So what’s wrong with the movie “The Golden Compass”?

[Buru Dragon]

My religious aunt was instructed by her church not to see this movie because it’s supposedly against God or sacrilegious or something.  She was also told the same about “Harry Potter” and “The Da Vinci Code” when they first came out.  Isn’t this kind of morally based protest getting a bit carried away?  And doesn’t it only serve to create ‘more’ curiosity and interest in the targeted movies anyway?  This is a film that I probably wouldn’t have even given a second thought but now I have to know what all of the fuss is all about.

http://www.kansascity.com/211/story/382607.html

Critics say ‘The Golden Compass’ is an atheist agenda disguised in fantasy

Since its beginning, critics have denounced the film industry as a godless enterprise leading innocent minds astray.

Now, say the critics, the industry is pushing a children’s movie with an openly atheistic agenda.

In the crosshairs is New Line Cinema’s “The Golden Compass,” a $150 million special effects-heavy fantasy opening Friday, just in time for the busy holiday movie season.

The film stars Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig (the latest James Bond), Sam Elliott and Eva Green (the latest Bond girl). The story is of Lyra (newcomer Dakota Blue Richards), an orphan living in an alternative universe.

Here people’s souls exist outside their bodies in the form of animals called daemons, and a global evil threatens to dominate all thought and belief.

That evil is embodied in a political/religious dictatorship referred to as the “Church” or “Magisterium.”.....

[White Rose Sophie]

This may explain it better than I could.

http://www.cuttingedge.org/articles/db098.html

Let me know if you cannot access - the I can cut and paste in here.

Both Harry Potter and Da Vinci were occultic, as is this movie as well.  And the NWO is total occultism....hence the problem.  And it's so much easier to program children's minds, that way you get them early and (in many cases) for life.  And parents nowdays are no match for what comes against their precious children from today's society.

[Buru Dragon]

 Not sure that I agree, but I appreciate the information nonetheless.  One of the subject matters in the movie questioned by the article that you posted is "Eastern meditation".  I used to meditate regularly and I’ve experienced nothing but great benefits from it.  I'd like to get back in to the routine once again.


I didn't like Harry Potter either but only because I found it boring.  I also still believe that the more you tell a child not do something the more they'll crave it. 

[Cruise4]

How are these films hidden? (Hidden means Occult)
Do you mean Satanic?

[dogmadestroyer]

How are these films hidden? (Hidden means Occult)
Do you mean Satanic?

I second that.

[White Rose Sophie]

I second that.

 Occult (noun)
 matters regarded as involving the action or influence of supernatural or supernormal powers or some secret knowledge of them —used with "the" 

(From Websters)

That is the formal meaning of the word "occult" I would say. Even though people might take offense at the word "Satanic" being used to describe "Witchcraft" or Wicca, both are occultic in the formal sense of the word.  Since the poster questioned why a 'religious' person would object to the Golden Compass - I am trying to answer therefore in a 'religious' sense. The Bible condemns witchcraft and divination...fortunetelling, etc. Maybe for the simple reason that it is man's attempt to delve into the 'supernatural'.  A place few can handle.

[dogmadestroyer]

Occult (noun)
 matters regarded as involving the action or influence of supernatural or supernormal powers or some secret knowledge of them —used with "the" 

(From Websters)

That is the formal meaning of the word "occult" I would say. Even though people might take offense at the word "Satanic" being used to describe "Witchcraft" or Wicca, both are occultic in the formal sense of the word.  Since the poster questioned why a 'religious' person would object to the Golden Compass - I am trying to answer therefore in a 'religious' sense. The Bible condemns witchcraft and divination...fortunetelling, etc. Maybe for the simple reason that it is man's attempt to delve into the 'supernatural'.  A place few can handle.

How the meanings of words have changed in dictionaries this last century. Anyway, the Oxford English dictionary online contains something similar to start with:

occult

/okult, okkult/

  • noun (the occult) supernatural beliefs, practices, or phenomena.

  • adjective 1 relating to the occult. 2 beyond ordinary knowledge or experience; esoteric. 3 Medicine (of a disease or process) present but not readily discernible.

  • verb /okult/ 1 cut off from view by interposing something. 2 Astronomy (of a celestial body) conceal (another body) from view.

  — DERIVATIVES occultation noun occultism noun occultist noun.

  — ORIGIN from Latin occulere ‘conceal’.


However, until the word has come to change meaning in a similar way that 'terrorist' has in more recent time it simply referred to what is unknown. At least there is some evidence of that in the Oxford Dictionary still quite obviously.

[cold fusion]

The root reason why "occult" practices are forbidden under God's Law is (IMHO) that they can open a rift or portal to another dimension and allow evil powers to enter and influence our dimension. There are many ways to open these 'portals'... all of them occultic in nature. Most of us are not cognizant of the reasons why these practices are to be avoided, or the dangers to our spiritual well-being, and are easily persuaded that the prohibitions are nothing but superstition and religious folklore.

Jack Parsons, L. Ron Hubbard, Aleister Crowley, Madame Blavatsky, Ignatius de Loyola, Annie Besant, B.F. Westcott, Anton LaVey, Jim Jones, and multitudes of other prominent figures are linked to occult power.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%20Witchcraft/signs_of_satan.htm

[Caasi]

Sometimes, a movie is just a movie.

[Loungin]

Sometimes, a movie is just a movie.

Vary rarely is this the case out of hollywood.

[lord edward coke]

His Dark Materials Trilogy

Philip Pullman’s “His Dark Materials” Trilogy begins with the “The Golden Compass,” moves on to “The Subtle Knife” and ends with the “The Amber Spyglass.”  If stories for children are tools in shaping their beliefs, this series has a lot to make one ponder what is in store for the next generation.  Woven throughout the text is the blurring of ideas of opposites, gender confusion and morality eradication, just as is done in the writings for adults by Aleister Crowley.  In the trilogy, the daemon or soul of each person is of the opposite sex.  Lyra, the main character is known by her ability to lie even as her golden compass always told the truth.

The Golden Compass plot ends in pure Satanism. Roger, an innocent child, is sacrificed to get his life force in order to cross over into a parallel universe.  And Lyra crossed too.  I could hardly move on to the next book.  Now we are teaching in our public schools that child sacrifice is a good thing, maybe even necessary.  At least Pullman believed it was necessary to advance his plot.

The children move on in the next book, their needs being met by the unexplained magic of things just appearing.  No survival skills taught here.  To add to the list of “murderers” is Will.  Although the murders appear more like unintended accidents, so why call it murder?  Perhaps to again blur the lines between right and wrong.  Sometimes murder is necessary, as opposed to sometimes accidents happen.  The story line continues with the war in heaven interacting with wars on the many worlds of the parallel universes.  God dies an incompetent, decrepit old man; the fallen angels and the witches defeat the angels of heaven.  Lyra is separated from her daemon and becomes more like the witches. According to Pullman, wisdom, at least his version of it, triumphs over stupidity, freedom wins over oppression.   

Pullmans ends the last book of the trilogy with the goal to build “The Republic of Heaven” on Earth. One isn’t sure what he means by that until one returns to his description of Heaven (land of the dead), an eternity of suffering souls tormented by Harpies.  Judging by his body of work, I think that he is talking about building the New World Order (land of the mind controlled dead), an eternity of suffering souls tormented by Home Land Security.  I think “Republic” was added because it sounds good. 

            What should stories for children teach, history, science, morality, things that the child may apply to his daily life, things that will serve him in the future?  Childhood is all about learning.  Imagination is all about thinking outside the box. I’m not opposed to fantasy, but fantasy should stimulate the mind in ways that are useful.  It should not teach that the world runs by magic, because it doesn’t, or that anything goes, because there are always consequences.  Pullman's world view, Crowleyism, is a philosophy of slavery not freedom.  Just dig deep into the quotes of those that are bring us this Crowleyism, it will chill your soul.

 Mauri  (2/9/08)

 

The Golden Compass - Crowleyism for Children

The ideas argued by outraged religious groups on the web against the new movie for children, “The Golden Compass,” encouraged me to buy a ticket. December 7 I went to see it in the theater.  According to the plot, Lyra, the twelve-year old heroine, deserted by her parents, was now raising herself in an environment surrounded by evil.  I could identify with that. As the family falls apart, I’m sure Lyra’s plight is identified with by much of the youthful audience that is the movie’s target.  It is the solution given by the story that I have a disagreement with.  The solution is war.  But how does a child wage war against forces much greater than herself?  The answer is to use Magick and the power of secret societies, such as the witches.  The Ice Bear showed up right in the nick, roaring and leading the battle with loyalty and devotion for a stranger in trouble.  The glue of a confusing and weak plot was the Golden Compass, which was used mainly as a crystal ball to convince others to join in on the physical fight.  I got the distinct feeling the plot, yet another gory war, was not of as much importance to the movie as the introduction of ideas one might call Crowleyism.  Raise the audience’s adrenalin and artificially empower them with a victory and then bath them in a propaganda designed to enslave them in failure.  Classic Crowleyism.

It doesn’t matter what your religion is, the message of this movie for children is depressing.  Who wants to live in such a fear-based world full of witches and daemons?   It’s an insult to the other species with which we share our earth home, as it depicts them as only having value when they do our bidding.  Movies should teach children skills and true independence.  Instead this movie teaches them Crowleyism with all its magick and witchcraft.

        To begin with the witches and friends do not represent paganism.  No major religion that practiced this anti-family kind of belief lasted long.  The harsh environment would have wiped them out.  The witches are so dependent on their evil spells, they are incapable of supplying themselves with food, clothing and shelter, let alone the huge effort required to raise their young, if they had any with no real men.  They would soon become a predator’s dream.  And it is the predators among us that want our children to live in a dream world of magick, becoming the perfect prey.  Believe me, your ancestors were clever all on their own without the questionable aid of magick, or you wouldn’t be here.  No society survives long when belief systems become totally dysfunctional.

Much of the Crowleyism in this movie is a matter of semantics.  Take the Daemon.  According to the story, a person’s soul (Daemon) is an animal that lives outside the body, with which one communicates.  In other words everyone is daemon possessed, and by the way you are the daemon (pronounced deemon).  Witches, fallen angels and now Demons are good.  Evil has been wiped out by the use of the pen.  We can no longer look at the evil counterpart of an issue because everything has been re-defined as good. Classic Crowley!  This takes away one’s defense of protecting oneself from things that aren’t so good, by saying they don’t exist.  One might take the same fantasy idea of having an animal spirit that follows one through life as a companion.  Making the spirit a separate entity and giving it a good name, is an idea that may provide comfort.  Many people find great love in their animal companions (pets) in life and I think for some that relationship may continue after the loved animal dies.  This idea may be empowering, that we are never alone.  Even if the story follows ideas of animism, that you have an animal spirit that contributes to your personality, why call it a Daemon?  The Pullman idea is that we are all daemon possessed, and without our daemons we die. The clue to the real intent is the use the word Daemon.  The same idea applies to the use of the word Witch or witchcraft.

The magick of science, Quantum Mechanics, is introduced in Pullman’s stories by giving Lyra’s world parallel universes connected by “dust.”  No logical argument could refute these ideas because they aren’t based on logic; Quantum Mechanics is based on logick (magick).  It has proved far more useful as a mystery religion than it has as a set of scientific principles that predicts and explains things.

         Stories for children should have a moral message.  Fantasy is useful for allegory, otherwise life should be depicted the way it is.  Better to show children learning home arts, such as handcrafting, than showing them learning to do magick spells.  The Pullman story teaches the ultimate lie of Crowleyism, that the road to freedom is "Do what thou wilt” and then tries to control God by the practice of Magick.  When in fact magick is the ultimate dependence, often leading to criminal behavior to supply needs.  The road to independence and freedom is learning life skills, including the physical production of necessities and the social glue of morality.

Mauri  (2/3/08)

 
http://www.reflectionsinthenight.com/

[Dig]

I love how the winged demons save the humans.  you could not make this shit up.

[zafada]

Damn, time to download a movie huh...

[Dig]

His Dark Materials Trilogy

Philip Pullman’s “His Dark Materials” Trilogy begins with the “The Golden Compass,” moves on to “The Subtle Knife” and ends with the “The Amber Spyglass.”  If stories for children are tools in shaping their beliefs, this series has a lot to make one ponder what is in store for the next generation.  Woven throughout the text is the blurring of ideas of opposites, gender confusion and morality eradication, just as is done in the writings for adults by Aleister Crowley.  In the trilogy, the daemon or soul of each person is of the opposite sex.  Lyra, the main character is known by her ability to lie even as her golden compass always told the truth.

The Golden Compass plot ends in pure Satanism. Roger, an innocent child, is sacrificed to get his life force in order to cross over into a parallel universe.  And Lyra crossed too.  I could hardly move on to the next book.  Now we are teaching in our public schools that child sacrifice is a good thing, maybe even necessary.  At least Pullman believed it was necessary to advance his plot.

The children move on in the next book, their needs being met by the unexplained magic of things just appearing.  No survival skills taught here.  To add to the list of “murderers” is Will.  Although the murders appear more like unintended accidents, so why call it murder?  Perhaps to again blur the lines between right and wrong.  Sometimes murder is necessary, as opposed to sometimes accidents happen.  The story line continues with the war in heaven interacting with wars on the many worlds of the parallel universes.  God dies an incompetent, decrepit old man; the fallen angels and the witches defeat the angels of heaven.  Lyra is separated from her daemon and becomes more like the witches. According to Pullman, wisdom, at least his version of it, triumphs over stupidity, freedom wins over oppression.   

Pullmans ends the last book of the trilogy with the goal to build “The Republic of Heaven” on Earth. One isn’t sure what he means by that until one returns to his description of Heaven (land of the dead), an eternity of suffering souls tormented by Harpies.  Judging by his body of work, I think that he is talking about building the New World Order (land of the mind controlled dead), an eternity of suffering souls tormented by Home Land Security.  I think “Republic” was added because it sounds good. 

            What should stories for children teach, history, science, morality, things that the child may apply to his daily life, things that will serve him in the future?  Childhood is all about learning.  Imagination is all about thinking outside the box. I’m not opposed to fantasy, but fantasy should stimulate the mind in ways that are useful.  It should not teach that the world runs by magic, because it doesn’t, or that anything goes, because there are always consequences.  Pullman's world view, Crowleyism, is a philosophy of slavery not freedom.  Just dig deep into the quotes of those that are bring us this Crowleyism, it will chill your soul.

 Mauri  (2/9/08)

 

The Golden Compass - Crowleyism for Children

The ideas argued by outraged religious groups on the web against the new movie for children, “The Golden Compass,” encouraged me to buy a ticket. December 7 I went to see it in the theater.  According to the plot, Lyra, the twelve-year old heroine, deserted by her parents, was now raising herself in an environment surrounded by evil.  I could identify with that. As the family falls apart, I’m sure Lyra’s plight is identified with by much of the youthful audience that is the movie’s target.  It is the solution given by the story that I have a disagreement with.  The solution is war.  But how does a child wage war against forces much greater than herself?  The answer is to use Magick and the power of secret societies, such as the witches.  The Ice Bear showed up right in the nick, roaring and leading the battle with loyalty and devotion for a stranger in trouble.  The glue of a confusing and weak plot was the Golden Compass, which was used mainly as a crystal ball to convince others to join in on the physical fight.  I got the distinct feeling the plot, yet another gory war, was not of as much importance to the movie as the introduction of ideas one might call Crowleyism.  Raise the audience’s adrenalin and artificially empower them with a victory and then bath them in a propaganda designed to enslave them in failure.  Classic Crowleyism.

It doesn’t matter what your religion is, the message of this movie for children is depressing.  Who wants to live in such a fear-based world full of witches and daemons?   It’s an insult to the other species with which we share our earth home, as it depicts them as only having value when they do our bidding.  Movies should teach children skills and true independence.  Instead this movie teaches them Crowleyism with all its magick and witchcraft.

        To begin with the witches and friends do not represent paganism.  No major religion that practiced this anti-family kind of belief lasted long.  The harsh environment would have wiped them out.  The witches are so dependent on their evil spells, they are incapable of supplying themselves with food, clothing and shelter, let alone the huge effort required to raise their young, if they had any with no real men.  They would soon become a predator’s dream.  And it is the predators among us that want our children to live in a dream world of magick, becoming the perfect prey.  Believe me, your ancestors were clever all on their own without the questionable aid of magick, or you wouldn’t be here.  No society survives long when belief systems become totally dysfunctional.

Much of the Crowleyism in this movie is a matter of semantics.  Take the Daemon.  According to the story, a person’s soul (Daemon) is an animal that lives outside the body, with which one communicates.  In other words everyone is daemon possessed, and by the way you are the daemon (pronounced deemon).  Witches, fallen angels and now Demons are good.  Evil has been wiped out by the use of the pen.  We can no longer look at the evil counterpart of an issue because everything has been re-defined as good. Classic Crowley!  This takes away one’s defense of protecting oneself from things that aren’t so good, by saying they don’t exist.  One might take the same fantasy idea of having an animal spirit that follows one through life as a companion.  Making the spirit a separate entity and giving it a good name, is an idea that may provide comfort.  Many people find great love in their animal companions (pets) in life and I think for some that relationship may continue after the loved animal dies.  This idea may be empowering, that we are never alone.  Even if the story follows ideas of animism, that you have an animal spirit that contributes to your personality, why call it a Daemon?  The Pullman idea is that we are all daemon possessed, and without our daemons we die. The clue to the real intent is the use the word Daemon.  The same idea applies to the use of the word Witch or witchcraft.

The magick of science, Quantum Mechanics, is introduced in Pullman’s stories by giving Lyra’s world parallel universes connected by “dust.”  No logical argument could refute these ideas because they aren’t based on logic; Quantum Mechanics is based on logick (magick).  It has proved far more useful as a mystery religion than it has as a set of scientific principles that predicts and explains things.

         Stories for children should have a moral message.  Fantasy is useful for allegory, otherwise life should be depicted the way it is.  Better to show children learning home arts, such as handcrafting, than showing them learning to do magick spells.  The Pullman story teaches the ultimate lie of Crowleyism, that the road to freedom is "Do what thou wilt” and then tries to control God by the practice of Magick.  When in fact magick is the ultimate dependence, often leading to criminal behavior to supply needs.  The road to independence and freedom is learning life skills, including the physical production of necessities and the social glue of morality.

Mauri  (2/3/08)

 
http://www.reflectionsinthenight.com/

mauri is still kicking ass! awesome!

[Kilgore Trout]

I thought it was good , finally a narnia for pagans.

[jimwill]

Occult (noun)
 matters regarded as involving the action or influence of supernatural or supernormal powers or some secret knowledge of them —used with "the" 

(From Websters)

That is the formal meaning of the word "occult" I would say. Even though people might take offense at the word "Satanic" being used to describe "Witchcraft" or Wicca, both are occultic in the formal sense of the word.  Since the poster questioned why a 'religious' person would object to the Golden Compass - I am trying to answer therefore in a 'religious' sense. The Bible condemns witchcraft and divination...fortunetelling, etc. Maybe for the simple reason that it is man's attempt to delve into the 'supernatural'.  A place few can handle.

Does that mean the the bible is also an occult book?

[DarkKnightNomeD]

There is always someone to bitch about something

[Dig]

There is always someone to bitch about something

mauri ain't your everyday critic. She has some serious insight into the illuminati/NWO/Mind Control/Alien Hoaxes/Zionazis/etc.

just think of the central control/messiah conditioning throughout the movie.

[CaptainFreedom09]

Nothing is wrong with the Golden Compass,  i know people think that it's all atheist , and people will cry about that all day,  but they don't seem to care about movies like Harry Potter  that is about black magic, warlocks and dating before you are 16.  whats that all about?

[clearmyst]

I love how the winged demons save the humans.  you could not make this shit up.

The bat and goat have been demonized long enough.
I don't even remember the bible talking about faun-bat hybrids
that was a later medieval depiction.

I think christians just hate the book since an atheist wrote it.

[Dig]

Nothing is wrong with the Golden Compass,  i know people think that it's all atheist , and people will cry about that all day,  but they don't seem to care about movies like Harry Potter  that is about black magic, warlocks and dating before you are 16.  whats that all about?

I think most people that were against Potter were also against the idea of every child having a pet demon.

[CaptainFreedom09]

yeah, thats for sure.  , but in my opinion ,, i think golden compass is way more kick ass,  i really hope they are able to make the other Golden compass movies , the first one was so good.  ,, and whats with that polar bear?  i thought polar bears die if they are not on sitting on an iceberg or something.

[clearmyst]

I think most people that were against Potter were also against the idea of every child having a pet demon.

But is that such a thing to be in uproar about?
I find certain 'moral' groups raising a clamor about perceived anti-christian movies to be hypocritical and wasteful in their efforts.
You want to take on the real root of moral decline and it has nothing to do with the cinema industry but real world problems.

[Dig]

But is that such a thing to be in uproar about?
I find certain 'moral' groups raising a clamor about perceived anti-christian movies to be hypocritical and wasteful in their efforts.
You want to take on the real root of moral decline and it has nothing to do with the cinema industry but real world problems.

"perceived anti-christian"?

I did not find the movie anti-christian.  I found it highly luciferian.  There is a huge difference.  There was nothing anti-chritian about the movie whatsoever.

[clearmyst]

No,
Not you in this instance but the general so called anti-immorality groups that have to find an anti-christian element in every movie.

Why bash lucifer?
He/she/it are not the same as satan if you care to look into it.

Satan is the adversary of Christianity whereas lucifer aka the morning star aka Venus is something else entirely.

[Dig]

No,
Not you in this instance but the general so called anti-immorality groups that have to find an anti-christian element in every movie.

Why bash lucifer?
He/she/it are not the same as satan if you care to look into it.

Satan is the adversary of Christianity whereas lucifer aka the morning star aka Venus is something else entirely.

Well I am particularly interested in exposing luciferianism because it is the only religion accepted by the NWO and the UN.  It is also called theosophy.  It is a one world religion based on deception and the expulsion of individual freedom.

[deconstructmyhouse]

Well I am particularly interested in exposing luciferianism because it is the only religion accepted by the NWO and the UN.  It is also called theosophy.  It is a one world religion based on deception and the expulsion of individual freedom.

Excellent point: I never knew the difference between the two: This is VERY helpful


 Luciferianism: The Religion of Apotheosis
- by Phillip D. Collins ©, Jan. 10th, 2006

AquinasLuciferianism constitutes the nucleus of the ruling class religion. While there are definitely political and economic rationales for elite criminality, Luciferianism can account for the longevity of many of the oligarchs' projects. Many of the longest and most brutal human endeavors have been underpinned by some form of religious zealotry. The Crusades testify to this historical fact. Likewise, the power elite's ongoing campaign to establish a socialist totalitarian global government has Luciferianism to thank for both its longevity and frequently violent character. In the mind of the modern oligarch, Luciferianism provides religious legitimacy for otherwise morally questionable plans.

Luciferianism is the product of religious engineering, which sociologist William Sims Bainbridge defines as "the conscious, systematic, skilled creation of a new religion" ("New Religions, Science, and Secularization," no pagination). In actuality, this is a tradition that even precedes Bainbridge. It has been the practice of Freemasonry for years. It was also the practice of Masonry's religious and philosophical progenitors, the ancient pagan Mystery cults. The inner doctrines of the Mesopotamian secret societies provided the theological foundations for the Christian and Judaic heresies, Kabbalism and Gnosticism. All modern Luciferian philosophy finds "scientific" legitimacy in the Gnostic myth of Darwinism. As evolutionary thought was popularized, variants of Luciferianism were popularized along with it (particularly in the form of secular humanism, which shall be examined shortly). A historical corollary of this popularization has been the rise of several cults and mass movements, exemplified by the various mystical sects and gurus of the sixties counterculture. The metastasis of Luciferian thinking continues to this very day.

Luciferianism represents a radical revaluation of humanity's ageless adversary: Satan. It is the ultimate inversion of good and evil. The formula for this inversion is reflected by the narrative paradigm of the Gnostic Hypostasis myth. As opposed to the original Biblical version, the Gnostic account represents a "revaluation of the Hebraic story of the first man's temptation, the desire of mere men to 'be as gods' by partaking of the tree of the 'knowledge of good and evil'" (Raschke 26). Carl Raschke elaborates:

    In The Hypostasis of the Archons, an Egyptian Gnostic document, we read how the traditional story of man's disobedience toward God is reinterpreted as a universal conflict between "knowledge" (gnosis) and the dark "powers" (exousia) of the world, which bind the human soul in ignorance. The Hypostasis describes man as a stepchild of Sophia ("Wisdom") created according to the "model" of aion, the imperishable realm of eternity. On the other hand, it is neither God the Imperishable nor Sophia who actually is responsible in the making of man. On the contrary, the task is undertaken by the archons, the demonic powers who, because of their "weakness," entrap man in a material body and thus cut him off from his blessed origin. They place him in paradise and enjoin him against eating of the tree of knowledge. The prohibition, however, is viewed by the author of the text not as a holy command but as a malignant effort on the part of the inferior spirits to prevent Adam from having true communion with the High God, from gaining authentic gnosis. (26)

According to this bowdlerization, Adam is consistently contacted by the High God in hopes of reinitiating man's quest for gnosis (26). The archons intervene and create Eve to distract Adam from the pursuit of gnosis (26-27). However, this Gnostic Eve is actually a "sort of 'undercover' agent for the High God, who is charged with divulging to Adam the truth that has been withheld from him" (27). The archons manage to sabotage this covert operation by facilitating sexual intercourse between Adam and Eve, an act that Gnostics contend was designed to defile the "woman's spiritual nature" (27). At this juncture, the Hypostasis reintroduces a familiar antagonist from the original Genesis account:

    But now the principle of feminine wisdom reappears in the form of the serpent, called the "Instructor," who tells the mortal pair to defy the prohibition of the archons and eat of the tree of knowledge. (27)

The serpent successfully entices Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, but the "bodily defilement" of the woman prevents man from understanding the true motive underpinning the act (27). Thus, humanity is fettered by the archons' "curse", suggesting that the "orthodox theological view of the violation of the command as 'sin' must be regarded anew as the mindless failure to commit the act rightly in the first place" (27). In this revisionist context, the serpent is no longer Satan, but is an "incognito savior" instead (27). Meanwhile, God's role as benevolent Heavenly Father is vilified:

    The God of Genesis, who comes to reprimand Adam and Eve after their transgression, is rudely caricatured in this tale as the "Arrogant archon" who opposes the will of the authentic heavenly father. (27)

Of course, within this Gnostic narrative, God incarnate is equally belittled. Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, is reduced to little more than a forerunner of the coming Gnostic adept. According to the Gnostic mythology, Jesus was but a mere "type" of this perfect man (27). He came as a "teacher and an exemplar, to show others the path to illumination" (27-28). The true messiah has yet to come. Equally, the serpent is only a precursor to this messiah. He only initiates man's journey towards gnosis. The developmental voyage must be further facilitated by the serpent's predecessor, the Gnostic Christ. The Hypostasis provides the paradigmatic template for all Luciferian mythologies.

Like the Hypostasis, the binary opposition of Luciferian mythology caricatures Jehovah as an oppressive tyrant. He becomes the "archon of arrogance," the embodiment of ignorance and religious superstition. Satan, who retains his heavenly title of Lucifer, is the liberator of humanity. Masonry, which acts as the contemporary retainer for the ancient Mystery religion, reconceptualizes Satan in a similar fashion. In Morals and Dogma, 33rd degree Freemason Albert Pike candidly exalts the fallen angel:

    LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls? Doubt it not. (321)

He makes man aware of his own innate divinity and promises to unlock the god within us all. This theme of apotheosis underpinned both Gnosticism and the pagan Mystery religions. While Gnosticism's origins with the Ancient Mystery cults remains a source of contention amongst scholars, its promises of liberation from humanity's material side is strongly akin to the old pagan Mystery's variety of "psychic therapy" (28). In addition, the Ancient Mystery religion promised the:

    opportunity to erase the curse of mortality by direct encounter with the patron deity, or in many instances by actually undergoing an apotheosis, a transfiguration of human into divine (28).

Like some varieties of Satanism, Luciferianism does not depict the devil as a literal metaphysical entity. Lucifer only symbolizes the cognitive powers of man. He is the embodiment of science and reason. It is the Luciferian's religious conviction that these two facilitative forces will dethrone God and apotheosize man. It comes as little surprise that the radicals of the early revolutionary faith celebrated the arrival of Darwinism. Evolutionary theory was the edifying "science" of Promethean zealotry and the new secular religion of the scientific dictatorship. According to Masonic scholar Wilmshurst, the completion of human evolution involves man "becoming a god-like being and unifying his consciousness with the Omniscient" (94).

During the Enlightenment, Luciferianism was disseminated on the popular level as secular humanism. All of the governing precepts of Luciferianism are encompassed by secular humanism. This is made evident by the philosophy's rejection of theistic morality and enthronement of man as his own absolute moral authority. While Luciferianism has no sacred texts, Humanist Manifesto I and II succinctly delineate its central tenets. Whittaker Chambers, former member of the communist underground in America, eloquently summarizes this truth:

    "Humanism is not new. It is, in fact, man's second oldest faith. Its promise was whispered in the first days of Creation under the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil: 'Ye shall be as gods.'" (Qutd. in Baker 206)

Transhumanism offers an updated, hi-tech variety of Luciferianism. The appellation "Transhumanism" was coined by evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley ("Transhumanism," Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, no pagination). Huxley defined the transhuman condition as "man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature" (no pagination). However, by 1990, Dr. Max More would radically redefine Transhumanism as follows:

    Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a posthuman condition. Transhumanism shares many elements of humanism, including a respect for reason and science, a commitment to progress, and a valuing of human (or transhuman) existence in this life… Transhumanism differs from humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in the nature and possibilities of our lives resulting from various sciences and technologies… (No pagination)

Transhumanism advocates the use of nanotechnology, biotechnology, cognitive science, and information technology to propel humanity into a "posthuman" condition. Once he has arrived at this condition, man will cease to be man. He will become a machine, immune to death and all the other "weaknesses" intrinsic to his former human condition. The ultimate objective is to become a god. Transhumanism is closely aligned with the cult of artificial intelligence. In the very influential book The Age of Spiritual Machines, AI high priest Ray Kurzweil asserts that technological immortality could be achieved through magnetic resonance imaging or some technique of reading and replicating the human brain's neural structure within a computer ("Technological Immortality," no pagination). Through the merger of computers and humans, Kurzweil believes that man will "become god-like spirits inhabiting cyberspace as well as the material universe" (no pagination).

Following the Biblical revisionist tradition of the Gnostic Hypostasis myth, Transhumanists invert the roles of God and Satan. In an essay entitled "In Praise of the Devil," Transhumanist ideologue Max More depicts Lucifer as a heroic rebel against a tyrannical God:

    The Devil—Lucifer—is a force for good (where I define 'good' simply as that which I value, not wanting to imply any universal validity or necessity to the orientation). 'Lucifer' means 'light-bringer' and this should begin to clue us in to his symbolic importance. The story is that God threw Lucifer out of Heaven because Lucifer had started to question God and was spreading dissension among the angels. We must remember that this story is told from the point of view of the Godists (if I may coin a term) and not from that of the Luciferians (I will use this term to distinguish us from the official Satanists with whom I have fundamental differences). The truth may just as easily be that Lucifer resigned from heaven. (No pagination)

According to More, Lucifer probably exiled himself out of moral outrage towards the oppressive Jehovah:

    God, being the well-documented sadist that he is, no doubt wanted to keep Lucifer around so that he could punish him and try to get him back under his (God's) power. Probably what really happened was that Lucifer came to hate God's kingdom, his sadism, his demand for slavish conformity and obedience, his psychotic rage at any display of independent thinking and behavior. Lucifer realized that he could never fully think for himself and could certainly not act on his independent thinking so long as he was under God's control. Therefore he left Heaven, that terrible spiritual-State ruled by the cosmic sadist Jehovah, and was accompanied by some of the angels who had had enough courage to question God's authority and his value-perspective. (No pagination)

More proceeds to reiterate 33rd Degree Mason Albert Pike's depiction of Lucifer:

    Lucifer is the embodiment of reason, of intelligence, of critical thought. He stands against the dogma of God and all other dogmas. He stands for the exploration of new ideas and new perspectives in the pursuit of truth. (No pagination)

Lucifer is even considered a patron saint by some Transhumanists ("Transtopian Symbolism," no pagination). Transhumanism retains the paradigmatic character of Luciferianism, albeit in a futurist context. Worse still, Transhumanism is hardly some marginalized cult. Richard Hayes, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, elaborates:

    Last June at Yale University, the World Transhumanist Association held its first national conference. The Transhumanists have chapters in more than 20 countries and advocate the breeding of "genetically enriched" forms of "post-human" beings. Other advocates of the new techno-eugenics, such as Princeton University professor Lee Silver, predict that by the end of this century, "All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry [will be] controlled by members of the GenRich class. . .Naturals [will] work as low-paid service providers or as laborers. . ." (No pagination)

With a growing body of academic luminaries and a techno-eugenical vision for the future, Transhumanism is carrying the banner of Luciferianism into the 21st century. Through genetic engineering and biotechnological augmentation of the physical body, Transhumanists are attempting to achieve the very same objective of their patron saint.

    I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. (Isaiah 14:13-14)

This declaration reflects the aspirations of the power elite as well. Whatever form the Luciferian religion assumes throughout the years, its goal remains the same: Apotheosis.

[clearmyst]

Well I am particularly interested in exposing luciferianism because it is the only religion accepted by the NWO and the UN.  It is also called theosophy.  It is a one world religion based on deception and the expulsion of individual freedom.

Theosophy has nothing to do with what you would term luciferianism.
The one world order religion is that of the eastern mystics brought forth from egypt to israel to freemasonry. Kabbalism is the very core of it all.

[clearmyst]

Lucifer is the morning star as written in the bible and proclaimed by the pharaohs,
it was not until freemason King James had the bible translated and purposefully marred many translations that change many subtle words that effected the whole meanings of the stories.

The morning star is Venus and makes much sense once you dissect the bible through an asto-theological interpretation. It is this that luciferianism is tied to and not as often tied, erroneously to satan.

Here is the history of the word Lucifer

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" [KJV] The verse was interpreted by Christians as a reference to "Satan," because of the mention of a fall from Heaven, even though it is literally a reference to the King of Babylon"

[Dig]

Theosophy has nothing to do with what you would term luciferianism.

Umm, are you sure?

"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation."
David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations

More....

"LUCIS" TRUST, (FORMERLY THE LUCIFER TRUST).

http://www.lucistrust.org/en/arcane_school/quote_of_the_month
EXCERPT FROM THE "QUOTE OF THE MONTH"...

June 2008
The fact, for instance, that the Hierarchy is approaching closer to humanity and will eventually make an appearance upon the physical plane is due, not only to hierarchical intent, but to the demand of mankind and to the strong vibration and note which humanity has set up. To that extent, humanity controls some of the activities of the Hierarchy and thus precipitates action. At the same time, all that is happening can be traced to Shamballa, is inherent in divine purpose and is impulsed and impelled by Shamballa energy, distributed throughout the planet, via the Hierarchy in the majority of cases. Both the Hierarchy and Humanity are brought under the influence of extra-planetary forces which make their impact upon the planet, via Shamballa. Therefore, a great interdependence emerges... (The Externalisation of the Hierarchy, p. 561)

http://www.lucistrust.org/en/arcane_school/talks_and_articles/the_esoteric_meaning_of_lucifer


The Esoteric Meaning of Lucifer
There are comments on the World Wide Web claiming that the Lucis Trust was once called the Lucifer Trust. Such was never the case. However, for a brief period of two or three years in the early 1920’s, when Alice and Foster Bailey were beginning to publish the books published under her name, they named their fledgling publishing company “Lucifer Publishing Company”. By 1925 the name was changed to Lucis Publishing Company and has remained so ever since.Both “Lucifer” and “Lucis” come from the same word root, lucis being the Latin generative case meaning of light. The Bailey’s reasons for choosing the original name are not known to us, but we can only surmise that they, like the great teacher H.P. Blavatsky, for whom they had enormous respect, sought to elicit a deeper understanding of the sacrifice made by Lucifer. Alice and Foster Bailey were serious students and teachers of Theosophy, a spiritual tradition which views Lucifer as one of the solar Angels, those advanced Beings Who Theosophy says descended (thus “the fall”) from Venus to our planet eons ago to bring the principle of mind to what was then animal-man. In the theosophical perspective, the descent of these solar Angels was not a fall into sin or disgrace but rather an act of great sacrifice, as is suggested in the name “Lucifer” which means light-bearer.

To read an article on the esoteric significance of Lucifer - “Descent and Sacrifice”, published in The Beacon magazine in September/October 1989 - click here.

The Theosophical Society is a worldwide association dedicated to practical realization of the oneness of all life and to independent spiritual search. It was founded in New York City in 1875 by Helena P. Blavatsky, Henry S. Olcott, William Q. Judge, and others. Blavatsky (1831-1891) is the primary force behind the modern theosophical movement. Her works and those of her teachers express the principal concepts of its philosophy. A Russian by birth, she traveled for twenty years in Europe, the Americas, Asia, and the Near East studying mysticism and occultism. Helena P. Blavatsky also wrote books titled Isis Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine .

[Dig]

Automated Opposition: The Technocratic Undercurrent of Zeitgeist: Addendum
HG Wells, Theosophist and lover of Margaret Sanger.

Manufacturing Dissent
 In his 1940 book The New World Order, H.G. Wells wrote:

... when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we [must] bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people. (The New World Order)

Wells' prognostication was, without a doubt, correct. As the global government envisioned by the supranational elite is gradually instantiated, many voices of dissent will be raised and subsequently eradicated. Yet, not every dissenter may "die protesting against it," but will die unwittingly embracing it instead. Some dissenters may, in fact, naively accept another form of global government being proffered as a viable alternative.

Such is the case with Zeitgeist: Addendum, the 2008 sequel to the pseudo-documentary entitled Zeitgeist, the Movie. The film was produced by Peter Joseph, a proponent of the inherently technocratic Venus Project. While the film presents a few valid critiques concerning the world monetary system, the military industrial complex, and America's meddlesome foreign policy, it uses these political and social ills as a pretext for the presentation of counterfeit solutions. The movie's prescriptions are posed within a distinctly Hegelian framework. In many instances, the solutions proffered by Zeitgeist: Addendum merely constitute dialectic extremes that produce precisely the same results as the problems that they allegedly address.

Moreover, Zeitgeist: Addendum either intentionally or unwittingly fails to recognize the problems for what they are: contrived grievances employed as polar extremes to perpetuate a dialectical climate. Instead, Zeitgeist: Addendum portrays the problems as the natural outgrowths of America's constitutional republican system, thereby vilifying representative democracy and enshrining the technocratic paradigm. The film's ultimate solution is little more than a Hegelian synthesis, as is evidenced by the dialectical commonalities between the Venus Project and the globalist forces that it purportedly opposes.

The dialectical ploy of Zeitgeist: Addendum becomes painfully apparent when one examines the normative social and political theories presented in the film. A consistently reiterated theme throughout Zeitgeist: Addendum is the notion that social progress is inextricably linked to scientific and technological progress. Such a contention is vintage techno-Utopianism, the belief that technology will eventually end all social evils and give rise to a perfect society ("Techno-Utopianism," Wikipeida: The Free Encyclopedia). Techno-Utopianism was an outgrowth of the Enlightenment, a reality underscored by one of its theoretical progenitors: Henri de Saint-Simon (ibid). In turn, the Enlightenment was an outgrowth of older occult religions. Every form of scientific totalitarianism that would emerge in the 20th century was inspired by the revolutionary faith that percolated beneath the surface of the Enlightenment. This revolutionary faith would witness tangible enactment during the bloody French Revolution. Given this disturbing ideational continuum, the core normative contention of Zeitgeist: Addendum comes into painful focus.

Zeitgeist: Addendum presents a false alternative to the emergent world order. While the film ostensibly decries globalism, it proffers a form of supranational government that is no less anti-democratic in character. Simultaneously, Zeitgeist: Addendum attempts to supply a corresponding new world religion, an agenda made fairly transparent by the film's advancement of thinly veiled occult concepts and flimsy critique of the historicity of Jesus Christ. At the end of the day, Zeitgeist: Addendum is nothing more than the hopelessly misguided artistic statement of a naive filmmaker who has adopted another variant of the ruling elite's Weltanschauung.

To understand the societal model being promoted by Zeitgeist: Addendum, one must examine the development of the revolutionary faith that inspired all modern sociopolitical Utopian movements. The film's techno-Utopian premises are derivative of this faith and, as such, can only promise the same results. Just as Zeitgeist: Addendum's political doctrine is inextricably linked to a corresponding neo-pagan spirituality, so was the revolutionary faith inextricably linked to ancient occult religions.

From Religion to Revolution: The Occult Origins of Sociopolitical Utopianism
One cannot help but notice the virulent derision for traditional religions, namely Christianity, that is espoused throughout the course of Zeitgeist: Addendum. The film echoes the same tired anti-Christian rhetoric of Karl Marx augmented by the historically bankrupt Christ-myth conspiracy theory of Achayra S (which merely recycles the thoroughly refuted thesis of Kersey Graves' The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors). Simultaneously, the movie presents a hodgepodge of Theosophical, Gnostic, astrotheological, and New Age ideas as a viable new world religion. Such an occult counterculture model is similar to the early anti-theistic sociopolitical Utopian movements that were spawned by the Enlightenment.

It is with Gnosticism that one finds the proximate origins of sociopolitical Utopianism. The Gnostic trappings of early sociopolitical Utopian movements are demonstrable in the various ideas promoted by Enlightenment luminaries. One case in point is Condorcet's "doctrine of a coming Utopia, where indefinite progress would bring forth a 'natural salvation' of plenty and immortality" (Goeringer, "The Enlightenment, Freemasonry, and the Illuminati"). Condorcet's doctrine of "natural salvation" merely reiterated the Gnostic doctrine of self-salvation.

Another case in point is Enlightenment luminary Voltaire. Linda de Hoyos elaborates on the Gnostic elements of Voltaire's Weltanschaaung:

...Voltaire's own anti-Christian beliefs are exposed in his 1756 short piece, Plato's Dream, where he embraces the ancient gnostic doctrine of the universe. In this exercise, Voltaire not only peddles the complete separation of the material and spiritual world, but upholds the gnostic doctrine that all material reality is inherently evil. The corollary to this doctrine, of course, is that man is thereby excused from all compunctions to be moral, since he is a helpless victim trapped in an evil universe not of his own making. This doctrine was likely the source of Voltaire's world view since as early as 1711, when he was introduced into the Temple of Taste, a secret society of debauchees who then forwarded him to England for further indoctrination in buggery. ("The Enlightenment's Crusade Against Reason")

The Enlightenment also shared Gnosticism's veneration of God's chief opponent. In The Hypostasis of the Archons, an Egyptian Gnostic text, the serpent in Eden is portrayed as humanity's benevolent "Instructor" and "incognito savior" (Raschke 27). Of course, Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 identifies the serpent as Satan, the Adversary of both God and man. Meanwhile, the Hypostasis caricatures Jehovah as "the archon of arrogance" (27). Likewise, the Enlightenment depicted the Devil as man's liberator and God as the oppressive force of superstition. However, the sociopolitical Utopians of the Enlightenment would exalt Satan under his original appellation, Lucifer. Conrad Goeringer elaborates:

If the bible was the holy book of the Christian enlightenment, then the Encyclopedia was the inspiration of the Enlightenment. Here was a compendium of human knowledge dealing with arts, sciences mechanics and philosophy which swelled to some 36 volumes by 1780. Begun by the Atheist Diderot in 1751, the Encyclopedia bore the imprints of Voltaire, Montesque, Rousseau, Buffon, Turgot and others. Gracing the title page of Diderot's compendium in the first edition was a drawing of Lucifer, symbol of light and rebellion, standing beside the masonic symbols of square and compass. ("The Enlightenment, Freemasonry, and the Illuminati")

This veneration of the Devil under his original angelic title constituted the religion of Luciferianism. Like some varieties of Satanism, Luciferianism did not depict the devil as a literal metaphysical entity. Lucifer only symbolized the cognitive powers of man. He was the embodiment of science and reason. It was the Luciferian's religious conviction that these two facilitative forces would dethrone the "superstitious" institutions of God and apotheosize man. This re-conceptualization of Lucifer reiterated the theme of Gnostic immanentization. Lucifer, whom traditional Christianity regards as a spiritual entity, was rendered purely immanent. Now, Lucifer was ontologically transplanted within the human mind, which Enlightenment adherents believed to be a purely corporeal entity.

Diderot's inclusion of Masonic symbols on the title page of Encyclopedia was quite appropriate. Luciferian thought permeated the early Masonic Lodge. In Morals and Dogma, 33rd Degree Freemason Albert Pike expresses unabashed praise for Lucifer:

LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls? Doubt it not. (321)

Freemasonry, which enjoyed a certain degree of prominence during the Enlightenment, would play a significant role in disseminating Luciferianism on the popular level as secular humanism. Basically, secular humanism qualifies as an anthropocentric religion and its central precept is synopsized by the Protagorean dictum: "Man is the measure of all things." Whittaker Chambers, former member of the communist underground in America, provides an eloquent summation of secular humanism:

"Humanism is not new. It is, in fact, man's second oldest faith. Its promise was whispered in the first days of Creation under the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil: 'Ye shall be as gods.'" (Qutd. in Baker 206)

Indeed, the only logical conclusion that a secular humanist can arrive at is that man is becoming god. It is interesting to note that Diderot, who was ostensibly an atheist, would select religious personages such as Lucifer to adorn his "compendium of human knowledge." Diderot's appropriation of the "symbol of light and rebellion" as a core icon for the title page of Encyclopedia suggests a conception of human knowledge that parallels the fallen angel's hubristic belief that he would make himself "like the Most High" (Isaiah 14:14). Atheism provides the philosophical segue for the enthronement of man as the Most High. This enthronement begins with the recognition of a logical contradiction inherent to atheism. Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias delineates the logical contradiction of atheism:

[Atheism] is not saying, "I do not think there is a God." It is not even saying, "I do not believe there is a God." It is affirming the nonexistence of God. It affirms a negative. It affirms the nonexistence of God... anyone with an introductory course in philosophy recognizes that it is a logical contradiction. How can you affirm a negative in the absolute? It would be like me saying to you, "There is no such thing as a white stone with black dots anywhere in all of the galaxies of this universe." The only way I can affirm that is if I have unlimited knowledge of this universe. So, to affirm an absolute negative is self-defeating because what you are saying is, "I have infinite knowledge in order to say to you, 'There is nobody with infinite knowledge.'" ("Why I am Not an Atheist, Part one," Let My People Think)

The only way to affirm the nonexistence of God is to lay claim to one of his core attributes: omniscience. Philosophically and conceptually, the claimant is already on a slippery slope towards to the belief in self-deification. Ron Carlson and Ed Decker reiterate:

It is philosophically impossible to be an atheist, since to be an atheist you must have infinite knowledge in order to know absolutely that there is no God. But to have infinite knowledge, you would have to be God yourself. It's hard to be God yourself and an atheist at the same time! (17)

Indeed, to conclude with all certainty that there is no transcendent God outside the ontological plane of the physical universe, one must first claim omniscience. However, omniscience is a trait reserved exclusively for deities. Therefore, the claimant must conclude that he or she is a god. In this sense, atheism is not the rejection of a deity. Atheism is but a philosophical segue for the ontological relocation of God within man himself. Herein is the occult conception of man as an emergent deity. Man becomes a self-actuating god who achieves apotheosis through a hierarchical system of biological and cognitive development. If such a belief in a system of progressive development sounds familiar, that's because it has been promoted under numerous appellations throughout the centuries. W. Warren Wagar elaborates:

Nineteenth-and early twentieth-century thought teems with time-bound emergent deities. Scores of thinkers preached some sort of faith in what is potential in time, in place of the traditional Christian and mystical faith in a power outside of time. Hegel's Weltgeist, Comte's Humanite, Spencer's organismic humanity inevitably improving itself by the laws of evolution, Nietzsche's doctrine of superhumanity, the conception of a finite God given currency by J.S. Mill, Hastings Rashdall, and William James, the vitalism of Bergson and Shaw, the emergent evolutionism of Samuel Alexander and Lloyd Morgan, the theories of divine immanence in the liberal movement in Protestant theology, and du Nouy's telefinalism--all are exhibits in evidence of the influence chiefly of evolutionary thinking, both before and after Darwin, in Western intellectual history. The faith of progress itself--especially the idea of progress as built into the evolutionary scheme of things-is in every way the psychological equivalent of religion. (106-07)

There is one invariant feature within this long ideational chain: a religious veneration for "progress" itself. In fact, the terms "evolution" and "progress" can be used interchangeably. Expanding on the religion of progress and its numerous permutations, Rama Coomaraswamy makes the following observation:

In point of fact, the idea of "progress," used in this sense, pre-dated Darwin by decades if not by centuries. One finds it used during the English Reformation where the "Recussants"--those who refused to abandon the Catholic faith--were described as "backward," while those who accepted the "established" state- enforced religion--were "progressive." The concept was further developed during the so-called "age of enlightenment" when people like Rousseau, Voltaire and Diderot dreamed of creating a perfect society without God. Kant embraced it in his "Idea of a Universal History on a Cosmopolitical Plan," a text in which he taught that history followed predetermined laws and revealed what be called "a regular stream or tendency" which demonstrated a "natural purpose" which would end in a "Universal civil society." Spencer spoke of the "law of progress" and defined evolution as "a change from an indefinite incoherent homogeneity to a definite coherent heterogeneity through continuous differentiations and integrations." He went on to teach that "the operation of evolution is absolutely universal. . .Whether it be in the development of the earth, in the development of life upon its surface, in the development of society, of government, of manufactures, of commerce, of language, of literature, science, art, this same advance from the simple to the complex, through successive differentiations, holds uniformly. . ." Hegel taught that humanity was driven ceaselessly upwards by an all-powerful, all-rational "It", and that the path of the ascent was an eternal, immutable, predestined, zigzag--his thesis and antithesis--always resulting in a higher synthesis. Evolutionary theory developed as a result of applying these ideas to biology. It provided a "scientific" basis for man's belief in progress and found ready acceptance in a world that sought to free itself from all divine sanction. From the time of Darwin, progress and evolution have become almost interchangeable terms that are mutually supportive and pervasive influences in our lives. ("The Fundamental Nature of the Conflict Between Modern and Traditional Man--Often Called the Conflict Between Science and Faith")

As Coomaraswamy observed in the above quote, the secular faith in process or evolution was accompanied by several corresponding societal visions. While these societal visions exhibited many variations, they all shared a common theme. The invariant was the belief that evolution operated on a macrocosmic level, enveloping all facets of existence. Julian Huxley elaborates:

"The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than biological fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-history of stars and the formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other hand subjects like linguistics, social anthropology, and comparative law and religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as a universal and all-pervading process." (Qutd. in Newman 272)

Darwinism's most significant extrapolation was the extension of evolutionary principles from biology to political science. In the context of governance, the final outcome of evolution would be a politically and economically interdependent world. There have been several appellations assigned to such a global sociopolitical arrangement. As Coomaraswamy previously stated, Kant called this arrangement a "Universal civil society." H.G. Wells called it the "New Republic." Adolf Hitler called it the "Third Reich." Neoconservative ideologues have called it Pax Americana. Internationalists of the more Eurocentric ilk have called it Pax Europa. Most notably, George Herbert Walker Bush popularized the concept under the appellation of a "New World Order." These various monikers aside, every movement that has attempted to establish a system of political and economic interdependence has invariably enshrined the same form of governance: a global socialist totalitarian state. From their evolutionary perspective, such a world order would be the natural corollary of man's alleged political evolution. In this sense, the globalist, whether of the Transnationalist and Internationalist variety, qualifies as a "sociopolitical Darwinist":

From Pope John Paul's vantage point, the thing that seems to bind these two groups most closely in practical terms is that at heart, and philosophically speaking, both are sociopolitical Darwinists. Of course, the Pope doesn't for a moment imagine that such activists as these are likely to take time out from their total immersion in world affairs to formulate their basic group philosophy in the same way that the Humanists have. There is no Internationalist or Transnationalist equivalent of Professor Paul Kurtz's Humanist Manifesto II.

Still, in John Paul's assessment, both of these globalist groups operate on the same fundamental assumptions about the meaning of human society today. Both agree on the face of it that the most important single trait that pervades the life of all nations is interdependence. And both agree that interdependence is a progressive function of evolutionary progress. Evolutionary, as in Darwin.

In practical terms, both of these groups operate on the same working assumption Charles Darwin arbitrarily adopted to rationalize his feelings about mankind's physical origins and history. If it worked so well for Darwin, they almost seem to say, why not expand the idea of orderly progress through natural evolution to include such sociopolitical arrangements as corporations and nations? In this view, the most useful of Darwin's concepts is that of human existence as essentially a struggle in which the weakest perish, the fittest survive and the strongest flourish.

When applied to sociopolitical arrangements, this Darwinist process seems almost to dictate the Internationalist and Transnationalist one-world view of things. The continuing clash and contention in the world as it has been until now has resulted in a slow evolution of those who have survived from one stage of interdependent order to another. From time to time, natural "catastrophes" have intervened, forcing "nature" to take another path. But at each new stage, interdependence has become more important and more complex.

The greater the interdependence between groups, the higher the evolutionary stage, the more the balance achieved between interdependent groups results in the common good.

The view of the Internationalists and Transnationalists is that they are the ones who are equipped to bring mankind to the highest level of the sociopolitical evolution. Their effort is to bring together into one harmonious whole all those separate parts of our world that have not yet "evolved" into a natural cohesion for the common good. (314-15)

A global government is merely the political expression of the metaphysical monism that originated with Gnosticism and the ancient Mystery religions. The Enlightenment provided the conceptual and philosophical segue for the transposition of metaphysical monism into a sociopolitical context. Whether the globalist realizes it or not, their mandate to create "one world" merely reiterates the occult contention that "all is one." While many sociopolitical Utopians (e.g., Marxists, secular humanists, communists, fascists, etc.) relegate texts such as the Biblical Eden account to mere myth, an Edenic motif remains firmly embedded within their own Weltanschauung. In the beginning of this secular mythology, Eden was a singularity, which was eventually divided into countless pluralities by the Big Bang.

According to the myth, the reconstitution of Eden is achieved through evolution, which invariably requires the assistance of Man (spelled with a capital M to signify humanity's potential to achieve apotheosis through the evolutionary process). Man unites evolution with the science of "progress," which is bodied forth through biological methodologies (e.g., eugenics, population control, etc.) and social methodologies (e.g., communism, fascism, and other forms of sociopolitical Utopianism). As evolution is guided down the desired course, Man returns to the singularity (i.e., a world government and a unified consciousness). Thus, Eden is reborn. However, Eden is confined to this ontological plane and immortality is attainable only through the continuity of the species. If elements of this mythology sound familiar, it is because it is certainly nothing new. It is derivative of ancient occult cosmologies, particularly Gnosticism. The only difference is that the scientistic version stipulates an Eschaton residing entirely within this physical universe.

The extrapolation of occult concepts into revolutionary doctrine produced a new Gnosticism that envisaged the manifestation of the Eschaton within the immanent cosmos. Commenting on this new strain of Gnosticism, Wolfgang Smith writes:

In place of an Eschaton which ontologically transcends the confines of this world, the modern Gnostic envisions an End within history, an Eschaton, therefore, which is to be realized within the ontological plane of this visible universe. (238).

The Enlightenment would reach its violent nadir with the bloody French Revolution, which would provide the blueprint for all modern socialist revolutions. Communism, fascism, and other competing forms of socialism proffer a heaven on earth. In this sense, all modern socialist revolutionaries qualify as secular Gnostics:

In this century, with the presentation of traditional religious positions in secular form, there has emerged a secular Gnosticism beside the other great secular religions--the mystical union of Fascism, the apocalypse of Marxist dialectic, the Earthly City of social democracy. The secular Gnosticism is almost never recognized for what it is, and it can exist alongside other convictions almost unperceived. (Webb 418)

The codification of Gnosticism as revolutionary doctrine produced secular movements that, sociologically, behaved like religious movements. The religious character of these secular movements is made evident by the "new reality" that they sought to tangibly enact. James H. Billington describes this "new reality":

The new reality they sought was radically secular and stridently simple. The ideal was not the balanced complexity of the new American federation, but the occult simplicity of its great seal: an all-seeing eye atop a pyramid over the words Novus Ordo Seclorum. In search of primal, natural truths, revolutionaries looked back to pre-Christian antiquity--adopting pagan names like "Anaxagoras" Chaumette and "Anacharsis" Cloots, idealizing above all the semimythic Pythagoras as the model intellect-turned-revolutionary and the Pythagorean belief in prime numbers, geometric forms, and the higher harmonies of music. (6)

It is very interesting that such a "radically secular" reality would be so preoccupied with the "occult simplicity" and "pagan names" of "pre-Christian antiquity." Yet, as sociologist William Sims Bainbridge observes, such occult proclivities are the natural corollaries of secularism:

Secularization does not mean a decline in the need for religion, but only a loss of power by traditional denominations. Studies of the geography of religion show that where the churches become weak, cults and occultism explode to fill the spiritual vacuum. ("Religions for a Galactic Civilization")

Indeed, occultism did explode to fill the power vacuum once occupied by traditional ecclesiastical authorities. One of the occult personages that would remain as a fixture of the early revolutionary faith was Lucifer. However, he would assume yet another title. The term Lucifer, as translated by St. Jerome from the original Hebrew Helel ("bright one"), shares the same meaning as Prometheus who brought fire to humanity ("Lucifer," Answers.com). The mythical character of Prometheus was central to the Utopian vision of early socialist revolutionaries. James H. Billington explains:

A recurrent mythic theme for revolutionaries -- early romantics, the young Marx, the Russians of Lenin's time -- was Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods for the use of mankind. The Promethean faith of revolutionaries resembled in many respects the general belief that science would lead men out of darkness into light. (6; emphasis added)

The Promethean contention that science was the lantern guiding man to illumination was vintage scientism. Scientism, which should not be confused with legitimate science, is the belief that the investigational methods of science are essential to all other fields of study. The modern mind, chronocentric as it is, might view such epistemological imperialism as desirable. However, as a system of quantification, science can only concern itself with quantifiable entities. Such epistemological rigidity allows for the potential preclusion of important data. Michael Hoffman reiterates:

The reason that science is a bad master and dangerous servant and ought not to be worshipped is that science is not objective. Science is fundamentally about the uses of measurement. What does not fit the yardstick of the scientist is discarded. Scientific determinism has repeatedly excluded some data from its measurement and fudged other data, such as Piltdown Man, in order to support the self-fulfilling nature of its own agenda, be it Darwinism or "cut, burn and poison" methods of cancer "treatment." (49)

When applied to questions of governance, science invariably becomes an oppressor. Because they defy quantification, concepts like human dignity and liberty are precluded from a purely scientific interpretation of governance. In the absence of concepts like liberty and dignity, otherwise questionable policies can be scientifically dignified with no regard given to moral considerations. Such was the case with Nazi Germany, the perennial model of eugenical regimentation. It is ironic that scientism, which devalues human life, was at the core of the Promethean revolutionaries' anthropocentric faith. In the end, Promethean revolutionaries murdered countless members of the very species that they sought to apotheosize: man. Hoffman synopsizes the logical ends of scientism:

The doctrine of man playing god reaches its nadir in the philosophy of scientism which makes possible the complete mental, spiritual and physical enslavement of mankind through technologies such as satellite and computer surveillance; a state of affairs symbolized by the "All Seeing Eye" above the unfinished pyramid on the U.S. one dollar bill. (50)

Nevertheless, the scientistic approach to governance was a hallmark of the Promethean revolutionaries. Friedrich Engels described Marx's theory as "scientific socialism" because both science and Marxism bestowed epistemological primacy upon observable phenomenon ("Scientific socialism," Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia). Marx's emphasis upon radical empiricism was presaged by Henri Saint-Simon's physiological interpretation of the state, which extended the doctrine of sense certainty "into the altogether new field of social relations" (Billington 212). Adherents of Saint-Simon's philosophy contended that "the key to diagnosing and curing the ills of humanity lay in an objective understanding of the physiological realities that lay behind all thinking and feeling" (212). Following this physiological interpretation of governance to its logical ends, Saint-Simon developed the precursor to Marx's "scientific socialism":

Believing that the scientific method should be applied to the body of society as well as to the individual body, Saint-Simon proceeded to analyze society in terms of its physiological components: classes. He never conceived of economic classes in the Marxian sense, but his functional class analysis prepared the way for Marx. (213)

Thus, radical empiricism provides the epistemological basis for all modern forms of scientific totalitarianism. It is also with radical empiricism that one finds another occult element of sociopolitical Utopianism. This epistemology stems from the Gnostic derision of cognitio fidei (the cognition of faith). Moreover, radical empiricism arrives at conclusions that are inescapably mystical in character. An exclusively empirical approach relegates cause to the realm of metaphysical fantasy. This holds enormous ramifications for science. What is perceived as A causing B could be merely a consequence of circumstantial juxtaposition. Although temporal succession and spatial proximity are axiomatic, causal connection is not. Affirmation of causal relationships is impossible. Given the absence of causality, all of a scientist's findings must be taken upon faith. Ironically, science relies on the affirmation of such cause and effect relationships.

Saint-Simon's work has been described as the prescription for Sir Francis Bacon's prophetic vision of a technocratic society (Fischer 69). Technocratic governance, or Technocracy, is a governmental system where scientists and technicians act as the sole decision-making body. This inherently anti-democratic concept originated within esoteric circles. Sir Francis Bacon developed the original model for Technocracy in his book, The New Atlantis. Published in 1627, The New Atlantis was adorned with the symbols of occult Freemasonry and presented the Rosicrucian mandate for the formation of an "Invisible College" (Howard 74-75). Bacon himself was a member of the secret Order of the Helmet and, some allege, a Grand Master of the secret Rosicrucian Order (74). The Utopia presented by Bacon in The New Atlantis was "a pure Technocratic society" (Fischer 66-67). The philosopher kings of Plato's Republic were to be replaced by a "technical elite" (66-67). Scientists and technicians would circumvent conflicting political interests, giving rise to an apolitical bureaucracy.

Technocratic ideas constituted a portion of the conceptual and philosophical foundation for modern socialist totalitarian governance. Of course, a majority of socialist totalitarian regimes that have populated modernity have been overtly hostile towards theistic faiths, particularly Christianity. This derision for theistic faiths is attributable to the characteristic scientism of technocratic theory. Because the soul, angels, demons, and God Himself are neither quantifiably or empirically demonstrable entities, they have no place within a technocratic society. Science becomes the new expositor of miracles, revelation, and truth. In Brave New World Revisited, Aldous Huxley described this scientistic form of governance:

The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries. Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown. (116)

Wielding ostensible epistemic primacy, the "experts" of Technocracy employ the gnosis of science to produce "enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries" for their subjects. Distracted by all of the comforts that technology can supply, most men and women would never dream of revolting against the new theocracy of science. This is precisely the same sort of society mandated by Zeitgeist: Addendum, a reality underscored by the film's promotion of the ideas of Jacque Fresco.

Jacque Fresco: Proselyte of the Global Technocratic State
The technocratic nature of Zeitgeist: Addendum's prescription is made evident by one of the ideologues interviewed in the film: Jacque Fresco. In hopes of realizing his techno-Utopian vision for the world, Fresco founded the Venus Project in 1975 ("The Venus Project," Living on Purpose). Zeitgeist: Addendum is essentially a commercial for Fresco's Venus Project.

Fresco appears throughout the movie, intermittently espousing ridiculously quixotic Utopian romanticist doctrines and reiterating the same tired anti-theist polemics that have already been refuted by many reputable Christian apologists. All of his pseudo-intellectual rhetoric aside, Fresco is nothing more than an anti-American technophile suffering from Promethean hubris. Unfortunately, the more credulous audiences that have adopted the technocratic gospel of Zeitgeist: Addendum cannot identify the dubious strands of thought that underpin many of Fresco's assertions. For instance, at one point, Fresco states:

"Now, America is inclined toward fascism. It has a propensity, by its dominant philosophy and religion, to uphold the fascist point of view. American industry is essentially a fascist institution. If you don't understand that, the minute you punch that time clock, you walk into a dictatorship." (Zeitgeist: Addendum)

Fresco is only partially correct. While there is little doubt that there are fascist elements entrenched in present-day America, these elements are extraneous. They did not originate with Americanism, but gradually co-opted the institution after its inception. Fresco is either intentionally or unwittingly confusing Americanism with corporatism. Americanism promotes free market capitalism. Corporatism, which is synonymous with fascism, promotes monopolistic capitalism. By wedding the government to private business interests, the corporatist state enables monopolistic capitalists to consolidate and control the means of production. Meanwhile, smaller businesses are expunged from the marketplace through rigid governmental regulation.

Thus, Fresco presents humanity's choices of government within a distinctly Hegelian framework. By positing that Americanism is inherently fascistic, Fresco is either intentionally or unwittingly encouraging audiences to gravitate closer towards the other dialectical extreme: communism. Yet, the dialectical commonalities of fascism and communism are overwhelmingly transparent, a reality that is demonstrable in the etymology of the two systems themselves. The appellation of "communism" comes from the Latin root communis, which means "group" living. Fascism is a derivation of the Italian word fascio, which is translated as "bundle" or "group." Both fascism and communism are forms of coercive group living, or more succinctly, collectivism.

The only substantial difference between these dialectical extremes is fascism's limited observance of private property rights, which is superficial at best given its susceptibility to rigid governmental regulation. In 1933, Hitler candidly admitted to Hermann Rauschning that "the whole of National Socialism is based on Marx" (Martin 239). Indeed, Nazism (a variant of fascism) is derivative of Marxism. Monopolistic capitalists like Rockefeller financed the rise of communism because they correctly identified it as the quintessential monopoly. In essence, communism is a system of monopolistic capitalism where the omnipotent State acts as an ersatz corporation. In practice, fascism was merely Marxism with the added pageantry of ostensible private ownership. The historical conflicts between communism and fascism were merely feuds between two socialist totalitarian camps, not two dichotomously related forces.

Nevertheless, by confusing Americanism with fascism, Fresco automatically ensnares more credulous audiences within a dialectical trap. Ayn Rand synopsizes this dialectical trap as follows:

It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system... it switches the choice of "Freedom or dictatorship?" into "Which kind of dictatorship?"--thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice--according to the proponents of the fraud - is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism). (180)

Fresco's anti-capitalist rhetoric betrays his technocratic pedigree. Although Fresco rejects the appellation of "technocrat," he was a member of Technocracy Incorporated for many years ("Jacque Fresco," Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia). Fresco's technocratic propensities become all the more apparent when one examines his promotion of a "resource-based economy" (ibid). Such an economic model was also promoted by Harold Loeb, a technocrat who believed that unfettered technological progress would eventually end scarcity and supplant capitalism with a techno-Utopian system of governance. In Life in a Technocracy, Loeb states:

Men live by the production, distribution, and consumption of goods. Goods are produced and distributed by effort. The incentive of effort is profit. Profit depends on price. Price depends on scarcity. Therefore, the life of man under the capitalist system, depends on the scarcity of goods. And the scarcity of goods is being progressively destroyed by the application of science to production, known in its latest phase as technology. (7; emphasis added)

While some of Loeb's criticisms of scarcity-based economics are valid, his assumption that such an economic model was automatically synonymous with America's free market economy is incorrect. Nevertheless, technocrats like Loeb forthrightly condemned Americanism. In fact, many sects of the early technocratic movement were "anticapitalistic and revolutionary in their rhetoric" (Akin 82). Some technocrats even "mingled socialism, managerialism, and assorted beliefs" (83). William Akin further reveals the Marxian proclivities of the early technocratic movement:

In California, adherents visualized an efficient totalitarian society in which "the individual must subordinate himself to the community" and which would function automatically under the guidance of engineers. The American Technocratic League of Denver was openly socialist. From Chicago the All American Technological Society proposed the use of the Soviet Union as a model for the new order. (83)

Such technocratic enclaves provide a fragmentary glimpse of Fresco's true ideological heritage. Like Loeb, Fresco believes that technology will eventually end scarcity, thereby relegating capitalism to obsolescence. Throughout the course of Zeitgeist: Addendum, Fresco consistently characterizes profit as the natural correlative of greed. Apart from the fact that such an association is a hastily formulated oversimplification, Fresco's virulent derision of profit takes on a technocratic dimension when examined in conjunction with his conviction that technology will end scarcity and capitalism with it.

While Fresco claims that he does not advocate communism, he speaks about the system with a great deal of affinity. During an interview on Living on Purpose, Fresco reminisces fondly about the various flirtations with communism that took place during the Great Depression:

During the Depression, everybody was looking for new ways. That's amazing. Communism, socialism were up on soapboxes. The Secretary of State of the United States went to Russia to see what they were doing and he liked what they were doing. So, they made a film called Mission to Moscow... It ran in this country. Very successful. Favorable to communism. Of course, all of that was taken away. It's gone now. You can't even see it anywhere. And, I don't say that it's good or bad, but that was good. It was more of an open system. ("The Venus Project," Living on Purpose)

Fresco's one major criticism of communism and socialism seems to be the fact that these systems, like all other world systems, employ a monetary-based economy ("What is The Venus Project"). Like Loeb, Fresco contends that monetary systems invariably lead to scarcity (ibid). Fresco contends that, in turn, scarcity is the crucible of all social evils, including "social stratification, elitism, nationalism, and racism" (ibid). Thus, it would appear that Fresco's only major misgivings with communism and socialism are those systems' reliance upon monetary-based economic models.

The solution, according to Fresco, is the instantiation of a cashless society:

"Today we have access to highly advanced technologies. But our social and economic system has not kept up with our technological capabilities that could easily create a world of abundance, free of servitude and debt. This could be accomplished with the infusion of a global, resource-based civilization where all goods and services are available without the use of money, credit, barter or any other form of debt or servitude." (Qutd. in Noni Durrani. "Jacque Fresco On The Future")

Yet, such a non-monetary system was a hallmark of the stateless socialism envisioned by some variants of Marxism. Arguably, money was virtually nonexistent in some Marxist regimes, such as Cambodia under the genocidal Khmer Rouge. In Maoist China and the Soviet Union, money played an ancillary role at best. Within these regimes, neither productive resources nor a share of production itself could be acquired through the issuance of liabilities. Thus, communist and socialist economies could be considered mere segues for the instantiation of non-monetary systems.

Ominously enough, a cashless society has also been the objective of some of the globalist interests that financed the rise of communism. Why? In a cashless society, there is a distinct lack of financial privacy. In the absence of that privacy, the state can arbitrarily confiscate the wealth of the lower and middle classes. Fresco believes that such universal financial transparency would obliterate elitism and social stratification. Yet, historically, the ruling elite have always found ways to conceal their financial information, even in the most economically regimented societies.

In the United States, for instance, the wealthy have been able to conceal their financial information through offshore banking schemes, shell games, and loopholes governing cash transaction reports. As a result, untold billions of dollars connected to the international drug trade and terrorism have passed through the hands of elites. In a cashless society, whatever is deemed credit can and most likely will be regulated in a similar fashion. A cashless system would precede the growth of a huge black market and guerilla economy as criminal infrastructures develop new and creative ways to circumvent financial transparency. Historically, the global oligarchical establishment has maintained close ties to the criminal underworld. This reality reduces the notion of financial equality to a pipe dream of the first order.

Moreover, Fresco's contention that all social evils are inextricably linked to monetary-based economies is inherently fallacious. How does Fresco account for all the instances of "social stratification, elitism, nationalism, and racism" that preceded the advent of any monetary-based economies? Evidently, the inherent nature of man is plagued by a systemic corruption that existed before money. Ironically, his reality is affirmed by Biblical Christianity, a Weltanschauung that Fresco categorically rejects. In 1 Timothy 6:10, the apostle Paul makes it clear that it is the "love of money," not money itself, that is the root of all evils. In the absence of money, man will simply find something else to worship. In the case of Fresco, he has chosen to worship the cognitive powers of man. Fresco venerates science and technology, which are the products of human intellect. For Fresco, science and technology are the instruments by which man shall reconstitute Eden without God. Such a contention merely reiterates the mantra of an older anthropocentric religion: "Ye shall be as gods." Herein is the true motive for Fresco's anti-theist rhetoric.

Revisiting Walden Two: Fresco's Behavioral Tyranny
Fresco's contention that monetary-based economies are the source of all social evils pays credence to the behaviorist theory that man is a tabula rasa who is determined exclusively by external forces. In turn, behaviorism is premised on the physicalist philosophy of mind. Physicalism holds that outward behavior is the only adequate indicator of mental states. From the physicalist vantage point, cognition is a purely corporeal process and the soul is a metaphysical fantasy. Working from this premise, Skinner developed a "technology of behavior" by which human nature could be conditioned and manipulated. Skinner believed that, as desirable behaviors were promulgated within the human herd, the ideal society would eventually emerge.

Skinner presented his psychologically engineered Utopia as a roman a' clef entitled Walden Two. Characterizing Walden Two as an innocuous fiction, Skinner stated: "The 'behavioral engineering' I had so frequently mentioned in the book was, at the time, little more than science fiction" (vi). Yet, behavioral engineering was no fiction for one of Skinner's theoretical forerunners: Adam Weishaupt.

Weishaupt was an Enlightenment thinker and the founder of the infamous Bavarian Illuminati. Working off the physicalist contention that observable behavior was the primary indicator of mental states, Weishaupt developed a method of hierarchical observation called "Seelenspionage," which means "spying on the soul." Seelenspionage involved the close observation of Illuminist adepts. Through such observation, Weishaupt believed that the Illuminist hierarchy could:

. . .get access to the adept's soul by close analysis of the seemingly random gestures, expressions, or words that betrayed the adept's true feelings. Von Knigge, who was privy to the system, referred to it as a "Semiotik der Seele." "From the comparisons of all these characteristics," von Knigge wrote, "even those which seem the smallest and least significant, one draw conclusions which have enormous significance for knowledge of human beings, and gradually draw out of that reliable semiotics of the soul. (Jones 14)

Astute readers will recognize Weishaupt's Seelenspionage as a precursor to B.F. Skinner's behaviorism. Like Weishaupt's system of behavioral observation and modification, Skinner's behaviorism was premised upon the physicalist assumption that all observable behavior provided the only adequate indicator of "mental states." In fact, Skinner's reductionistic metaphysics virtually obliterated the "mental state," transforming it into a proverbial mirage imposed upon observable behavior by the percipient. Thus, from Skinner's perspective, man was merely an amalgam of behavioral repertoires that could be manipulated and controlled.

To his credit, Weishaupt identified the semiotic dimension to observable behavior, a reality that later physicalists like Skinner would ignore. However, the very same sort of reductionistic metaphysics to which Skinner and later physicalists would subscribe also plagued Weishaupt's "semiotics of the soul." Weishaupt attempted to reduce the extremely complex undercurrent of connotative meaning underpinning observable behavior to a simplistic paint-by-numbers schematic. Such a one-dimensional approach is reminiscent of Delsartes' method of acting, which contended that truly great performers could mimic all the proper gestures to communicate the emotional state of their characters.

Yet, in spite of its crude and overly simplistic schematicism, this Illuminist variety of behavioral tyranny would find a permanent place in the litany of contemporary totalitarian practices:

In Illuminism we find in seminal form the system of police state spying on its citizens, the essence of psychoanalysis, the rationale for psychological testing, the therapy of journal keeping, the idea of Kinsey's sex histories, the spontaneous confessions at Communist show trials, Gramsci's march through the institutions, the manipulation of the sexual passion as a form of control that was the basis for advertising, and, via Comte, the rise of the "science" of behaviorism, which attempts, in the words of John B. Watson, to "predict and control behavior." (17)

It comes as little surprise that Skinner believed that the system of communism practiced in Red China presented a societal model that America should emulate (Skinner xv). The Illuminist system of "social control" would provide the operational protocol for every totalitarian regime throughout the 20th century. Communism, fascism, and other forms of oligarchical governance have employed some variation of Weishaupt's panopticism (Jones 17). Ultimately, the goal has always been what Weishaupt called the Maschinenmenschen, a completely mechanized man:

Once released into the intellectual ether, the vision of machine people in a machine state controlled by Jesuit-like scientist controllers would capture the imagination of generations to come, either as utopia in the thinking of people like Auguste Comte or dystopia in the minds of people like Aldous Huxley and Fritz Lang, whose film Metropolis seemed to be Weishaupt's vision come to life. (Jones 16-17)

The Weishauptian concept of Maschinenmenschen that presaged Skinner's behaviorist portrait of humanity was also embraced by the technocratic movement:

The technocrats attempted to pull all of these strands--their faith in positivistic science; their mechanistic view of man with his essentially animal-like irrationality, his desire for security, abundance, and tranquility; the organizational imperative caused by natural inequality; and the dominance of technology-- together into one functional ideal whole. It resembled Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and the managerial society that James Burnham deplored; it could equally lead to B.F. Skinner's Walden Two. (Akin 148)

Fresco also exhibits such technocratic propensities, as is evidenced by the behaviorist-physicalist portrait of man presented at the Venus Project's official website. The Venus Project's organizational biography states: "Experience tells us that human behavior can be modified, either toward constructive or destructive activity" ("What is The Venus Project?"). This contention is reiterated later in the Venus Project's manifesto:

Human behavior is subject to the same laws as any other natural phenomenon. Our customs, behaviors, and values are byproducts of our culture. No one is born with greed, prejudice, bigotry, patriotism and hatred; these are all learned behavior patterns. If the environment is unaltered, similar behavior will reoccur. ("What is the Venus Project?")

Such a contention presupposes that man is a tabula rasa awaiting the enlightened brushstrokes of social engineers. After all, if man is determined exclusively by external forces, it stands to reason that his circumstances and conditions must be managed in order to produce the desirable modes of behavior. Whether Fresco realizes it or not, he is providing the rationale for the very "machine state" envisioned by Lang, Huxley, Weishaupt, Comte, and, of course, Skinner. Of such a psychologically engineered society, C.S. Lewis writes:

. . .many a mild-eyed scientist in a democratic laboratory means, in the last resort, just what the Fascist means. He believes that "good" means whatever men are conditioned to approve. He believes that it is the function of him and his kind to condition men; to create consciences by eugenics, psychological manipulation of infants, state education and mass propaganda. Because he is confused, he does not yet fully realize that those who create conscience cannot be subject to conscience themselves. But he must awake to the logic of his position sooner or later; and when he does, what barrier remains between us and the final division of the race into a few conditioners who stand themselves outside morality and the many conditioned in whom such morality as the experts choose is produced at the experts' pleasure? If "good" means only the local ideology, how can those who invent the local ideology be guided by any idea of good themselves? (81)

Indeed, when they speak of a psychologically engineered society, the "mild-eyed scientist" and the fascist mean exactly the same thing. They mean a socialist totalitarian society where the "many conditioned" are controlled by the "few conditioners." In short, they mean a scientific dictatorship. Such is the logical outworking of Fresco's behaviorist contentions. There can be little doubt that such such thinking is a corollary of Fresco's ideological heritage as a former member of Technocracy Incorporated. Evidently, the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree.

Mandating a Sedentary World
Throughout the course of Zeitgeist: Addendum, Fresco childishly decries work and labor as corrupting forces that are stultifying man's alleged evolutionary ascent. Such a contention betrays Fresco's infantile resentment of productivity. To be sure, not all employers are fair and not all work is legitimate. However, it is a transparent generalization to assert that all work and labor constitute drudgery and servitude. Nevertheless, Zeitgeist: Addendum reiterates this assertion ad nauseam. At one point in the film, Joseph declares:

In a high technology, resource-based economy, it is conservative to say that about 90 percent of all current occupations could be phased out by machines, freeing humans to live their lives without servitude. (Zeitgeist: Addendum)

Again, the technocratic theme of a "machine state" emerges. Apart from being hopelessly quixotic, this statement bespeaks Joseph's contention that industrialism is the dominant force in the development of social order. Such a contention merely reiterates the outlook of Saint-Simon, who would indoctrinate Comte into technocratic doctrines:

It was from Saint-Simon that Comte got the idea that Industrialism was to be the new form of social order that would replace the old order which had been swept irrevocably away by the revolution. The new order was to be based on science, not the discredited religion, because no one could argue with science, which [Mary] Shelley has said, was based on fact, not hypothesis. "Hypothesi non fingo," Newton had written, and Shelley had quoted the passage in a footnote to Queen Mab as the marching orders for the New Man who would bring about heaven on earth. (Jones 94)

Such religious veneration of industrialism, technology, and science was at the heart of most sociopolitical Utopian movements. In turn, sociopolitical Utopianism represents the philosophical, ideological, and religious nucleus of all modern socialist totalitarian regimes. Historian Richard J. Sutcliffe states:

In the last hundred years or so, "scientific" views of history have become increasingly popular, for humanity as a statistical whole is thought of as being subject to analysis and prediction. In this thinking, once the motivations of the masses could be measured and tabulated, their response to economic or technological stimuli could be accurately predicted. Appropriate technology and education could then be adapted to engineer and control the desired society. Such theories are popular among both political rightists and leftists, neither of whom realize that they are advocating the same kind of society--a sort of "scientific totalitarianism" or "technocratic dictatorship." (The Fourth Civilization: Society, Technology, and Ethics)

The promotion of the scientistic approach to governance aside, the vision of a world where work is abolished through automation is fallacious. The introduction of machines in the workplace does not obliterate jobs, but simply creates new ones. After all, who will maintain the machines?

Yet, assuming that the vision of a completely automated workplace is plausible, it is questionable as to whether or not such a world would be desirable. Both Joseph and Fresco contend that automation will "free" man, but that merely raises another question. If man is freed from all work, then what is he free to do? Fresco and Joseph never clearly answer this question. All that they offer is nebulous rhetoric about humanity being free to pursue fuzzy enterprises of self-actualization and self-enrichment.

This response only gives rise to even more questions. Towards what ends would such pursuits be directed? Even if people were free to do nothing else but seek knowledge, the acquisition of that knowledge would prove to be absolutely worthless. Why? The practical application of knowledge is tangibly expressed through work, which will have been supposedly abolished through automation. In the end, the world envisioned by Fresco and Joseph would be a sedentary one. No doubt, a sedentary population would prove to be more tractable and manageable for the ruling elite. Again, the "solutions" presented in Zeitgeist: Addendum would merely expedite humanity's subjugation.

The Venus Project: An Experiment in World Technocratic Governance
At one point in Zeitgeist: Addendum, Fresco declares: "Patriotism, weapons, armies, navies... all of those are a sign that we are not civilized yet" (Zeitgeist: Addendum). Fresco's condemnation of patriotism and his intentional juxtaposition of the concept with instruments of war echoes Wells' contention in his work of normative fiction, The Shape of Things to Come: "The existence of independent sovereign states IS war, white or red, and only an elaborate mis-education blinded the world to this elementary fact" (The Shape of Things to Come).

To remedy the problems that he believes are rooted in the nation-state system, Fresco adopts the same solution presented by Wells:

"If you say large nations took land from smaller nations, used force of violence, you'll get history talked about as corrupt behavior all the way along until the beginning of the civilized world. That's when all the nations work together. World unification. Working toward common good for all human beings. And, without anyone being subservient to anyone else... without social stratification, whether it be technical elitism or any other kind of elitism..." (Zeitgeist: Addendum)

It is ironic that Fresco would present global government as an alternative to "technical elitism or any other kind of elitism." A technical elite would be the natural correlative of a global machine state. If Fresco's behaviorist conception of man is true, it stands to reason that the instantiation of a unified world would stipulate the primacy of those with behavioral "expertise." Fresco's emphasis on external forces as the dominant sculptors of human behavior provides the rationale for the necessity of a class of conditioners that would be unaccountable to the masses. Moreover, any form of global government is conceptually, politically, and economically predisposed to tyranny. Donald McAlvany explains:

A world government, by its highly centralized nature, would be socialistic; would be accompanied by redistribution of wealth; strict regimentation; and would incorporate severe limitations on freedom of movement, freedom of worship, private property rights, free speech, the right to publish, and other basic freedoms. (287)

Again, it becomes painfully apparent that the "solutions" proffered by Joseph and Fresco are not solutions at all. The Venus Project would merely install another form of scientific dictatorship. At one point in Zeitgeist: Addendum, two hands come into frame and connect to form a pyramid. In the center of the hands' pyramidal configurations is the sun. The image bears an iconic similarity to the A

[clearmyst]

Why not try actually answering my facts presented?
They are easily verifiable...
satan is not lucifer,
I get tired of repeating it but its true.
Were not talking about zeitgeist and PJ here.

And you take on factions claim as the bottom line?
I know of many other claimants who will supposedly rule or be forced to swear allegiance to. And in the case of david he is likely continuing the satan-lucifer myth by that claim.

[Dig]

Why not try actually answering my facts presented?
They are easily verifiable...
satan is not lucifer,
I get tired of repeating it but its true.
Were not talking about zeitgeist and PJ here.

And you take on factions claim as the bottom line?
I know of many other claimants who will supposedly rule or be forced to swear allegiance to. And in the case of david he is likely continuing the satan-lucifer myth by that claim.

When did I even mention satan? Do you see one post in this thread where I mention satan? You stated "Theosophy has nothing to do with what you would term luciferianism" and that is what I was countering.  I never talked about satan, you did.

[jesqueal]

I didn't read this book as Theosophic, more Protestant...not Crowley but Luther

The finale is that the high angel who has pretended to be a God for millenia has overstayed his welcome in this Universe and blows away like dust in the wind...to me the high angel who called himself God in this book was a reference to Lucifer

And that link to cuttingedge is severe bullshit
"OMG this book features flying witches - therefore it's EVIL"

[Dig]

I didn't read this book as Theosophic, more Protestant...not Crowley but Luther

The finale is that the high angel who has pretended to be a God for millenia has overstayed his welcome in this Universe and blows away like dust in the wind...to me the high angel who called himself God in this book was a reference to Lucifer

And that link to cuttingedge is severe bullshit
"OMG this book features flying witches - therefore it's EVIL"

I did not read the cuttingedge stuff, but let us look at it...

all children have demons and having a demon is good.  children get whisked away to a remote MK Ultra mind control and abuse slave camp where they are rescued by more demons, flying non-humans, and beasts.  Magic dust is all over the place that acts as some control mechanism of sorts. kids learn deceptive practices to deceive the evil adults that only want to kill, enslave, torture them or remove their demons from them.

Oh yeah and a clever bit of technology is the "holy grail" throughout the entire movie, the "golden compass"

[jesqueal]

I did not read the cuttingedge stuff, but let us look at it...

all children have demons and having a demon is good.  children get whisked away to a remote MK Ultra mind control and abuse slave camp where they are rescued by more demons, flying non-humans, and beasts.  Magic dust is all over the place that acts as some control mechanism of sorts. kids learn deceptive practices to deceive the evil adults that only want to kill, enslave, torture them or remove their demons from them.

Oh yeah and a clever bit of technology is the "holy grail" throughout the entire movie, the "golden compass"

Sane when you read Genesis for instance do you think "those people are illegaly detained in the garden and their rights to pick and choose fruit is trodden on" or can you see past those passing similarities to 1984 to understand the actual story that's being told

[Dig]

Sane when you read Genesis for instance do you think "those people are illegaly detained in the garden and their rights to pick and choose fruit is trodden on" or can you see past those passing similarities to 1984 to understand the actual story that's being told

um, ok, what was the actual story being told?

[lord edward coke]

There is one usage of the word "Lucifer" in the King James Version of the Bible, being at Isaiah 14:12, while in modern versions it has been changed to "day star" or "morning star".

(KJV) Isa 14:12* How art thou fallen<05307> from heaven, O Lucifer<01966>, son of the morning<07837> <03213>! how art thou cut down<01438> to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! [Only certain Strong's numbers listed.]

(ASV) Isa 14:12* How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations!

(NIV) Isa 14:12* How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

(Septuagint) Isa 14:12 How has Lucifer, that rose in the morning, fallen from heaven! He that sent orders to all the nations is crushed to the earth.

Modern translations of this verse have been the cause of some confusion because of it similarity with Jesus Christs's description of Himself in Revelation:

Rev 22:16* I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Why was the word "Lucifer" changed in modern versions of the Bible? (The rendering "Lucifer" is also used in the Geneva Bible.) Which rendering is correct? To find out let's first figure out who's being talked about and then examine the underlying Hebrew word "hay-lale"<01966> (the only occurance of which is that verse, Isaiah 14:12).

Who Is Fallen?

It doesn't take much to tell whether Jesus Christ or someone else is being talked about in this verse. First examine naphal<05307> which is translated "fallen". It means "fail, fall down, cast, cast down, fall away" and other things. Jesus Christ is not a failure, cast down or fallen away. Secondly, look at gada'<01438> translated as "cut down" and "cast down" which means "down, cut off, asunder, cut in sunder". Jesus was not and is not cast down or cut off. Clearly this verse is talking about someone other than Jesus Christ.

And Satan, the accuser, is the one cast down:

Rev 12:10* And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

"Hay-Lale"

Now consider the word translated "Lucifer" or "day star" or "morning star". It is spelled in Hebrew he-yod-lamed-lamed (EILL). There is one other occurance of these four letters (as one word) as the first word appearing at Zechariah 11:2, but there it is assigned Strong's number 03213 and translated "howl". A second instance of Strong's number 03213 in this same verse is also rendered "howl", but is spelled differently: he-yod-lamed-yod-lamed (EILIL) (the suffix vau is omitted here).

Zec 11:2* Howl<03213>, fir tree; for the cedar is fallen; because the mighty are spoiled: howl <03213>, O ye oaks of Bashan; for the forest of the vintage is come down.

There are many other instances of Strong's number 03123 almost all rendered "howl". Notice that Online Bible has it also in Isaiah 14:12 (see top). The Online Bible people say this appears to be a "Qere Reading" (from the margin as opposed to the "kethiv" main text).

The Hebrew letter 'he' is usually a prefix meaning "the", so looking for the usage of a root word yod-lamed-lamed (ILL) yields one occurance in Deuteronomy 32:10 with Strong's number 03214 (the only instance of this number):

Deu 32:10* He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling<03214> wilderness; he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye.

 

Haw-lal' or Yaw-lal'?

Is "eill" from "e"+"ill" ("the" + "howling") or is it from "ell" ("to shine") with an added "i" after the "e"? (This part requires close attention.) Here is a chart of the Hebrew words involved:

Hebrew word
(phonetic) Hebrew word
(letters, left to right) Transliteration
(left to right) Strong's number Usages
hay-lale he-yod-lamed-lamed eill 01966 Isa 14:12 - "Lucifer"
 he-yod-lamed-lamed eill 03213 Zec 11:2 - "howl"
yaw-lal' yod-lamed-yod-lamed ilil 03213 Zec 11:2 - "howl"
yel-ale' yod-lamed-lamed ill 03214 Deu 32:10 - "howling"
haw-lal' he-lamed-lamed ell 1984 "to shine"


Is hay-lale<01966> (eill) derived from haw-lal'<01984> (ell), as the Strong's notes from Online Bible indicate, or from yaw-lal'<03213> (ilil), which is indicated by the "Qere Reading" from the margin? Spelling each in Hebrew letters, haw-lal' is he-lamed-lamed (ell), and yaw-lal' is yod-lamed-yod-lamed (ilil), and hay-lale is spelled he-yod-lamed-lamed (eill). While internal vowels may be eliminated occasionally, leading ones are not. This leads me to conclude that the hay-lale'<01966> (eill) of Isaiah 14:12 is yaw-lal'<03213> (ilil) without the internal 'yod' rather than being derived from haw-lal'<01984> (ell) with a 'yod' added between the 'he' and the first 'lamed'. This means that the leading 'he' of hay-lale<01966> (e-ill) is indeed the prefix meaning "the," the "Qere Reading" is the correct one and that the proper rendering of this word should be "the howl" or "the howler."

Also notice yel-ale'<03124>, spelled yod-lamed-lamed (ill), is derived from yaw-lal'<03123>, spelled yod-lamed-yod-lamed (ilil). This is an instance of eliminating an internal vowel (the yod) and confirms to me the above conclusion.

 

Conclusions

I believe the translation of hay-lale' as "Lucifer," as an alternate name for Satan, identified the proper person, though I believe it did not strictly accurately translate the word. But rendering this word as "day star" or "morning star" confuses who is being spoken of and is near flattery to Satan. I find one needs to examine the Bible, digging into the Hebrew when necessary, with an attitude that current translations may have been made and infuenced by those with a secret, satanic agenda, so that one is not afraid to re-interpret it. With that in mind, I find it clear that it was Satan who was falling and howling as he went, and the word should be rendered as "The Howler." This fits well with Satan's accusative character and does not lend to confusion with Revelation 22:16 where Jesus declares himself to be "the bright and morning star."

 

Additional thoughts

An interesting verse to note (to me anyway) is

2 Timothy 3:13* But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

The Greek word translated as 'seducers' is goes<1114> (the sole occurence of this Strong's number) meaning a wailer / howler. Satan certainly is an evil seducer, along with being a howler. So it appears that wailing and howling are part of the methods of seduction of evil men, they deceiving whom they can, and they themselves deceived (sometime I think by their own falsehoods).

Also examine this verse and the linked Strong's numbers:

1 Peter 5:8* ¶ Be sober<3525>, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil<1228>, as<5613> a roaring<5612> lion, walketh about<4043>, seeking whom he may devour<2666>:

The warning is to be mentally watchful and dispassionate in guarding against all adversaries or "devils," not merely Satan himself. These adversaries go about as if they were great men or 'lions.' The verse does not say the devil is a roaring lion, but uses as. Satan masquerades as if he were a lion or a man with authority, as do those who follow Satan's path. Examining the word for roaring<5612>, we see, as applied to men, it means singing with a loud voice, or raising a loud cry. This is not the great roar of might, but a wail seeking solice or attention. These adversaries conduct their lives ("walketh about"<4043>) this way, not just occasionally making known their complaints and griefs, but live from it. And they go about seeking who they can 'drink down' (devour<2666>, derived from pino meaning 'to drink'). This is not Satan going about killing people, but evil men wailing about how great they were or could have been, done with the intent to elicit pity and aid, and then refreshing themselves from the substance of others, seeking to empty their victims of all they can.

Howling or wailing is key in the above two verses, and I see those verses as notice that we are to be on guard for those who, like Satan, are always wailing about things (including accusations against you). Noting the second definition of goes<1114>, we see that incantations used to be uttered in a kind of howl; this suggests to me that persistent wailing works like an incantation or enchantment, causing would-be victims to drop their guards. The evil wailers are attempting to seduce and 'drink down' others by means of, essentially, sob stories. So, don't be callous, but don't be naive either.

 

================= Strong's numbers ==================

01438 gada` {gaw-dah'}
a primitive root; TWOT - 316; v
AV - ... down 11, cut off 7, asunder 3, cut in sunder 2; 23
1) to cut, hew, chop, cut down, hew down, hew off, cut off, cut in two, shave off
   1a) (Qal) to hew, chop in two
   1b) (Niphal) to be chopped off, be hewn off
   1c) (Piel) to cut off or down in two, hew off or down in two
   1d) (Pual) to chop down, hew down

01966 heylel {hay-lale'}
from 01984 (in the sense of brightness); TWOT - 499a; n m
AV - Lucifer 1; 1
Lucifer = "light-bearer"
1) shining one, morning star, Lucifer
   1a) of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)
2) (TWOT) 'Helel' describing the king of Babylon

01984 halal {haw-lal'}
a primitive root; TWOT - 499,500; v
AV - praise 117, glory 14, boast 10, mad 8, shine 3, foolish 3, fools 2, commended 2, rage 2, celebrate 1, give 1, marriage 1, renowned 1; 165
1) to shine
   1a) (Qal) to shine (fig. of God's favour)
   1b) (Hiphil) to flash forth light
2) to praise, boast, be boastful
   2a) (Qal)
      2a1) to be boastful
      2a2) boastful ones, boasters (participle)
   2b) (Piel)
      2b1) to praise
      2b2) to boast, make a boast
   2c) (Pual)
      2c1) to be praised, be made praiseworthy, be commended, be worthy of praise
   2d) (Hithpael) to boast, glory, make one's boast
   2e) (Poel) to make a fool of, make into a fool
   2f) (Hithpoel) to act madly, act like a madman

03214 y@lel {yel-ale'}
from 03213; TWOT - 868a; n m
AV - howling 1; 1
1) a howling (of beasts)

03213 yalal {yaw-lal'}
a primitive root; TWOT - 868; v
AV - howl 29, howlings 1, variant 1; 31
1) (Hiphil) to howl, wail, make a howling

05307 naphal {naw-fal'}
a primitive root; TWOT - 1392; v
AV - fail 318, fall down 25, cast 18, cast down 9, fall away 5, divide 5, overthrow 5, present 5, lay 3, rot 3, accepted 2, lie down 2, inferior 2, lighted 2, lost 2, misc 22; 434
1) to fall, lie, be cast down, fail
   1a) (Qal)
      1a1) to fall
      1a2) to fall (of violent death)
      1a3) to fall prostrate, prostrate oneself before
      1a4) to fall upon, attack, desert, fall away to, go away to, fall into the hand of
      1a5) to fall short, fail, fall out, turn out, result
      1a6) to settle, waste away, be offered, be inferior to
      1a7) to lie, lie prostrate
   1b) (Hiphil)
      1b1) to cause to fall, fell, throw down, knock out, lay prostrate
      1b2) to overthrow
      1b3) to make the lot fall, assign by lot, apportion by lot
      1b4) to let drop, cause to fail (fig.)
      1b5) to cause to fall
   1c) (Hithpael)
      1c1) to throw or prostrate oneself, throw oneself upon
      1c2) to lie prostrate, prostrate oneself
   1d) (Pilel) to fall

07837 shachar {shakh'-ar}
from 07836; TWOT - 2369a; n m
AV - morning 12, day 6, early 2, dayspring 1, light 1, riseth 1, Shahar 1; 24
1) dawn
   1a) dawn
   1b) at dawn (as adverb)

07836 shachar {shaw-khar'}
a primitive root; TWOT - 2369; v
AV - seek early 4, seek 2, diligently seek 2, betimes 1, misc 3; 12
1) to seek, seek early or earnestly, look early or diligently for
   1a) (Qal) to look for diligently, seek
   1b) (Piel) to seek, seek early

---

1114 goes {go'-ace}
from goao (to wail); TDNT - 1:737,126; n m
AV - seducer 1; 1
1) a wailer, a howler
2) a juggler, enchanter (because incantations used to be uttered in a kind of howl)
3) a deceiver, imposter

1228 diabolos {dee-ab'-ol-os}
from 1225; TDNT - 2:72,150; adj
AV - devil 35, false accuser 2, slanderer 1; 38
1) prone to slander, slanderous, accusing falsely
   1a) a calumniator, false accuser, slanderer,
2) metaph. applied to a man who, by opposing the cause of God, may be said to act the part of the devil or to side with him
Satan the prince of the demons, the author of evil, persecuting good men, estranging mankind from God and enticing them to sin, afflicting them with diseases by means of demons who take possession of their bodies at his bidding.

[tritonman]

In revelations God speaks of Satan and a third of all the angels being cast from heaven.  Hmmm, what happened to the rest of the angels?  Could they have perhaps set up Satans church on earth?  Just something to think on.

[jesqueal]

um, ok, what was the actual story being told?

Some f**ked up shit being committed by the Catholic church in Lucifer's name & some kids that help bring the Church down