golden Rule, which demands us to “turn the other cheek,” this one suggests that we should “slap back.” The Brass Rule may be found in the Code of Hamurrabi, or in the Old Testament, where it is declared “eye for an eye,” whereas Gandhi responds, echoing the Golden Rule, “an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” If Jesus and Satan are to have this scuffle, and if it is then necessary to distinguish the Morning Stars, Lucifer might respond with something like the Aristotlean notion of the right use of Reason with considerations toward equity that place limits on severity or wrathfulness. In this case, Rudolf Steiner has the roles of Jesus and Lucifer mixed up.
An Extra Two Cents on Ambiarchy and Luciferianism
My view is that there are a number of ways to interpret the Ambiad, which is what I refer to the geometry of our block Universe as. My favorite is the eternalist pantheist view that interprets God as the Universe past, present, and future, especially when combined with a benevolent humanistic pragmatism.
Of course, a presentist pantheism can be set within it as well, and from out of that a panentheist conception can be born by combining presentist pantheism with classical theism. Classical theism, of course, refers to the moral, formal, and teleological views coming by way of Egypt and Phoenicia from out of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, whereby God is associated with morality, the world of forms (and especially the form of the Good), and the telos, but also takes influence from out of Indo-European and Jewish beliefs regarding a creator deity. In the Ambiad, these teleological and generative views fit into the dynamics of the singularity of the Big Bounce. A pandeist or deist conception can similarly be derived from a perspective based upon the Big Bang aspect of the Big Bounce. And the polytheist view is easily contained as various forms within the Ambiad.
I believe that the eternalist pantheist conception is best because it contains all aspects of belief within it, and can explain them as part of itself, but that all of these views can tell us something unique about the Ambiad. Ambitheism is essentially pantheism as containing agonistic conceptions of the deity within itself. This is not entirely different from a mature understanding of pantheism, though it is a subtle difference in emphasis.
My interest in Luciferianism stems from having grown up in a repressive religious environment that shunned worldly knowledge and pleasures such as sex in favor of tradition, guilt, and frigidity, and that supported the exploitation of capitalism and oppression of statism while I was learning about the alternative equality of mutualism and the freedom of anarchism from atheists. The contradictions of both religion and—to say the same—government led me to conclude in favor of atheism and anarchism. My conscience could not accept that the legitimate God, who is all-knowing and all-loving, could create humans with knowledge that they would sin and that they would have to suffer for it for all eternity if they were to become wise and did not remain ignorant to what good and evil are, or if they were to enjoy simple pleasures such as sex with one another, which God himself created.
Of course, the Nietzschean interpretation of this story is that good and evil are non-existents, and that the true sin in this act was the bringing about of a dualistic moral system instead of maintaining a non-dual outlook. But my own intuitive and subjective sympathies have generally been with the serpent in the story, who seems to have wanted to help Adam and Eve by enlightening them. And this tends to be the case with most Luciferians who have identified Lucifer with the serpent. However, this is not a universally agreed upon creed, though it may be an oft-felt fellow-feeling.
With ambitheism considered, there is no absolute or unified conception of Lucifer that can be derived from out of the past, because different cultures maintained disparate astrotheologies, treating those sources, of what would be later associated with aspects of the derived Lucifer, in completely different and often contradicting ways. This reflects the composite and syncretic, as well as political, nature of the evolution of religious beliefs. There have been, however, cultural works and movements that have established Lucifer as a clear motif, beginning perhaps with the origins of primitive Christianity and Protestantism, and perhaps memories of Fria, Lugh, and ancient conceptions of Logos, among groups such as the Waldensians and Stedinger and on to Moses Harman.
Luciferian Grey Magic in Ambiarchy
Owing to the Morning Star being also the Evening Star, Lucifer has come to be associated with moral relativism and with moral ambiguity at times, representing what may be known as grey magic. This implies a willingness to do things that may not be strictly moral in an absolute sense, and that may border on black magic, though typically for moral or white ends, or else for self-preservation—such as lying to “authority” under duress—, while it has also been associated with the conflict between two competing conceptions of morality, each seeing the other as bad, and with a Hermetic sort of transmutation of this conflict.
Unlike Satan and black magic, however, there is a certain kind of benevolence that is associated with Lucifer the Light Bringer in his mission to enlighten humanity. By extension, and in the pursuit to be like God unto himself, Lucifer represents the evolutionary transcendence of humanity toward a godlike state through its use of Reason and Benevolence. As such, Lucifer, like Christ the Logos and Son of God, might be considered a bridge between the mortal or mundane—including its mortalities or profanities— and the eternal or sacred.
Ambiarchy is an example of grey (and green), natural magic as it has come to evolve from out of an agnostic pantheist, Christian Luciferianism. In its jiu-jitsuing of postmodern falsities, and affirming them panarchically, it is in fact lying in the form of sound rhetoric that others will swallow as readily-accepted and familiar truth. However, this is only so because people are lying to themselves and one another, indulging in sin, and because their lies—not the content, but the forms— do in fact exist within the bounds of Nature, the Ambiad, and do affect others. The purpose of ambiarchy—in contrast to synarchy’s mission to “rule together (in secret)”— is to enlighten humanity and enable mutualism from out of its cultural Marxist and nationalist strangleholds. In order to shine light on the objects of darkness, one must first admit that there is darkness, and work from there.
References
Algeo, John, “Viewpoint: What’s in a Name?” Quest (N/A: Theosophical Sociey, 2001) Accessed 2024: https://www.theosophicalsociety.org/publications/quest-magazine/viewpoint-lucifer-whats-in-a-name
Luciferian Owl (Sasha James) on Reddit (N/A: Luciferianism, 2024) Accessed 2024: https://www.reddit.com/r/luciferianism/comments/1ed8de6/whats_your_relationship_with_god_like
[1] And, importantly, one of the Seven Wanderers
[2] It is worth noting that in number mysticism, the number 5 has a lot of meaning significant to life, being connected to ratios such as the Golden Ratio, which is found quite often in the discipline of biology
[3] Of relation to Ananke or Annunaki?
[4] Interestingly, Herodotus suggests that this was a temple for Marduk (Zeus Belus), which was, in his culture, Zeus or Jupiter. The Jewish historian Josephus attributes the Tower of Babel to Nimrod, though this may be an epiphet for Nebuchadnezzar.
[5] The Frisians are probably actually derived from the Phrygians, who are named after such a goddess
[6] Because I think Jesus may be a legend rather than a myth, a real man who may have had characteristics not entirely his own attributed to him for political and artistic reasons
[7] Interestingly, the Indo-Scythians, or Saka, who also produced Shakamuni, or Buddha, may have taken toward Vishnuism, having been known to have been opponents of the caste system while Vishnu is often depicted either as a black-skinned, probably Dravidian man, or else a blue-skinned, perhaps Celtic, man, if due to the Celts’ having painted their bodies blue, the variation perhaps owing to a coalescence of cultures as is suggested to have produced Vishnuism. The Aryan Brahmins and the Celtic Druids, were, of course, related as Indo-European peoples.
[8] Inanna/Ishtar, as both Morning and Evening Star, had a dualistic role of giving birth and taking life
[9] The Phoenicians were, like the Latins and Romans, notably related to the Celts and, by extension, the Hebrews. At the time of their existence, there was not a clear distinction between Indo-European and Semitic as is made today. In fact, there are many theories about the potential Atlantic or Semitic origins of the Celtic and Germanic languages, which themselves compose a great deal of the Indo-European language family, which has otherwise been and was originally known as Indo-Germanic. Waddell had no problem suggesting that the origins of the Goths, a Germanic tribe, for instance, were in the pan-Sumerian complex. Others, such as Augustus Le Plongeon, believed that people such as the Mayans might also be related to this complex. Similar to another Mayanist, Charles Brasseur de Bourberg, whom inspired him, and in part to Ignatius L. Donnelly, similarly inspired by Brasseur, Plongeon believed Mayan civilization was transferred from the Mayans to the Egyptians and Mesopotamians by way of Atlantis.
[10] Marcion was accused of plagiarizing Luke. Mark G. Bilby is of the view, and some Gnostics have claimed, however, that Marcion’s writings are the first-ever gospel story, existing even before the Book of Luke, which they say is based on him but which Christians have claimed he plagiarized. Johann Salomo Semler, “father of German rationalism” and “father of the history of doctrines,” believed it as well. Ferdinand Christian Baur believed it also. As well as that second century Christianity was the synthesis of two competing views of Christianity, one Jewish (Petrine, followers of Peter) and the other Gentile (Pauline, followers of Paul). Petrine (Jewish Christian) literature held that Saint Paul was Simon Magus, the Gnostic. Simonians were also known as Heleniani.
[11] In Tertullian’s Against Marcion he rages on about the Scythian or Illyrian barbarians, and he points out that Marcion was born among them. Tertullian stressed that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while Jesus was born, lived, and died before being resurrected. He suggested that the God of the Old and of the New Testament is one and the same, understood differently. The Old Testament has a god of Justice, while the New Testament presents a god of mercy, Tertullian suggests (perhaps in the manner of Aristotlean virtues).
[12] Though also depicting Yaldabaoth with serpentine features as a lion-headed snake
[13] Overall, the Yazidi pantheon contains 365 deities, like the days of the year. The number mythology surrounding the number seven is strong in the story of Noah’s Flood, as well, such as in the Seven Laws given to Noah, suggesting that there is some connection between Noahide law, the Brotherhood of the Seven Rays, and the Yazidis.
[14] Yazidis find this offensive and forbid use of the name Satan
[15] He considered these to be the forces of expansion and contraction, but this is thermodynamically backward
[16] This god is also known as Astarte or Astaroth
[17] Though here he is said to be the brother of Poseidon and Zeus and son of Cronos, and of relation to Pluto (not one of the Seven Wanderers) or Jupiter
[18] However, sacrifices may have been offered early on to other forms of Venus, such as to Ishtar, Lugh, or Fria, though this has been disputed and, if it did occur, was phased out over time as a matter of evolution
[19] Algeo
[20] I argue that Jews and Saxons are also related as Jutes and Samaritans in my other works
[21] This is a term from Australia, but it must be understood that the Elamo-Dravidian people from whom Jews and Arabs are partially descended were associated with an Australoid phenotype, and so the connection cannot be ruled out between Yowie and Yahweh based on distance alone. Further, the area between these groups was known to have been home to proto-humans such as Giganthopithecus and Meganthropus, who are notable especially for their large size, and may be of some relation to the Denisovans and perhaps also the Otamids.
[22] Theosophists believe in Seven Root Races, but hold that each descends from a prior, and so cannot be considered true polygenism
[23] Luciferian Owl
[24] Luciferian Owl
[25] Daemon was neutral the name used for gods, guiding spirits, or knowledge in general, especially when considered natural rather than divine, and not just for evil ones, though it has also been used similarly to Dao or Tao to mean something similar to Logos or rational destiny, among other uses. Eudaemon refers specifically to a good spirit. A cacodaemon, in contrast, was an evil spirit, often associated with shapeshifting.
[26] The symbol of Islam is the Moon and Venus
[27] Indeed, it is Luciferian tradition to turn even against one’s own when they behave in unjust ways, such as in the forms of Prometheus, Enki, or the serpent
[28] Narcissus also, unfortunately, being a rendition of Lucifer, but that misleads from the point being made, which does not have to do with traits of Lucifer