Luciferianism’s relationship to Satanism.

Luciferianism’s relationship to Satanism.

To start this discourse, there are two primary versions of Satan which we must define to distinguish between. The first is the pronoun ‘satan’ followed by the proper noun ‘Satan’ the aspect or entity.

We start with the defining of satan by researching its original meaning. “Ha Satan” is an ancient word which is used in the Bible to refer to the adversary.

Since biblical times, its translation and its concepts are usually the western worlds first encounter with this satan concept. The definition intended from this source is most pertinent to our understanding of it and our purpose of the word.

This biblical use for our purpose forms our original conceptual definition of the now evolved proper noun “Satan” which we embody as a demonic entity and adversary to the monotheistic ‘God’ of the bible. In its original use it is a generic word which encapsulated quite a few meanings depending on the context it was used in. It was a subjective condition under its original definition to a third-person plural personal pronoun.

In modern language possibly its closest English word would be “them”. But seemingly with a twist since “them” in English is quite passive and does not infer any feeling or description of how we are to view “them”. It doesn’t necessarily follow that the “them” in question are thought of with any negative connotations. Ha~satan however it would seem, does. Seemingly it has an influence of bitterness or caution towards the party in question. In English I believe we have replaced this expression by a scowl in our eyes while using the word “them” to indicate a “them” with a degree of disdain.

Ha~satan under this definition is female word gender, as Ha~satan is the feminine form of the word SitNah which is commonly aligned with the word ‘The Resistance’ or ‘The Rebellion’. This gender opposition is indicative of the patriarchal nature of the Bible.

The word itself is made up from Hebrew text ‘Nun Tet Shin‘ which in it’s original form is written שטן in Hebrew, unlike English, Hebrew is read from right to left so we would phonetically write it Shin-tet-nun. Who’s individual characters  convey many meanings.

Shin, is consumption, it devours and eats all in its path, it is the opposing destroyer which all things created ultimately succumb to.
Tet, is Aligned with a Snake, to wrap, to wind, it surrounds and is the darkness which any light is surely engulfed in.
Nun, is similar to the more common but not western word ‘Chi’ but I think most of you will understand it, it can mean Life, Eternity or Flow, perpetually in motion.

So satan is and will always be open to interpretation, but the connotations show why we perceive Satan as the serpent enticing Eve to eat from the apple in the garden of Eden.

Ha~satan has been aligned with many modern words such as “our adversary” or “the accuser”, although personally I think this to mean more correctly translated to ‘the retributer’  or my personal favourite “That which is not us” which to more correctly defines its relationship with the subject, in that it is a description of people who do not hold our values, or are not like us.

Conceptually we can from this perceive satan is an eternal devourer of life, which brings us as always to the importance of the symbol of Ouroboros, the eternal consuming snake. As a dynamic opposition to creation, the figurehead of all that must be consumed is synonymous with death as a concept. Death is unrelentingly and eternally consuming life. Making satan a thing that we, as living people are not, something we fear, the enemy that will always be coming to consume us. Not only our own life, but all that we hold dear, our family, our values, all that we believe to be good. Therefore satan is the epitome of the evil enemy. 

Satanists have embraced this name as a testimony to being adversarial to the dogma of religious piety.

Using this definition, as it’s original purpose Ha~satan could in theory be used by someone who identifies himself as a Satanist, towards a Christian, because subjectively the Christian is ha~satan to the philosophy of the Satanists.  And Ironically, it is therefore impossible to call yourself a Satanist, in the same way it is impossible to describe yourself as “someone not like me”.But in another way we are all ha~satan from another’s adversarial point of view.

The definition of satan in one form or another then, has been used many times in the bible and books that deal with subjective values towards a disliked or feared opponent for as long as we have been able to demonstrate civilised culture.

This definition created the demonisation of so many pagan gods which would be considered satan to our earliest documentation originating from our modern middle east and the birthplace of Abrahamic and other Sun worship religions. Even European sun worship religions were engulfed in this wave of tribalism which as religion always does, serves more to divide than to unite, which is disappointing since the word “religion” actually means unite.

As time has passed Satanists primarily became the collective name for none conformists to the Judeo-Christian movement, they were considered evil and worshipers of devils or “the devil” whose etymological evolution has followed a similar vein. We realise a distinction between “the Devil” and “devils” The Devil later became synonymous with our second definition of the proper noun of Satan.

Satan became an iconic figurehead of all those pagan gods (I use pagan here under its definition of gods that are non-Abrahamic). This concept of ha~satan like other conceptual states of being became characterised with a figurehead, an artificial icon portrayed in art and literature to be a single embodiment of those collective gods, a single figurehead to represent all evil opponents to the subjective views of the Abrahamic faith.

This has led to much confusion over the years, where some of these pagan and other gods or demigods, particularly the ones which have a darker or fearful attribute representation were adopted as being minions of this Satan character. Asmodeus, Pan, Beelzebub, Baphomet often got artistically depicted with similar features of the goat, horned and cloven hoofed, to  unite them as pertinent to sinful pursuits.

But it didn’t stop there, there was the period of  the dark days of the first millenium, the growing Christian church murderously spread its geopolitical influence north into Europe from its base in Rome taking and corrupting the original peaceful message of the New Testament and enforcing it with the doom and damnation from the Old Testament as a punishment for non conformation .

These evil powermad ranks perverted the peaceful message of the meek, it into a forced doctrine to manipulate kings and possess a sickening amount of power and wealth which tore apart the complex and mixed faiths of the northern European beliefs.

Turning their nature based pagan religions into what they would call “Devils work”, the Satan character evolved from in the later 18th Century.

And so Satan the new name for the king of Hell was born, from the minds of the evil Catholic Church whose goals were the manipulation of man, obtaining of wealth and political influence to control the known world, not as a country, or an army but as a virtual state undefined by monarchical and geographical borders.

Piety was their banner and they would enact the most evil and diabolical torture to those who did not declare fidelity to their command, in the name of their modernised version of the ancient and indeed pagan Sun God, Horus. Son of Osiris, the King of the sky in Egyptian mythology, rebranded under the name Jesus, son of the one true god.

Thankfully now, Christians are becoming more tolerant of other faiths, and fundamental Christians are a dying breed as the word of the new testament, its good intentions can be read by a greater educated populous. As Luciferians, we should explore any gnosis we can benefit from it, and not take the subjective view of those that pedal it.

Historically the interpretation of the bible and its selective passages was assigned to a few scholars who assembled the communal flock on their holy Sun-day and condemned the flock to certain death and eternal damnation if they strayed from the manipulation of the church syllabus.

Satan would take their souls, and burn them in fire and brimstone, and anyone who did not conform to the doctrine of the church were worshipers of Satan. Pagan rituals, other godly prayers in any form were aligned with devil worship, “evil” and the work of Satan, including the bellum sacrum (Holy War) we call the crusades before the Muslim God was adopted into the fold of monotheistic alignment with the Christian God under its Abrahamic umbrella. Satanic practice for a long while included medicine and the sciences. The syllabus was that faith above all, and that Gods will should always be done (being the churches version of God’s will). Anything out-with the direct teachings of the church was satanic. This was the extent of their paranoia and manipulative ego to maintain a firm grip on our lives.

Time, like the recursive consuming snake of ha~satan waits for no man, and the era of Catholicism under its old guise is thankfully all but destroyed, it has nominal influence politically any more, much like the monarchy, whose greed went hand in hand. It retains some wealth and influence, but lacks any real power since the reformation, which divided the allegiance between the monarchy, state and church, and significantly displayed to the common man, that the divided power in conflict meant we on an individual level could choose a personal allegiance, yet not be instantly condemned by the aligned forces, due to the protection from the opposing factions governments, monarchies or church.

Modern days, people are more able to embrace other religions according to their personal convictions rather than one forced upon them in most civilised countries.

Sadly there is still a few rogue nations or idealist forces who pathetically think that true faith can be forced upon people and use their geo-political or military  influence to somehow make people conform to their beliefs under punishment of stoning or other such torture.

These fundamentalist will die out like the inquisitional Catholics and all other such fundamental ideologists.

Saying that, it is not on my part ever to criticise any faith itself, no only the fundamentalists that seek to force their faith onto anyone else. Their whole concept is a farce, and they are idiots. Faith surely, to be true is found within and conceived from will, or it is worthless. Any professing of a faith that is coerced by fear is not true faith, surely under that premise the fundamentalists have lost before they begin.

Rome seem to have captured the market on dictation of beliefs from the times of their significant expansion of the Roman Empire. The Roman gods  historically seem to have been used iconically more than any other. Lucifer is no exception. Lucifer iconically is the romano-pagan god of wisdom which is defined is personal illumination.
Thus any form of light can be identified as being a reflection or embodiment of the concept of Lucifer. Ancient sciences such as cosmology, philosophy, physics and chemistry all fall under the category of gnosis, which means knowledge in Greek.

Lucifer being a pagan god of wisdom and incorporating the sciences and philosophy was collimated into the satanic concept. Science would produce effects that could be considered magical in nature, and nature itself would not produce the effects of science alone. It was only when he applied knowledge, man could predict heavenly movements, create fire, cure illness and advance a technical civilization that was a creation of man, aspiring to be as God. And he did this by building upon his library of knowledge with experiments and treatments.

Writing and recording these experiments lead to a few scholars proposing what was considered by the church to be a blasphemous idea. Such heresy as the heliocentric solar system, saving lives that God’s will had marked for death, and creation itself was according to fundamental Christians the Devil’s,. Practitioners of these crafts were known as wizards, which means wise-men and they were satanists simply because they were considered adversaries to the church.

Being a Romano-Pagan symbol of these arts, Lucifer quickly rose in ranks of some imaginary demonic hierarchy according to the Christians. Lucifer became more than simply one of the many figureheads that they believed to be devils, and aligned him with the figurehead Satan himself. This is why many in modern day many people, including Satanists and Luciferians consider Lucifer to be iconically Satan. Based on my opinions you have been reading, I conclude that he is not, but I can understand why so many people think so.

We are now in an age where people can easily identify themselves as being “Satanists” contrary to my above explanation. Words evolve and so the new definition is more valid than the old, because words are intended to convey meaning, and their meaning is not determined by a book, or history, but it is ultimately determined not by what the greater populous perceive they mean.

Satanist today are prepared to reject the Abrahamic faiths dogma to the extent that they will identify with the adversary. Some will embrace the demonic culture and its dark fashion. Some will go to the extreme of embracing its conceptually “evil” nature, but in my personal opinion they have not freed themselves from the definition proposed by Christianity as they still allow it to define who they are, by regarding the christian imposed definition to define them.

Luciferianism is a branch of Satanism, which continues under the icon of the morning star, illuminating our way to gnosis, we follow that star in the east, like the wise men to find the birth of our own christos-conciousness (you see there is meaningful parables in the Bible if you know how to read it).

I don’t claim to be a scientist in any way, bar the passing interest that stems from simply wishing to understand the nature of myself, who I am and where I come from on a conscious level, which transcends into a physical level.

But saying that Satanism, like paganism is a collective term for many beliefs and paths. There are as many devil worshipers as there are Atheists, Satanism has now evolved into a third definition thanks to Anton Lavey which is indulgence in the power and responsibility of oneself. The buck stops here, they answer to no higher authority, it embraces the rejection of any god, and thus fits nicely under the definition of the original ha~satan from the Abrahamic point of view.

Modern Satanism also aligns with the modern Luciferian, who has chosen the identity of “I am God” which is also a concept of many definitions. No longer content with simply being a man of wisdom or of the arts, but a Satanist who can either believe mankind to be the pinnacle of consciousness in his known universe, or as I, a gnostic Luciferian who believes that I am a part of a living god. I’ve gone into more detail on this concept here if you are interested Am I God or Man?

Of course all things are subjective, I can only share my current understanding of truth. It is a complex topic, where the boundaries of Satan, Satanism, Lucifer and Luciferianism, even Paganism do not have clear definitions.

This is why we struggle to propose a single ideal when discussing the many topics of the occult theology, much like astrology ee cannot simply take a planet and what house it lies in as an absolute representation of its meaning. Its relationship and transitions to other astrological aspects define its meaning in that context, you then take from that the subjective parallels in your own life and try to make sense of it.

I certainly have not covered all the subjective concepts of any of the principles here. In fact with several blogs and three books (soon to be four) on theologian concepts I have hardly touched the surface of even Luciferianism, let alone the spectrum and relationship to Satanism or even Christianity.

 

Lucifer is the symbol of light, illumination, the seeking of betterment of ourselves and our relationship with the universe. I seek to clear his good name,

If you wish to find out more about the many facets, gods and icons that are represented by Lucifer please read ‘Exegesis of Lucifer’ which is available from all good bookshops and direct with free delivery from Amazon.

Exegeses of Lucifer is an exploration of the Lucifer archetype. Lucifer has been identified in many cultures, religions and mythos around the world. Fallen angel, demon, the Devil or Satan himself. The book has been written by a practicing gnostic Luciferian and is the first book to collate many of the variations and idols of Lucifer in one place.

Altruism Vs Ego

As Luciferians we are often presented with the ideology of rejection of the ego. Personally I don’t subscribe to this wholly as I see even our questionable aspects of psychology as a prospect for channeling into a possitive part of our own nature.

But I think this principle while often lauded is not examined as part of our lessons and books enough. Our teachings all too eagerly delve off straight into metaphysical and magickal aspects of our Luciferian or Satanic philosophy.

This lesson contains little of that aspect of our wisdom, but contains a more practical but equally important aspect of personal sophia.

I have written this article as always to promote fresh perspective and hopefully insight and consideration in yourselves.

It is not to be taken as any form of policy, but as a concept to reflect upon and question its potency in your world. Luciferianism isnt all supernatural and metaphysics, sometimes its just really examining ourself.

Selfishness

We would all, I’m sure, like to believe that each and every individual desires a better life, not just for themselves but for all mankind. There are some nasty people out there, but as a whole, when we dismiss our nationalistic, sexual, tribalistic, divisions, I believe people as a whole are not innately explicitly selfish with intent.  Yet the natural desire of the individual is formed in increasing circles of selfishness.

Unfortunately the term selfishness is, like our mascot and light-bearer, oft maligned without due consideration to the dichotomous nature of all things.

I suggest that anything to do with the self can be likened to the two wolves which fight inside us, to coin a mystical Cherokee Metaphor. That which we feed will win the fight.

In its modern understanding the word means…

As Luciferians many of our precepts relate around those of self-discovery, self-exploration and self-realisation. In short “the self” and therefore is undeniably an exploration of the battle between the ego and our moderation of it.

Simple word structure of “self-ish” without its negative connotations is to be considered the internal narrative of a self-centric universe.

Despite being indoctrinated into an elevated perception where nobody believes themselves to be “selfish” and it is a trait we only see in others, the fact is we at some point in our lives must logically be those “others” and therefore have selfish attributes.

In reality we, and all individual consciousness are by nature self-centric. Metaphysically our universe is made of matter which orbits in complex motion around our conscious subjective yet material selves. Reality is self-centric unless we are considering abstraction or empathic aspects of external entities.

In this sense we are entities of the self and therefore “selfish” or “egotistical” by nature.

This continues until one such time as we re-join with the great universal consciousness which is all things, if you share my perception of the theology, or we simply die or whatever your afterlife beliefs may be.

So let us for this thesis not deny but indulge the reality of our selfish nature, to explore ourselves and what this means for our ego.

Our primary survival instinct is selfish. This is an inherent part of our survival system. It is for all of us an innate and unchanging part of our primitive makeup, deny it if you like but if you bear with me you will see why I say this.Just take my word for now until you reach the end, that we are selfish, self-prioritising, and we innately do not stray from the path of self-indulgence and self-preservation without cause.

We of course can reason to countermand this primordial directive by conscious determination and by applying self-justifying derailments to these core principles by engaging in such as suicide or more immediately presented to any parents out there, a conscious sacrifice on behalf of a loved one or child. These are just a couple of the more obvious examples of where we genuinely believe we could be altruistic.

But that does not mean that the primordial directive of selfish survival wasn’t there as an instinct before our determined relegation of that command. It just means it was superseded by a conscious considered directive.

The primordial survival instinct existed long before you acquired awareness of such concepts as sacrifice or suicide, and so must remain higher in the pyramid of self-centralism if we were to draw it in a diagram. We are the centre of our universes, regardless of physical location or self-imposed hierarchy of relational possessions, and with that our subjective centre moves around with us at all times.

What comes next is our possessions, and possessions for this discussion are all things that we have a possessive value or claim upon including the people in our lives.

Now I want to speak frankly, and I know my intended audience of enlightened folk do not want to “beat around the bush” with pointless explanations to cater for the socially acceptable PC brigade.

It goes without saying, especially to Luciferians that people are not possessions. But in terms of what relationships really are in concept. It is an established possession of a bond between two or more people. You may not own the person, but you do own the bond, or maybe a better term would be to share a bond. But even that would imply the bond is mutual, and in the case of a stalker to his prey, the relationships bond is far from a mutual arrangement. The same with unrequited love.

So for our purpose this possession-relationship is like a dialogue, the dialogue exists as an entity within itself, but your contribution is entirely owned by oneself.

So with that in mind we all possess an individual bond which forms the relationship we have to others. And so in that context, and to save having to explain all individual relationships on a case by case basis. I will simply say I “own” possessively “my children”, “my wife”, “my friends”, and “my readers” which is my relationship with you. And I expect you should understand what that means without claiming I am promoting possession of people, I’m blessed that only sophisticated people read my work.

The next relationship of possession is the extent of that bond, this dictates the level or parameters to which our selfishness extends. If we consider one example which is “wealth” as a medium of this bond, I believe with few exceptions we would usually extend our desire for wealth to map itself nicely over our selfish relationship topology. Wealth is a great example, which I will stick with for my explanation, but this applies to any transient relationship mediums.

Let me explain, while we all desire a united world-standard of life, an end to poverty and a fair distribution of wealth as a principle, it is primarily “selfish” in the way we are prepared to distribute our personal portion of that wealth beyond our immediate possession, rich or poor this behaviour is universal, yet because of the proportion imbalance in wealth we expect greater generosity from those with it to spare than we do than those without.

Instinctively, we place ourselves at highest consideration when it comes to wealth distribution by some innate method of self preservation, and when compared to our theoretical mortal sacrifice which we may throw ourselves into the flames of hades to save loved ones, while we like to think we would give our children our last pennies (dime if you’re American) in principle, we simply don’t perceive wealth as terminal a property as we do our own life.

So this suggests that we are more cautious with our physical and material wealth and our approach to it, than we are with our personal mortal continuation.

I believe this is because, in the case of money, we egotistically consider ourselves to be the wiser custodians of the commodity than those we are prepared to imbue with it.

The finality of mortality inherent in self-sacrifice defines that since we no longer need a reserve of life, we can be more liberal with the gifting of it.

This means we justify it more readily as being “easier to part with”, than it is to part with our  requirement for continued possessions.

.

If we forgo our wealth or possession entirely, we are not comforted with the finality of death, and so in our considerations we must make future provisions and calculate the terms and requirements of continued survival.

This suggests that we are more likely to sacrifice our lives to the benefit our children, or another than we are to hand over our real last penny, particularly when we limit the time required to consider the options.

Of course it goes without saying that any parent who lives a “moderate means” life, has gone without money for a while to furnish their child with something that they feel would be essential to their child’s continued progress in life.

But we usually do that with the cushion that “Given next pay day, I’ll be okay again”.

It’s highly unlikely we throw caution to the wind and literally give our last penny and all future quantitative possessions away, until we are terminally leaving the physical world. We are in reality merely giving our last current resource of wealth, not its entirety.

So this shows, despite our claims of “I would give my life for my kids”, we really still hold selfish caveats to our conceptual idealism. So, what we establish from this is that of our personal principles of altruism which despite being defined as…

In our case it is just the measure of the dissemination of selfishness from a personal perspective.

In our diagram, at the top of the selfish mountain resides ourselves, the next scope for our selfishness mountain consists of that which we own, our family, children or loved ones, our home, our personal actual possessions and our bank accounts.

While our latent altruistic nature will often override our instinctive selfish nature, in most cases egotism will resist our generosity with a hidden ninja like sub-selfishness by placing ourselves as the custodians of the extent and limitations of that benefice.

So in truth the altruism is not simply sacrifice, but is limited to our disguised selfishness which we would best call justification, hidden so deep in our consciousness most of us don’t even see its influence on our munificence.

And this is just the first stage of this distribution of concerns. Because the beneficiaries of the concern are still all conceptually an extended personal possession, as identified above.

We really are not being generous or altruistic at all, we are simply endorsing our ego by believing our gratuities are being given away. But if they are only being given to things passively possess then we are not being altruistic at all.

Even in the concept of the age old and theoretical choosing to save your child’s life over your own., it is merely resolving to extend the survival of your gene pool to that which is most likely continue for the longer period, and therefore still a selfish act. You are simply resorting back to the primordial instinct for survival, which on a cosmic level extends beyond your own physical self, to that of your offspring, and so it is natural not altruistic to give your life for your child.

This concept is the lesson that is explored in Genesis 22 where Abraham is offering to sacrifice his son Isaac to show his loyalty to his version of God. The sacrifice of ones own child is considerably more of a personal sacrifice than that of the sacrifice of self, which is why all parents (usually) will without hesitation claim that they would sacrifice themselves to save their child when posed with this moral dilemma. Weirdly it is because of their selfish ego and extended sense of genetic survival that they opt for the lesser of the two evils on an existential level.

So once our possessions are distributed amongst our further possessions, only then do we start to become generous to extended possessions. Yes even then we still only distribute our wealth in an further extension of ourselves. Our personal version of “charity” is usually that which we deem “worthy causes”.

Even in what we term our charitable efforts, we still act egotistically as custodians of the personal distribution of our possessional empire. Our ego will determine and promote that cause which we justify and hold sympathy to. Our sympathy initially extends only to causes which we personally have an affiliation to through direct experience or through a connection to the cause, and so still yet, this connection becomes part of what we own.

For example people who generously give money to a cancer trust, will usually have a possession that has been affected by such a cause, thus establishing a relationship to which they are supporting, it becomes their possession by proxy.

Their intended altruism towards this cause is a hidden, although often not so hidden massage of the ego, and their selfishness is defining the extent of the gift and their perception of an ideological personal self-gratification granted by their generosity.

The marketers of the larger charitable cause’s know this human condition and even play up to these concepts by using manipulative promotion techniques which includes adverts which say such things as “one in three people you know will be affected by…” or “you can change a life today by just giving…”

This subliminal manipulation, and that’s exactly what it is, plays its tune to your ego, your selfishness and unguarded emotional response while you recollect the sorrowful situation as a personal subjective experience rather than an objective one which really should be “where would be the true most worthy cause for my excess wealth be beneficial”.

The probability is the most worthy cause would be one we do not even see on our horizon.

This brings me to the principles of change, change cannot come from a single personal gesture, you are a pebble in the water, trying to redirect the flow of the river. To bring the fruition of meaningful and lasting change, a person alone no matter how sacrificial will not redirect that current. And so you either make small changes or band together to make big changes.

To create big change we must start with the formation of ideas which is to be shared amongst others in principle rather than in action. Change in the modern world cannot be instigated by the man alone, he needs to change ideals before the actions can form shape. There are some big players out there that now form our modern globalist world, monopolies which now control all aspects of our lives, and we all know that these single entities are indirectly creating misery for the vast majority of world inhabitants.

They are personally blind to the lesson above as they are a collective mind rather than an individual one in most cases. I believe their selfishness is not evil in its intent although we may perceive it as such from the opposite side dancehall. Their principles no different than yours or mine and that which we apply above to ourselves with our moderate possession, they apply to their greater world perception.

Like us, their perception of success is measured by frequent recurring desire for rewarded, and the continuation of that success is created by the same actions that bring about the continued reward, obfuscating the objective view from the subjective one.

They simply do not understand the world beyond their possessions any more than we do, our rewards usually are manifest in that which we see.

Like I suggested in the beginning, none of us see ourselves as selfish, the hive mind of the corporation never see itself as being the responsible person for collective evil, it defers its responsibility firstly to the corporation, and the individuals that form that corporation beleive they are acting in the best interest of that corporation which in the capitalist free world suggest that anybody can share in that progressive wealth of commodity by becoming a shareholder, which must be a good thing right?

The drive amongst the many is always to do good, to benefit others and rarely to do harm whether that is selfishly motivated or not. In doing so we often wish to stand out in the crowd as heroes and the nature of cooperation is awash with patrons seeking a disguised personal reward. Similarly the good causes benefit from celebrity hero’s patting each other on the back for their charity work in an orgy of self-indulgent egotism which if gratified regularly creates a national hero, even given regal recognition in terms of knighthoods and honours. You will find it often the rich who part with a little of their accumulation reaping this further possession, than the poor man who gives his all.

Even our limited altruism gratifies us and we indulge our ego by wishing to observe the effect we have on that which is the benefactor of our generosity. Often the wealth distribution is limited in order of that which we see immediate impression upon, self-first, family and immediate possessions later, flowed by extended possessions, rarely do we use our personal wealth to support causes which we do not see any reward or have any possession of. True altruism would be to give generously beyond your means to a cause which is outside your possessions, relationships and concerns. Even sympathy for an unknown homeless person in a street massages your desire to feel Superior? Responsible? Guilty? Altruistic itself? And do not deny when you put your hand in your pocket you pull out and give all that you have without just checking that you have reserved enough to meet your needs…No I’m not claiming you are a fraud or a failure for doing this, I’m suggesting we recognise it as part of our “self”, nor am I suggesting you stop doing it, just next time tell yourself “I seek no reward or gratitude for this action” and do not indulge your ego with consideration of the good deed you have done, only then are you being truly un-selfish.

You and I, we are what we are, denial of it even to ourselves creates personal disharmony. You are not a bad person for experiencing that which is built into us all. We cannot help it, it is hard wired into our make-up. But identifying these realities of self gives us an objective reflection of who we are, which is helpful in understanding the person we are and a useful Luciferian lesson. I am not suggesting you change your ways, or that we all behave this way, although I believe we do. I am merely being a messenger of the self.

I Saclas

In my second, I was the inheritor, the meek, and I was the godly who bowed before those men who dared to stand, brave they were. My number was many and I followed the one I once was. Servant to the serpent, The number was I of the stars which follow the eternal baal through his daily journeys. Weak in strength, powerful in weight. force compels my will, like the grave it calls ever down, down, down.

In my third, I was the observer, the all and without number. And now, at last I morphose the fool, I stand and hold both ends of my sword, stand neither servant or master. Oh how I look foolish. “He knows not how to bear arms!” they mock, and laugh.

But I hold both blade and hilt with cause, ally to the defenseless and foe to the wicked. The wisean silently stand and hold the sword at both ends. the unwise think we fools.

   If I was wisean, I think I would hide wisdom in parables,   

  lo how the meat be picked apart but rarely gorged upon when shrouded in off.            

If I was unwisean , I would again hide my insophis in further parables, 

to be devoured, but rarely refined.

The fool observes the wise starve and the unwise gourmand on parables of truth and profane with equal measure.

Born of rape the horned one’s fire rose from the earth I saw the lich bound by his stave, and begat the woman of man for Eveleth shall be Mother of man. And Leviathan the father, mark well these words. All humbled  before Bel Nimrods Fire.

nisi priús cum matre suá, sororis, et filiá, rem habuerit.

I am father of adam,  I stand before woman, prone. Her fire drawn to my dry wood does quench my lust.Such fire does burn and the bush must burn to create my offspring eternal.

Beware that third messiah, oh logos of the dead king, he teaches only life in death. I bring the jovial of life. the child of god is man. brought forth in carnality and feast, without which all is inert. Desire and feast, for you will starve eternal.

Saclas the Fool

Discovering The Divine

Discovering The Divine
A Luciferian book of essays and occult principles. 

Discovering the divine is a series of occult essays from the aspect of a Gnostic Luciferian. 

It introduces the reader to the primordial fire versions of the seven tenets of Kybalion Hermeticism and once again questions subjective reality and occult concepts which explains hidden meanings in occult literature.


In his unique way, he exposes misconceptions in historic and modern religious explanations. 

Chapters on Introduction to Kybalion Hermeticism plus many more essays

  • The Principle of Mentalism 
  • The Principle of Correspondence 
  • The Principle of Vibration 
  • The Principle of Polarity 
  • The Principle of Cause and Effect
  • The Principle of Gender 
  • Understanding the All within The All 
  • What is Reality? 
  • The Facets of Our Lives Occult 
  • That Which is Unseen 
  • The Ancient Cult of the Ox 
  • The Abyss 
  • The Earth’s Second Sun 
  • The Devil’s Advocate 
  • The Satan Concept 
  • Luciferianism’s Relationship to Satanism 
  • Understanding Gnostic Symbolism 
  • The Principles of Change 
  • Power Word “Amen” 
  • Astrological Angelic Aspects 
  • I Saclas 
  • Evocation of Choronzon
  • Paperback: 168 pages
  • Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; 1 edition (30 Jun. 2017)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 1548513598
  • ISBN-13: 978-1548513597
  • Product Dimensions: 15.2 x 1 x 22.9 cm

Available in bookshops and Amazon (click link)

Exegesis of Lucifer

It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the world my latest mind-burp in the form of  a collection of investigations into many mythological legends in my book called The Exegesis of Lucifer.

What I hoped to achieve in the book is a collection of examinations into mythologies from around the world that I believe  link directly to the archetype  “Light-Bearer” incarnation story. As I find my way through both Pagan and Mainstream religious legends and “History” I find similar reoccurring themes present themselves over and over again.

Luciferian’ s never really do settle for one absolute truth, The truth is that which presents itself at the time, our subjective reality is simply a collection of stimulus and testimony that we accept as being reasonable or from a trusted source, as we get older and “wiser” we accept less the reliability of our trusted sources, and if you get even more “wiser|” you are rational in doubting even your own senses.

It comes to the point when we really have to question the nature of our existence, this is commonly called philosophy, and for the ‘Soph-ians’ we know this is the nature of being ‘ Luciphian’.

I swept through legends in Celtic, Romanic, Middle Eastern and Greek mythology and found a cyclic renditions of births, deaths, betrayal, brothers, murder, revenge that even occurred even several times under the same pantheon. This ancient knowledge, observed by the world from corner to corner was so significant all mythology contains a variant of the Lucifer story. What they were trying to tell us I can only hope we learn, not by dismissing them all as faery tales, but by collating them all into one scientifically possible event.

Faith, superstition or was it an account of the natural?

I link my collected stories to the astrological observations of Venus, the morning star and celestial events as well as explaining the evolution of words and their migration across the continents.
All in I hope to provide the reader as always with some new perspectives and meanings to the origins of beliefs in particular that of Lucifer to form the growing popularity of syncretism.

The with glorious pictures and artworks depicting Lucifer throughout time, as well as many other colour illustrations explaining the concepts of a classic Gnostic Luciferianism
, or the lesser mentioned RHP (Right Hand Path) aspects of a collective knowledge or consciousness that drives the very essence of nature and evolution, ultimately the drive of mankind to be as gods.

The book will be available in 6×9″ paperback (matt black cover), it totals around 224 pages which can be read as a reference to individual cases rather than read the book cover to cover, although you may benefit to comparisons a reference if you do. I would love to have made it cheaper, but this is the minimum costs for the full colour printing of the book which currently is $29.99 (Believe me the printers and amazon get 95% of that)

Also available on Kindle at a reduced price.

There will be an option to buy a black and white copy in the future maybe July 2016 if you can wait. but now’s the chance to get those first editions.

 

Amazon Paperback http://bookshow.me/1519281854
Amazon e-Book http://bookshow.me/B017XVR9ZW
Createspace https://www.createspace.com/5864945