Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 56

A Future History of Light, Part One

I've read a lot of material while working on the Lucifer's Technologies


series, searching for answers as to true identity of this enigmatic figure, this
question mark of esoteric history.

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

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

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

RISE

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

remembers

the

Silver

Bridge

collapse).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are a few things we do know:

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

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

Lucifer is not a ruler, he seems more interested in upsetting established


structures, in anarchy. We get this sense quite clearly from the mythological precedents.

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

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

Also, there are no "elite Luciferians" because there is no Luciferianism for them
to follow, or at least anything existing outside the imaginations of certain YouTards.
There are no legitimate Luciferian texts, no Luciferian rites, no shrines,
nothing. Unless you count the Yazidi, and that's an entirely separate (and very interesting)
conversation.

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

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

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

darkness.*

Lowlife

spiritual

scum,

in

other

words.

.................................
Lucifer is no choirboy, the archetype seems to resonate more with the Gnostic concept of
Abraxas, a figure that transcends dualities. You don't get the sense that Lucifer is about turning
the

other

cheek

or

loving

one's

enemies.

.......................
He/it's not to be taken lightly, that I can say with absolute certainty. Keep a very safe distance
unless

you

Maybe
.....................

know

keep

what

you're

doing,

safe

would

be

distance

my

advice.

anyway.

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

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

extraordinary

experience.

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

LUCID GNOSIS

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

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

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

Light is in fact the highest expression of spiritual attainment in Sophia as in many


Gnostic texts, something to be struggled after, kept in a "treasury" or actually
worn like a garment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


phenomenon.

But if Gnosticism as a praxis (as opposed to a philosophy) has yet to be fully


established, the same can be said of Lucifer, that he is a player yet to take the field.

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

One could even argue that "Luciferianism" as it is presently misunderstood is a


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

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

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

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

Hathor

to

the

Egyptians

and

Aphrodite

to

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

the

Greeks.

The Romans would identify her with Venus (itself the Morning Star, or Lucifer) as well as
recombinant fusions of earlier figures, such as Isis-Aphrodite (Isis-Hathor, essentially). As
Astarte, Babalon was the consort of El in the proto-Hebraic Ugarit religion, but she was written
out of the story and then demonized as the Great Whore or Whore of Babylon, most notably in
the Book of Revelation.
...........

"Shestirsconfusionandchaosagainstthosewhoaredisobedienttoher,speedingcarnageandinciting
thedevastatingflood,clothedinterrifyingradiance.Itishergametospeedconflictandbattle,untiring,
strappingonhersandals."SumerianHymn
Babalon is not Isis though, she is not the Mother figure, the Earth goddess of the
corn. She's not Diana or Minerva either, the archetypes that seem dominant today, particularly
with radical feminism.

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

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

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

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

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

TO BE CONTINUED

JimmyPage'ssoundtrackforLuciferRisingisnotableforitspioneeringuseofguitarsynthesizer,
relativelyuncommonatthetime.Sothearchetypewasinspiringinnovationeventhen.

*I'mtemptedheretociteJackParsonsasthemostextremeexampleofthisblowback,butIdon'tknow
howinvolvedhewaswiththeLuciferarchetype,orifMarjorieCamerongrafteditontohim.

A Future History of Light, Part Two

Click here for Part One

Lucifer is not Satan.

There isn't any scriptural evidence to support a connection between Lucifer and
Satan. Early translations of the Bible used "Lucifer" in a number of different contexts, even to
refer

to

Jesus

Christ

himself.

(2

Peter

1:19; Revelation

22:16).

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

Everything you've read about "Luciferians" on the Internet is almost exclusively based in the
imaginations of Fundamentalist conspiracy theorists (most of relatively recent vintage), who
stretch the meanings of words to extremes to justify shoddy and unsupportable claims of
"Luciferian"

conspiracies

that

simply

do

not

exist.

There have been small Luciferian sects (or subsects, as in the Process) popping here and there
(again,

mostly

recently)

but

these

are

largely

no

more

than

hobbyists.

Luciferian theology is largely apocryphal and is based in astrotheology and/or appropriations of


esoteric traditions dating back to Babylon, based in protective magic, which itself dates back to
ancient

Sumer.

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

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

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

fix

your

flat.

THE IDEAL AT THE EXPENSE OF THE REAL

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

The

myth

of

forward-movement-in-time-towards-Perfection

became

the

dominant myth-form of the West in the Piscean Age, whether that Perfection was
represented

by

the Eschaton, Natural

Selection,

the Revolution or

the Singularity.

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

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

Because when Perfection inevitably breaks all its appointments (remember, the first Christians
expected

Jesus

to

return in

their

lifetime), someone has

to

be

to

blame.

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

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

is

not

even satanic.

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

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

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

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

Country

or

Proletariat,

take

your

pick.

So to return to the original metaphor, I have a feeling Lucifer is re-emerging-- perhaps


even creating himself-- to fix our deflated culture. Judging from the traffic on this blog over the
past

several

weeks,

I'd

guess

he's

already

here.

But don't forget he charges for the service and expects a tip, too. I think this is probably the
reason

the

archetype

has

been

regarded

with

suspicion

for

so

long.

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

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

world,

power

that

is

as

powerful

as

it

is

elusive.

A power that was described with language startlingly similar to that used by the early Christians
two thousand years after the few scraps of surviving homages to it were first written.
But you have to go back to square one here. Forget everything that came after and look at the
conditions

and

the

worldview

in

which

this

archetype

first

arose.

Why?

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

read

on.

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

teacher

and

dissident.

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

killing

each

other.

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

folk

spirits.

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

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

parody

of

another

Assyrian

god,

Ashur.

It's kind of like an ancient MAD Magazine in that regard. I really doubt a prideful
angel

is

going

to

go

around

calling

himself "Scapegoat."

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

But Lucifer not only echoes the Watchers, he's also a re-presentation of the sun
gods who were popular in the Roman world in the early Common Era, particularly
figures

like

Sol

Invictus,

Mithras,

Horus

and

Apollo.

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

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

the

pagans

and

polytheists

outside

it.

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

Dings,

cell

phones,

ChiaPets

and

Saran

Wrap.

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

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

that

line

in

the

sand.

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

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

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

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

Note

had

that

become

Rome

itself

its

was

"Unconquerable

conquered

not

Sun."

long

after.

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

SURFING THE ZEITGEIST

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

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

The best-known example of this is the notorious and now largely-discredited first-third of the
original Zeitgeist documentary, which culled the work of the Victorian free thinker Gerald

Massey, who rather liberally drew on the syncretic Mystery traditions of late antiquity, when
everyone seemed to borrow (steal) from everyone else.

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

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

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

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

the

ancient

world.

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

This only gets more complicated with the rise of the Mystery cults, in which you may have the
general populace of Tyre worshipping Melqart (which implies the occasional baby-roasting
when things got really dire, during wars, plagues, famines and so on) but say, the merchants,
craftsmen and poets involved in some hippie-dippie fertility cult that mixed Phrygian and
Egyptian elements, or even some inexplicable hand-me-downs from Sumer or Akkad.
If you really want to and are willing to dig, you can probably find an account of some obscure
local cult that rewrote the histories of the gods completely, in a fanfic kind of way, to suit their
own personal whims. Several, I'll bet.

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

intensity,

might

add.

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

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

BACK TO THE CRADLE

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

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

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

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

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

of.

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

inspired

by

trademark

dispute).

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

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

Lucifer

the

may

fall

worst

but

he

seems

kind

to

take

his

of

enemies

HE'S

quagmire.

down

with

him.

WATCHING

Some researchers believe that the Watchers themselves can be traced back to
Sumer,

whether

you

see

them

as angels, ETs or

some mysterious

secret

society. Their touchdown point, Mount Hermon, borders Lebanon and Syria, and has been a
battlezone for many of the struggles of our time, from the Arab-Israeli conflict to the current
Syrian

wars.

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

The raids on the Baghdad museum in the opening days of the Iraq War made a lot
of people sit up and take notice. The media would wish the story away, but the fact remains

that two-thirds of the Sumerian tablets are still missing, and that's on top of the untold number
looted

over

the

past

century

and

half.

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

we don't

know about

them.

THE PEOPLE OF THE FALLEN ONE

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

to

genocide

them

out

of

existence.

The Yazidi were a favorite of old pulp writers for the their reputation as "devil
worshippers," which was a misconception of their adoration of Melek Taus, who is
Lucifer

in

all

but

name. Not

Satan; Lucifer.

So here we are again.

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

and

free

the

Yazidi

women

forced

into

sex

slavery.

The Yazidi are by no means alone in their suffering under the terrorist onslaught unleashed by a
coalition of powers on Iraq and Syria (including the US), but for some reason their situation

resonated

with

the

world

in

way

others

did

not.

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

and

Syria.

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

an

all-female

brigade).

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

argument

over

just

who

are

the

actual Satanists in

this

struggle.

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

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

The King

of

Light,

mind

you.

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

CURDLED ARCHETYPES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RussianconcertatPalmyraafterthecity
wasrecapturedfromJihadists

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

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

Inevitably, Babalon- under her various Canaanite and Phoenician incarnationswas often mentioned as well, given the clickbait-worthy facts surrounding her
temple

prostitutes

and

all

the

rest

of

it.

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

final

attempt

to

keep

the

barbarians

outside

the

gates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which

I'm

thinking

suits

him

just

fine.

TO BE CONTINUED

NOTE: We don't even need to discussthe


LuciferTV show, which has been renewed for a second

season, after averaging over 10 million viewers across all platforms. Which boggles my mind. Or
actually,

maybe

it

doesn't...

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

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

into

its

rapid

decline

and

fall.

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

practice

and

eventually

began

to

outbreed

their

pagan

rivals.

**SolwascreatedbyoneofRome'sunsungheroesAurelian,whorosefromobscurityupthroughthe
ranks of the Legion and almost singlehandedly pulled the entire Empire back from the brink of
catastrophe.Think an ancient Vladimir Putin. Sol was his attempt to bring the Empire's countless
religions under one umbrella, a job he started but the Flavians finished.

ButthisalsosuitsBabalon'spurposes,thegoddessofwarapparentlyknownforherjealousy.As
Hathor,shelivedinIsis'slongshadow(myHathorstatuettewassoldas"Isis",eventhoughitclearly
isn't)andherownrisingcanonlybenefitifpeoplearenolongerquiteastakenwithherrival'spowerful
ancient name.Note that the goddess is associated not only with sex and war, but with
motherhood and fertility. Interesting times.

A Future History of Light, Part Three

You could spend the rest of the month poring through conspiracy sites telling you
all about Lucifer and the elite "Luciferians" and the "Luciferian agenda." What
you'll soon realize is that you're in the middle of a giant echo chamber and that most of the
information you're reading on the topic has no actual basis in fact.

You'll soon come to realize that most of the anti-Lucifer propaganda on the Web is ultimately
rooted not so much in Christianity per se as in Evangelical Protestantism, and a rabidly antiCatholic, apocalyptic variety of which to boot.

Which makes sense, because the true birth of the Lucifer-as-Satan mythos comes from a work of
anti-papal propaganda, one which we took an in-depth look at a few weeks ago. One written
during a very troubled time in Europe in general and for England in particular.

Just how anti-Catholic was Paradise Lost, which popularized some pretty obscure
theological doctrines comparing Satan's fallen nature to the "fall" of Venus in its role as Morning
Star, a phenomenon that played itself out in several ancient mythological dramas?

So anti-Catholic that illustrations of Satan in a 1688 edition were adorned with likenesses of
Catholic Kings James and Charles. Think Star Wars as rewritten by Jack Chick.

Paradise Lost is filled with allegories of Protestant charges against Catholicism, not the least of
which is Rome secretly unleashing Babylonian paganism on the world, which Milton

essentially beginsthe

story

with.

In fact, a good deal of the "Luciferian" crapola you see on the web ultimately
springs from The Two Babylons, an anti-Catholic tract written in the 19th Century by a
Scottish clergyman that argued that Catholicism was in fact secretly dedicated to worshipping
the legendary Babylonian King Nimrod. And you don't need a theology degree to see the
Pandemonium as a wicked satire of a Vatican conclave.

For Milton then, Lucifer the "beloved angel" is clearly the pure and innocent early Church (itself
a myth, but still) and his reinvention as Satan obviously the rise of the hated Church of Rome
and its bishops.

The Morning Star as rebel is an ancient story, its "pride" being the luminescence of
Venus when it changes from an object seen after sunset to one highly visible
during the morning hours, and the "fall" being its light being overwhelmed by that
of

the

sun

before

it

reaches

it

apogee.

Like, that's seriously what that "Lucifer=Satan" paranoia is ultimately based on. A
tiny

dot

in

the

sky.

The name Lucifer comes from its role as "bringer of the (morning) light." Venus was seen as

either male or female, with the Ugarit peoplesignificantly seeing it as a male god of the dawn.
The old "your god is our devil" routine again. I'm sure this is probably old news to a lot of you
but it bears repeating.

So that's it? Just some old Astrotheology? Ho hum, sorry I asked?

Well, no.

You're also going to find a lot of citations of Enoch and the Watchers in your
Luciferian travels, which we also looked at. The condemnation of the Watchers, or
the other Watchers, into the pit will certainly come up. Probably more than you'll like:
And I saw a deep abyss, with columns of heavenly fire, and among them I saw columns of fire
fall, which were beyond measure alike towards the height and towards the depth. And beyond
that abyss I saw a place which had no firmament of the heaven above, and no firmly founded
earth beneath it: there was no water upon it, and no birds, but it was a waste and horrible
place.
I saw there seven stars like great burning mountains, and to me, when I inquired regarding
them, The angel said: "This place is the end of heaven and earth: this has become a prison for
the stars and the host of heaven." 1 Enoch 18: 11-14
But this story- from an apocryphal text, let's remember- is a straight-up, nofrills rewrite of Zeus hurling down the Titans, the other gods, into the pits of
Tartarus, going back centuries (the 8th Century BC, to be exact) before Enoch to
Hesiod's Theogony. In the Titans case, it was Zeus's thunderbolts and not columns of fire that
did

the

trick,

but

you

get

my

meaning.

In fact, in the Greek translation of Enoch the pits are actually called Tartarus, and
are so again in the Greek text of 2 Peter. And no telling of Enoch is complete without mention of

the Giants, the offspring of Sons of God and the Daughters of Men. You hear this refrain
constantly in your Luciferian overture:
And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself
one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught
them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with
plants. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three
thousand ells: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer
sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. 7: 1-4
But this goes back to Hesiod as well, the host of Giants born to Gaia, the Earth
mother, from the blood that fell from the sky when Uranus, the sky Titan, was
castrated. A bit grander in scope, but same basic meeting of Earth (women) and Sky (angels,
Anunnaki, whatever). A bit of scaling down for a more skeptical post-shamanic generation, is
what I'm thinking.

But not all the Titans were trapped in Tartarus. One exception is Prometheus.

Ah, Prometheus. The Light-Bearer.


Prometheus himself is an immortal god, the friend of the human race, the giver of fire, the
inventor of the useful arts, an omniscient seer, an heroic sufferer, who is overcome by the
superior power of Zeus, but will not bend his inflexible mind. Although he himself belonged to
the Titans, he is nevertheless represented as having assisted Zeus against the Titans.
(Prometheus) deprived (humans) of their knowledge of the future, and gave them hope
instead. He further taught them the use of fire, made them acquainted with architecture,
astronomy, mathematics, the art of writing, the treatment of domestic animals, navigation,
medicine, the art of prophecy, working in metal, and all the other arts .
And you probably know the story of how Prometheus stole fire from the gods to
give back to humanity when Zeus was being his usual asshole self and was
withholding it. And for this the Titan was chained to a rock and the bit with the eagle and the
liver andyeah.

What some of you may not know is that Prometheus was eventually freed by Heracles aka
Hercules, the rock-star solar savior who was in the middle of his Twelve Labors ordeal. For this,
Prometheus told Hercules where to find the Golden Apples of the Sun and everyone lived
miserably ever after, because these are Ancient Greek myths and that's how they roll.

Greeks can't be said to be ungrateful, however, and there were cults to


Prometheus, especially in Athens. What was kind of badass is that they were fire
cults, because Prometheus was generally seen as a fire god. See if this rings a bell:
In the Academy is an altar to Prometheus, and from it they run to the city carrying burning
torches. The contest is while running to keep the torch still alight; if the torch of the first
runner goes out, he has no longer any claim to victory, but the second runner has. If his torch
also goes out, then the third man is the victor. If all the torches go out, no one is left to be
winner.
So they celebrate the Olympics- meaning the festivals dedicated to the celestial mafia who did
away

with

the

Titans-

with

an

old

ritual

to

Titan

then?

Interesting.

But anyway; fire god, light-bringer, friend to humanity, I mean if we're looking for
the real Lucifer, here's our guy, right? Not some dot in the dawn.

But wait- there's more!

In the fire myth, humanity is all male, because these are Ancient Greek myths and
that's how they roll. To punish the men and get back at Prometheus, Zeus creates Pandora,
the first woman, who gets fixed up with Prometheus' idiot brother, Epithemeus.

Zeus, being the major dick that he is, gives Pandora a jar filled with evil spirits as a
wedding present, which most people misremember as a box. And we all know how
well that turned out. Even so, Pandora has a daughter, Pyrrha ("Fire"), who then marries
Prometheus'

son

Deukalion.

And they live miserably ever after because it's at this point that Zeus, the
pedophile/rapist/mob boss, decides it's depopulation time:
Deukalion by the advice of Prometheus constructed a chest, and having stored it with
provisions he embarked in it with Pyrrha. But Zeus by pouring heavy rain from heaven
flooded the greater part of Greece, so that all men were destroyed, except a few who fled to the
high mountains in the neighborhood.
But Deukalion, floating in the chest over the sea for nine days and as many nights, drifted to
Parnassos, and there, when the rain ceased, he landed and sacrificed to Zeus Phyxios (the god
of Escape).
And Zeus sent Hermes to him and allowed him to choose what he would, and he chose to get
men. And at the bidding of Zeus he took up stones and threw them over his head, and the
stones which Deukalion threw became men, and the stones which Pyrrha threw became
women. -- Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca
Well, your stand-issue flood myth complete with weird traces of genetic
engineering, right? Well, this version is closer to an earlier version than it is to the Noah
story:
The Eridu Genesis must have begun with the Creation of Man, but continues with the
establishment of kingship and a list of cities. (Then comes) the supreme god Enlil's decision to
destroy mankind.
Ziusudra is king of uruppak and a seer, who witnesses the gods' council and decision in a
vision, and understands that something terrible is about to happen. After this, the god Enki,
speaking from the other side of a wall, explains Ziusudra what he already has understood.
Enki's advice, to build a big boat, must have been mentioned in a large lacuna. The story
continues with a description of the Flood, which lasts seven days and nights. After leaving the
ark, Ziusudra sacrifices and meets the sun god Utu.
The difference here is that there's a rivalry between Enki/EA, humanity's patron,
and Ziusudra vs. Enlil, humanity's enemy. This is the same arrangement you see with
Prometheus and Deukalion and Pyrrha vs. Zeus. The most likely common denominator here is
the Epic of Gilgamesh, which at Hesiod's time maybe would have been known in its Babylonian
translation.

Most likely, but not necessarily the only possibility. Oh no, not at all.

There's that and there's also this:


There was also an account, stating that Prometheus had created men out of earth and water,
at the very beginning of the human race, or after the flood of Deucalion, when Zeus is said to
have ordered him and Athena to make men out of the mud, and the winds to breathe life into
them.

Which sounds an awful lot like the Sumerian creation account, with Enki taking the
lead and Ninmah aka Ninhursag giving us a tidy Athena prototype:
Oh my mother, the creature whose name thou has uttered, it exists, Bind upon it the (will?) of
the Gods; Mix the heart of clay that is over the Abyss, The good and princely fashioners will
thicken the clay, Thou, do thou bring the limbs into existence; Ninmah will work above
thee, Nintu will stand by thy fashioning; Oh my mother, decree thou its (the new born's) fate.
Just as the Watchers have turned out to be another people's teacher-gods demoted
to "fallen angel" status, you get the same feeling with the Titans, that they were not
only gods of an earlier Greek tradition but an earlier people as well, or at least an earlier version
of them. Scholarly opinion has the Titans as some kind of archaic, shamanic leftover, but I'm not
so sure. Not so sure at all.

Prometheus seems to stick around here a bit too long, and play WAY too important
a role in Greek religion and culture.Much too much for a figure who is allegedly some
prehistoric, Neolithic hand-me-down. Would you really assign all the civilizing and scholarly
responsibilities to such a figure? Would the Ancient Greeks?

Now, call me crazy but I'll eat my hat if Prometheus wasn't brought to Greece in
some earlier migration. If he wasn't in fact the supreme god of an earlier pantheon that was
displaced when a more aggressive tribe moved in and said the hell with your lousy old fire gods,
worship our shiny new mountain gods.

That maybe even Prometheus was someone else, somewhere else, and maybe only became a
tribal fire god when memories dimmed and the old homeland receded into the distance.

Because there's something very suspicious about these Sumerian creation myths
being attached to a lousy Titan(wouldn't Zeus handle all that himself? Why outsource?),
though I'll be damned if I get past a suspicion. But it's there and it's nagging at me.

Zoroastrians- who introduced the modern concept of angels to the world- think
they know the answer. They believe that Prometheus is a hijacking of their own myths:
Another Greek poet who wrote before 700 was Hesiodalso from the coast of Asia Minor.
Hesiod believed that the Greeks were descended from a golden race that lived in idle luxury in
the distant past, before Zeus was lord, when Zeuss father was king, and Hesiod sought to
account for the golden races demise and successive declines in civilization. This is close indeed
to the Persian myth, and might reflect the common origins of these Indo-European peoples or
Persian influencePersians migrating south of the Caucasus at this time might have begun to
make

mark

on

history

through

their

own

mythology.

To explain the fall, Hesiod reworked a Caucasian myth about the god Prometheusa tale
admired by the Greeks. Like the Hindu god Agni, Prometheus was a god of fire, a benign god
for humans and a god who taught humanity their arts and crafts. Hesiod described
Prometheus as stealing fire from the heavens and giving it to mankind.
And this, from a Zoroastrian site, on the Olympic flame:
Numerous authors have suggested some form of linkage between Greek and Hittite gods and
between the Greek states and Asia via the trade routes through Asia Minor, as well as via the
Black Sea and the Caucasus.
Prometheus is also the god of metallurgy, a craft made possible by the discovery of fire.
Homer and Hesiod locate the forge of Prometheus' nephew or work mate, Hephaestus, in
eastern Asia Minor, in the land of the Arima associated with the land west of Lake Van in
eastern Asia Minor.

Well, that's all very fascinating, I hear you say. But everybody thinks everybody stole
everything

from

their

traditions.

And

what

the

hell

does

this

sungod

have

to

do

Mithras

with Lucifer, this emerging archetype?

Aclassic

iconof

Mesopotamian

misidentifiedasPrometheus.Why?

Well, we're back to Mesopotamia again, aren't we? Back in the land of Nebu-I saw you
fall from the Heavens- chadnezzar and the Yezidi, yet again. Back to the lands of the Archangels.
We started in England and ended back in Iraq and Iran. And we stopped along the way at the
Vatican and in Greece.

And?

Well, I don't know if you've been paying attention to the news for the past 18 months or so but
England, Iraq, Iran, Greece and the Vatican are particular flashpoints- linchpins, if you will- in
the new world disorder. I've long felt that these struggles are being fought for different reasons
than what we're given to believe.
Think Brexit, Grexit, ISIS, the Iran Nuclear Deal (talk about fire gods), the GloboPope, the emigration battle and a few other major crises that don't come to mind
at

the

moment.

Things are happening here. Plates are shifting beneath our feet. Change is coming so fast, no
one can keep up with it. Timetables seem to be moving up, in a panicked kind of way. Wars are
being fought in Heaven. Hell, Zoroastrianism itself is making a comeback.

Throw in the return of Nibiru and all of a sudden this isn't just another comparative mythology
runaround.

It'ssomething else.

A Future History of Light: The Fall, Unveiled

We've been trying to get to the core of the Lucifer archetype, which begins with
Milton's epic poetry and brings us back to the poems and dramas the Greeks wrote
of the Titan Prometheus. Both stories have to do with a Fall, in Milton's case Lucifer's Fall
from

Heaven

leading

to

the

Fall

of

Man

told

in

The

Bible.

These in turn are reflected in the Prometheus stories, with his daughter-in-law Pandora
unwittingly unleashing evil on the world by opening a jar filled with evil spirits given to her as a
trick.

How strange that both traditions would feature stories that have a great deal in common. In
both stories, the "first woman" is somehow blamed for the fall from grace but was tricked by a
powerful

being.

In both stories, there is a warning by a supreme being: Adam and Eve are warned by
Yahweh not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and Prometheus (who I
believe was the quite-Luciferian supreme being of a pre/proto-Greek people) warns his brother
and his wife not to accept a gift from Zeus, who as we've seen is an asshole.

Which leads me to believe there's a common source for both stories. The question is
why this all seems to resonate with so much happening in the world today.

OH,

THE SUMERIANS AGAIN...

Tracing the Prometheus archetype back I ended up at the beginning; at Sumer. It


became obvious that Prometheus had a direct and powerful antecedent in a mysterious and
secretive god who was, quite significantly, not only associated with light and fire, but also with
the intellect. And he was also associated with metalworking and mining, a very important clue in
the

unraveling

of

this

mystery.

What's more, I soon came to believe- rather strongly- that the Fall was based on a
very, very real event. An event that rocked the ancient world to its foundations and
became

the

stuff

of

legend

for

thousands

of

years

thereafter.

I believe that this event that represented a trauma in which an entire people felt utterly cut off
from their gods, an act for which, given their powerful religious traditions, they naturally would
blame

themselves.

An event that wasn't just a political or social disaster, but a cosmic one.

This was a trauma that would depose many highly-placed officials, giving us an extremelycompelling precedent for the fall of the rebel Watchers. Accounts of the time prove this Fall
would send some of those men and women into the wilderness, just as Adam and Eve were.

And perhaps most significantly, I believe that the Serpent in the Garden and
Prometheus

are

both

based

on

opposing

figures

in

the

same

drama.

This is very much a work in progress. In fact, this demands to be presented as a book. But this is
too important to sit on. I feel like it's going to explode beneath me if I don't take the lid off this
cauldron

right

now

BRAGGING

RIGHTS

The Sumerians may not have been the world's first highly advanced civilization, but they seem
to be the first one we have dependable records of. It may well be that they were preceded by an
even more advanced civilization that's been lost to history, in fact that would plug a lot of holes
in

the

stories

I'm

looking

at.

What continues to boggle my mind is how long the Sumerians remained hidden from history
itself; they were only discovered in the mid-19th Century. Which opens the door for further
discoveries

down

the

road.

But for now, let's stick with what we know about the Sumerians:
They were the first to engage in large-scale irrigation agriculture; the first to live in populous
urban settings that we call city-states; the first to develop stratified societies with specialized
occupations; the first to organize and maintain standing armies; the first to develop
mathematics and writing; the first to propagate laws and formulate the concept of property.
What the Sumerians were most of all were an extraordinarily religious people, maybe the
most religiously-obsessed people in history.
I would argue that that Sumerian religion continues to influence culture today,
maybe

in

way

we

haven't

seen

since

ancient

times.

You can trace many of our superhero and sci-fi tropes back to Sumerian myths, and then of
course you also have the millions of people who've read Zechariah Sitchin or watched Ancient
Aliens. Not to mention the effect Sitchin's work has had on conspiracy theory through the books
of

David

Icke

and

others.

As we've seen with other cultures, a sky god emerged from the pack and became
the top dog in Sumer. And like the rest of them, he was kind of a dick:

Sometime around 2500 BCE, Enlil became the greatest of the gods, the god who punished
people and watched over their safety and well-being...Enlil was a god who dwelled
somewhere. He was a god of place, and that place was Nippur...
Nippur

is

crucial

to

our

story. Remember

it.

Now this is important-- each Sumerian city-state was ruled by a king or Lugal
(literally meaning "giant"), who eventually became the religious leader in this ancient
theocracy. Some Lugals would become gods (or "half-gods") themselves.
Each city was 'ruled' by a different deity (god) who was worshipped in a large temple in the
city centre.
A ruler was called an en and was often deified (made into a god). Each city had a governor
(ensi) or a king (lugal) who often had religious duties, particularly to build and maintain
temples.
The wife of the king was called a lady or queen (nin). The queen might be in charge of
important projects such as managing the affairs of a temple goddess.
The city leaders had a duty to please the town's patron deity.Pleasing the god of the city
ensured the goodwill of that god or goddess as well as the goodwill of the other deities in the
council of gods.
Sumerians were totally dependent on the State and the Temple. It was a kind of
theocratic communism, albeit one which seemed to be highly stratified between social and
ethnic classes. But everything, and I mean everything, revolved around the gods and their
functionaries.
Early Sumerian society was highly collectivized, with the temples of the city god and
subordinate deities assuming a central role. "Each temple owned lands which formed the
estate of its divine owners. Each citizen belonged to one of the temples, and the whole of a
temple community - the officials and priests, herdsmen and fishermen, gardeners, craftsmen,
stonecutters, merchants, and even slaves - was referred to as 'the people of the god."
Because of the desert climate, gardens were highly prized by the Sumerians, and
by the empires which followed them. Gardens were identified with the gods, places
where people would encounter the gods. How literally you want to take that is up to you.

This is an extremely important detail here- make note of this particular aspect of
Sumerian religion:
The most important festival for ancient Sumerians was New Year's Day. On this day, the king
had to symbolically marry a priestess who represented the goddess Inanna.

Sumer's vulnerability lay in its disunity. The city-states often warred over resources and
trade. Because of this a strongman, a Lugal- a Titan, if you will- stepped into the power vacuum
and attempted to create a united Sumerian Empire.
Lugalzagesi conquered the Sumerian cities of Ur, Larsa, Girsu, Lagash, and possibly others,
and eventually brought all the other cities of Sumer under his control.
Lugalzagesis efforts at unification sometimes carried a heavy price his soldiers sacked
(opposing cities) with a ferocity that shocked the Sumerians. This kind of brutality was seldom
seen in Sumerian warfare...The violent sacking of the city and the sacrilegious looting of the
temples has always condemned Lugalzagesi in the judgment of history.
This may in fact not be historically accurate, however, given what would soon
happen to Lugalzagesi himself. This may in fact have been war propaganda, written by a
powerful enemy. In any event, this fact will be a major clue in unraveling the Prometheus
mystery and its connection to all of this:
At some point during his reign Lugalzagesi made Uruk his capital city. Its often stated that he
conquered the city, but this is unlikely.
As it happens, Lugalzagesi would soon meet his match:
Sargon of Akkad reigned in Mesopotamia from 2334 to 2279 BCE...He was born an
illegitimate son of a "changeling", which could refer to a temple priestess of the goddess
Innana (whose clergy were androgynous) and, according to the Sargon Legend never knew
his father.
His mother could not reveal her pregnancy or keep the child, and so he was set adrift by her in
a basket on the Euphrates River where he was later found by a man named Akki who was a
gardener for Ur-Zababa, the King of the Sumerian city of Kish.
Yeah, that's Moses' story too. But Biblical borrowing is what this story is all about.

In any event, Sargon's empire would stretch from the Persian Gulf to the
Mediterranean. Iraq and the Levant, strangely enough
(Sargon) came to be considered the greatest man who had ever lived, celebrated
in glorious tales down through the Persian Empire...historian Paul Kriwaczek sums

up the impact Sargon had on later generations in Mesopotamia, writing, "for at least 1,500
years after his death, Sargon the Great, founder of the Akkadian Empire, was regarded as a
semi-sacred figure, the patron saint of all subsequent empires in the Mesopotamian realm"
Let's back it up a bit: Sargon caught the eye of Ur-Zababa, who made the young gardener his
cup-bearer, which is essentially the king's right-hand man. What should be noted is that not
only was Sargon just a gardener, he wasn't even Sumerian- he was Akkadian, kind of secondclass

citizens

in

the

city-states.

In any event, Zababa chose poorly. Sargon began to accumulate power for himself
and chose Lugalzagesi's blitzkrieg to make his move. Zababa doesn't seem like much of
a Lugal- it's said he "sprinkled his legs" when he heard Zagesi's army approach:
(Zababa) had grown suspicious of Sargon and..decided to send him to Lugalzagesi ostensibly
with an offer for peace. Whether Ur-Zababa actually included in the message anything about
terms and conditions is not known; what is known is that message asked Lugalzagesi to kill
Sargon upon receiving it. For whatever reason, Lugalzagesi refused to comply and instead
invited Sargon to join him. Together, they marched on Kish and took the city easily. UrZababa escaped and went into hiding.
Remember this story. Zagesi chose to spare Sargon's life and make him a brother-in-arms.
He'd live to regret the decision. It's unclear why exactly the two fell out, but make note of the
first possibility here:
It is possible that (Sargon) had an affair with Lugalzagesi's wife at this point or that he was
sent on a mission which he turned into the first engagement of his own conquest of the region.

Whatever happened between him and Lugalzagesi, they were as quickly antagonists as they
had been allies.
Now, pay close attention to what happened next- the devil, as always, is in the
details:
Lugalzagesi marched his army from Kish to meet Sargon in battle and was defeated. Sargon
then put him in chains, tied a rope around his neck, and took him to the city of Nippur, sacred
to the god Enlil upon whom Lugalzagesi had relied, and forced him to march in humiliation
through the Enlil's gate.
A Lugal- a giant- bound in chains to appease a sky god: why does that sound so
familiar?

Oh yeah, because that's Prometheus' story as well. The symbolism doesn't stop there, as
we'll see. Remember too that Nippur is believed to be the original Garden of Eden...

One curious detail you see in the biographies is Sargon's alliance with Inanna,
which Sargon's poet/propagandist daughter, Enheduanna, was keen to make
famous. Somehow, Sargon's alliance with this goddess was the key to his military victories.

Is this in fact a reference to Sargon's relationship with Lugalzagesi's wife- who was regarded
as the

physical

incarnation

of

Inanna by

the

Sumerians?

If Sargon did in fact form some kind of pact with Zagesi's wife- romantic or political- it would go
a long way to explaining why these allies became enemies and how a gardener turned cupbearer

was

able

There

was

to

spy

defeat

in

the

the

more

House

experienced

of

warrior,

Love,

as

Lugalzagesi.

it

were.

Whatever the cause, the Sumerian Dynasty fell, and fell hard, to Sargon's
Akkadians. This was not only a political disaster, it was a crime against the order of things.
"In this kingdom, the Sumerians rapidly found themselves living as foreigners in their own
cities...When Sargon took over a city, it became an Akkadian stronghold, staffed with
Akkadian officials and garrisoned with Akkadian troops"
Foremost Sumerologist Samuel Noah Kramer believed that the fall of the
Sumerian Dynasty to Sargon inspired the Lamentation poetry, which later
calamities inspired as well.To get a sense of how the Sumerians reacted to these military
defeats (hint: dramatically), read this from the Lamentation for the Destruction of Ur, which
lays the blame for the people's misery at the feet of the sky god Enlil:
Enlil called the storm. The people mourn. Winds of abundance he took from the land. The
people mourn. Good winds he took away from Sumer. The people mourn. Deputed evil winds.
The people mourn. Entrusted them to Kingaluda, tender of storms. He called the storm that
annihilates the land. The people mourn. He called disastrous winds. The people mourn. Enlil -choosing Gibil as his helper --called the (great) hurricane of heaven. The people mourn.
Make note of Gibil in his role as Enlil's helper (other translations seem to imply that
Enlil drafting Gibil to his cause was especially wounding )-- that will be an important detail
when

we

look

at

Prometheus

again.

But what is unmistakable is that Sargon was the Devil as far as the ruling Sumerians
were concerned and they did not take their fall from power lying down.
Directly after his rise to power, however, the city-states and their ruling elite hardly accepted
Sargon with grace and submission; they rebelled against their new ruler, and forced him to
prove his legitimacy as king through military might.
Sargon made a habit of tearing down a city's walls when he defeated their rebellion. That little
detail showed up in a Bible story or two, if memory serves...
Sargon, king of Akkad, was victorious over Ur in battle, conquered the city and destroyed its
walls. He conquered Eninmar, destroyed its walls, and conquered its districts and Lagash as
far as the sea [Persian Gulf].
Now, remember those confusing stories in Enoch of the war between the Watchers
and the other Watchers? And that the defeated Watchers were somehow associated with
those

historical

"firsts"

that

historians

would

later

ascribe

to

the

Sumerians?

Well, remember that Sumer meant "Land of the Watchers."And civil war was an fact
of life throughout Sargon's reign:
Afterward in his [Sargon's] old age all the lands revolted against him, and they besieged him
in Akkad; and Sargon went onward to battle and defeated them; he accomplished their
overthrow, and their widespreading host he destroyed.

. But because of the evil which he had committed, the great lord Marduk was angry, and he
destroyed his people by famine. From the rising of the sun unto the setting of the sun they
opposed him and gave him no rest. --The Chronicle of Early Kings
Sargon's empire was short-lived, actually did suffer a famine and gave way to an
invasion from the east. This in turn would open the door for the Sumerians to return, many
presumably from exile, and re-establish the Sumerian Empire for a few more centuries, giving
us

the Epic

of

Gilgamesh,

significantly.

I will argue in a future post that you can find references to the political struggles taking place in
Sumer

in Greek myth,

Where

it

particularly-

but

not

exclusively-

doesn't

THE

in

that

of

Prometheus.

friggin'

belong.

FALL,

AGAIN

It's been pretty well-established by now that the Bible is based on Sumerian
antecedents. Reading through the story of Sargon and the Sumerians, I'm willing to bet we're
looking at more than the usual suspects you might see on other websites, the excerpts from
the Atrahasis and

the Enuma

Elish and

so

on.

I think Sargon's reign of terror inspired a whole host of Bible stories (besides the obvious Moses
thing),

not

the

least

of

which

is

the

Fall

of

Man.

I believe the Fall of Man is based on an as-yet undiscovered (or unpublished) Sumerian allegory
that retold the story of Sargon and Lugalzagesi, and most importantly Lugalzagesi's wife.

Let's

go

through

the

bullet

points

here

first.

Adam and Eve and the Creation myth are inarguably based on Sumerian
antecedents.
The Garden of Eden is believed to be based on Nippur, holy city of Enlil.
Sargon began his career not as a soldier but as a gardener. Ergo, Sargon is the
Serpent

in

the

Garden

of

the

Gods.

Historians believe that Sargon had some kind of relationship with Lugalzagesi's
wife. She may in fact be the "Inanna" that we heard so much about.
When Sargon defeated Lugalzagesi, he paraded him in front of Enlil's Gate, in
chains,

and

quite

possibly

naked.

The Sumerians who were defeated by Sargon took to the mountains- the
wilderness-

to

wage

guerilla

war

on

his

army.

Without the extensive agricultural infrastructure of Sumer to rely on, the rebels
would have to fend for themselves, perhaps even making their own clothes.
Nippur would have been protected by a formidable army, which the Bible story
calls

the

Cherubim.

Readers are probably familiar with the parallels between Genesis and the Sumerian accounts of
the Creation of Man, so I won't go into those here. But I should remind you of the fact that Eden
is

Sumerian

word

that refers

to

sacred

plain.

More importantly, the Garden of Eden is said to come from Sumerian stories of the Garden of
the Gods, the exact location of which is, again, crucial to the story we're decoding here:
The myth of Enlil and Ninlil opens with a description of the city of Nippur, its walls, river,
canals and well, portrayed as the home of the gods and, according to Kramer "that seems to be
conceived as having existed before the creation of man." Andrew R. George suggests "Nippur
was a city inhabited by gods not men, and this would suggest that it had existed from the very
beginning."
George also noted that a ritual garden was re-created in the "Grand Garden of Nippur, most
probably a sacred garden in the E-kur (or Dur-an-ki) temple complex, is described in a cultsong of Enlil as a "garden of heavenly joy".
Now if we accept Sargon as the Serpent in the Garden, not a stretch or a leap by any
standard, then the theories among some historians that he had a relationship with Lugalzagesi's
wife (the Queen, or First among Women) make perfect sense in the context of the Serpent's
seduction of the First Woman, which many commenters have seen as having sexual
connotations:

Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.
And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of
the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it,
neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely
die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye
shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
"You shall be as gods." One can imagine Sargon saying EXACTLY such a thing to
Zagesi's wife in his quest to enlist her to his cause, to his empire-building
crusade. And here is the cut that so wounded the Sumerians- the cosmic order was challenged
by

the

upstart

and

nothing

was

ever

the

same.

This next passage is curious: aprons were used in ceremonial garb throughout
ancient history, particularly in Mesopotamia. So the fruit of the Tree seems to have a
ritual connotation here that many commenters seem to overlook:
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes,
and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave
also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and
they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves
aprons.
Interesting. Now remember that Sargon and Lugalzagesi were once allies, so their
eating of the forbidden fruit at his behest makes sense- it represents an agreement of
some kind perhaps, or perhaps even a more interesting kind of relationship. But as history
records it all ends up with Adam being called out by God, and his nakedness exposed:
And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard
thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said,
Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee
that thou shouldest not eat?
Seeing as Sargon seemed to be a total bastard, it makes sense that he'd strip his
enemy naked before slipping a dog collar on him and parading him in front of Enlil
(Yahweh) at Nippur (Eden). But maybe Zagesi's wife's alliance with the Akkadian despot
didn't go so well for her either. Maybe the Queen had second thoughts after seeing Sargon
reduce her country to rubble. This next passage may well speak to that.
And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman
said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because
thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon
thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity
between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and
thou shalt bruise his heel.

One thing is clear, by the time Genesis was written, Sargon's dynasty was long
gone,

beaten

into

the

dust

by

host

of

enemies.

But the spell was broken: no longer could the Sumerians see themselves as a
blessed

people

They

living

fell,

in

complete

from

communion

with

the

power and from

gods.

grace.

We have a whole corpus of literature which speaks to this new reality. And for the rebels fighting
against Sargon in the outskirts of the Empire, life would be especially difficult.
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow
thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over
thee.
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast
eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the
ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life..
And just as the rebels were prevented from re-entering their palaces by Sargon's armies, so too
were their apparent stand-ins in Genesis:
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a
flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
Needless

to

say,

the Cherubim

originate

in

Sumer as

well.

The Inanna link here is crucial. Sargon's daughter wrote a lot of propaganda in Inanna's voice,
threatening death and destruction against the rebels, many of whom were garrisoned in the
mountains to the north of Sumer. Here's a sample:
"How can it be that the mountain did not fear me in heaven and on earth, that the mountain
did not fear me, Inana, in heaven and on earth, that the mountain range of Ebih, the
mountain, did not fear me in heaven and on earth? Because it showed me no respect, because
it did not put its nose to the ground, because it did not rub its lips in the dust, may I fill my
hand with the soaring mountain range and hand it over to my terror."

Why is this important? Well, in the context of the Garden of Eden story we should
make note of the very common Sumerian icon of Inanna and her consort Tammuz
sitting around a date palm (read: fruit tree), which is guarded by a snake.

Gee, kind of a clue there, don't you think?


UPDATE:

This

icon

may

be

the key in

unlocking

the

mystery

here. It

represents Tammuz's role as the bridegroom of Inanna, and refers to a harvest festival that was
held in Lugalzagesi's city, Uruk.
So the man, woman, tree, fruit and snake all specifically point to a well-known
Sumerian icon that points us directly and specifically to Zagesi (via Uruk) and his
enemy (via Inanna). It's beyond coincidence that all of this just appears at random.
Sargon's alliance with "Inanna" didn't do the goddess' reputation any favors when the
Sumerians finally regained power. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Inanna propositions the Sumerian
King in this famous exchange:
Come here, Gilgamesh, Ishtar said, marry me, and give me your luscious fruits, be my
husband, be my sweet man. I will give you abundance beyond your dreams: [] When you
enter my temple and its cedar fragrance, high priests will bow down and kiss your feet, kings
and princes will kneel before you, bringing you tribute from east and west. And I will bless
everything that you own, [] These are the least of the gifts I will shower upon you. Come
here. Be my sweet man.
Gilgamesh said, Your price is too high, such riches are beyond my means. Tell me, how could
I ever repay you, even if I gave you jewels, perfumes, rich robes? And what will happen to me
when your heart turns elsewhere and your lust burns out? []Which of your husbands did
you love forever?Which could satisfy your endless desires?
What is doubly fascinating is that Gilgamesh then elaborates, and may in fact not
only give us the needed link to the Garden of Eden mystery here but may in fact
reveal

Sargon's

real

name.

Remember that Sargon, once a gardener, presented himself as Inanna's servant while
conquering the previous Sumerian Dynasty, and that his mother was said to be a priestess of the
goddess:
Then you loved Ishullanu, the palm-gardener of your father/ Who brought you baskets of
dates everyday/ You raised your eyes and looked at him/ And you went and said to him:"O
my Ishullanu, let me tast of your vigour!/ Put forth that which you have,Into my own, O
Ishullanu!"/ But Ishullanu said to you:"What are you asking of me?/ Has not my mother
baked, have I not eaten/ That I should partake of food with such strong odour, with such foul
stench?/ He brightened your table every day/ You raised your eyes and looked at him, and as
he was not willing to be yours/ You struck him and turned him into a mole (or a frog)/ If you
loved me, would you treat me the same as them?
Gilgamesh's rejection is unmistakably inspired by Sargon's alliance with Inanna, the question is
whether the Ishullanu story is similarly inspired. It's an important detail given the fact that, like
the

Serpent,

Inshullanu

was

transformed

physically.

One thing to keep in mind here is that the somewhat haphazard rewriting of pagan stories into
Bible tales has been noted by scholars, though there may be more of a method behind the
mangling than they're able to see:
"The titles and attributes of many other Near Eastern deities were successively awarded to
Yahweh Elohim...Prophets and Psalmists were as careless about the pagan origins of the
religious imagery they borrowed, as priests were about the adaptation of heathen sacrifical
rites to God's service. The crucial question was: in whose honour these prophecies and hymns
should now be sung, or these rites enacted." --Robert Graves, Raphael Patai-- Hebrew Myths:
The Book of Genesis
That being said, I believe that my interpretation of the Fall of Man myth is
the simplest, clearest and most direct. I would argue it's also the most complete.

I know there've been a lot of interpretations involving Enki and Adapa and so on, and I think
they're important in the cultural context of the stories being told, but in my view the Fall of Man
is

the

Fall

of

the

Sumerian

Dynasty

to

the

Akkadians.

And this provides with all kinds of implications for our Lucifer search, particularly through the
parallel Fall myth of Pandora, which swims in strangely Sumerian waters as well.

Let

me

just

sum

this

up:

The Fall is the Fall of the Sumerian Dynasty, the "First Among Men."

The

Garden

of

Eden

is

Nippur, the

Garden

of

the

Gods.

Yahweh

is

Enlil, the

Sumerian

Sky

God

and

patron

of

Nippur.

The Serpent in the Garden is Sargon, the gardener and betrayer of Sumer.

Adam

Eve

represents
represents

Lugalzagesi and

Zagesi's

the

wife, who

was

Sumerian
probably

ruling
Sargon's

class.
Inanna.

The Forbidden Fruit in this particular story represents Sargon's alliance with her, which in
turn is a reflection of the well-known symbolism of Tammuz and Inanna and the datepalm, sacred

to

Lugalzagesi's

Uruk.

Yahweh calling out the naked Adam represents Zagesi frogmarched at Nippur.
Yahweh's curse on the Serpent represents the fall of the Akkadian Dynasty.
Adam and Eve's banishment is the exile of the Sumerian ruling class.

The

Cherubim

represent

Sargon's

armies, guarding

the

Sumerian

palaces.

The entire story probably comes, almost in toto, from a satirical/political


Sumerian

text, probably

dating

from

Ur

III.

Details from the Fall wind up in several other Bible stories,as well as the Fall of the
Watchers.

Now, doesn't this make a lot more sense than some business about Venus's position in the
morning

sky

or

something?

Further, I believe that Lugalgazesi the Giant ultimately became Prometheus the Titan when a
band of Sumerian rebels headed north for the Caucasus Mountains in search of gold to help
finance their campaign to regain their homeland. And the stories of the Titans cast into Tartarus
are derived from these exiles exploring gold mines that were already ancient when Sargon was
still

gardener.

Ergo, the Fall of the Sumerian Dynasty may not only have inspired the Fall of Man
mythos it

also

inspired

the

Fall

of

Lucifer

and

his

angels.

There are several reasons I believe this, one of which is that Prometheus himself seems to be a
straight-up adaption of the mysterious Sumerian god Gibil, god of fire and patron of miners and
metalworkers.

And

Gibil's

oh

symbol?

The

yeah, masons.

torch,

of

course.

Gibil was also known as Girra, or "The Shining One." That's the same name as Helel,
the

name

cited

as

Lucifer

in

some

translations

of

Isaiah.

I believe that Gibil would become a secret god, a secret supreme god to these
rebels, a status made evident in the Prometheus myths. I also believe that because he's
said to have a mind "so vast that all the gods, all of them, cannot fathom it" in the Enuma Elish.

That

sounds

like esoteric knowledge

to

me.

I believe Gibil would later come to be known as Iblis, the flame-born fallen one in the Koran.
And most probably the Melek Taus of the Yazidi (Girra's temple was called the -me-lm-hu,
which is certainly etymologically related). Gibil would even show up in a memorable
incantation in

the

legendary

Simon Necronomicon.

But strangely, such an important god seems to have left a meager footprint in the records we
have

today.

That is to say the records that have been made available to the public. There might
be an entire corpus of Gibil literature we haven't seen yet. I know there's at least one Sumerian
magical

text

that

is

not

available

on

the

web

that

he's

called

to

in.

I also believe some of the Sumerian rebels eventually migrated to Greece and that they are in
fact the true creators of the Greek Mystery religions, since the "Descent into the Underworld"
myths that inform them also seem to originate in Sumer as well. These too may have been
inspired

in

part

by

those

ancient

mines

on

the

Black

Sea.

Why?

Because Hades, Lord of the Underworld, was also known as the "Lord of Riches."

TO BE CONTINUED

A Future History of Light: Interlude

The

fox

returns

at

just

the

right

time

photo taken in my driveway, 6/14/16 @ 9 PM

This has not been an easy series to write.

I wasn't exactly sure why I was writing it or what I was trying to accomplish with it. The
metaphor I've been using is that I'm lost in a forest and I'm looking for ways out.

But something started gnawing at me while working on the previous, rather epic
series: I realized that no one reallyknew anything about what this emerging
Lucifer

archetype

really

is

or

where

it

really

comes

from.

There are two easy paths to take; the mainstream academic and the alt.research approaches. But
they only lead you back into the forest. The path I'm looking for hasn't been found yet.
Everything

I've

read

usually

starts

somewhere

in

the

middle.

But I started to get that strange feeling in my sinuses I always get when there's a secret being
kept somewhere. And I began to suspect that we know so little about Lucifer because I
believe the information is hidden away, literally locked in a Raiders-type store-room
somewhere.

And there has to be a reason for that.

A new member on the Secret Sun FB group asked me why I would bother with the Lucifer
archetype at all, when there are easier alternatives (he mentioned Prometheus or Odin) with far
less

baggage.

My answer is that baggage is a tool, one that you fill with things you need.

It's the baggage that actually makes this archetype so powerful. Lucifer is
complicated, ambiguous and deeply misunderstood, which makes him the definitive archetype
for these chaotic times. So it's incumbent on us to understand, don't you think?

CLASH

OF

THE

TITANS

But this is also a mystery. And I guess that's what I'm really after here. Looking for the key to a
very ancient door.

Lucifer is not Satan but he's not exactly Prometheus either.Not anymore. Prometheus
ultimately became a martyr archetype, put in chains by the state (Zeus) and technology
(Hephaestus). And part of my struggle has been trying to get to the bottom of the Prometheus
story without much of a map.

Given the importance the Greeks invested in Prometheus (creator of humankind, instructor,
savior, patron) it's clear that he wasn't just another tribal hero, absorbed into the Mytharc as the
Greeks went along, vacuuming up every nymph, sprite, dryad, Gorgon and giant they came
across. He was obviously something much, much more.

It became clear to me that Prometheus was the supreme being of a powerful


constituency in the formation of the Greek nation, and that the Titans weren't just some
archaic, shamanic leftovers that the Greeks warmed up for their potluck pantheon, but in fact
were themselves the gods of a people who the proto-Greeks warred with when they stormed
down from the mountains of Eastern Europe.

You won't find a lot of academics who agree with this opinion but the fact is they have no real
idea where the Titans really came from either.

The Titans were said to be banished to Tartarus- Hell- by Zeus, except for all the ones
that weren't, like Helios and Atlas and of course Prometheus himself. Those Titans were given
pretty important gigs in the new Greek-god economy, which feels to me like the end result
of negotiation. There's politics at work here. Another important clue.

This negotiation may have come at the end of the ancient world's apocalypse- the invasion of the
Sea Peoples, a rolling disaster that brought the entire Mediterranean to its knees, and would
wipe away entire empires before it was over.

Those pre-Greeks-- quite possibly the mysterious Pelasgians-- may have joined forces with the
early Mycenaean Greeks to repel the invasion, a historical crisis that may have been rolled into
myths of the Titanomachy.

But there's something deeper here. As it so happens, the early Greeks worshipped Poseidon as
their supreme being before adopting Zeus-- who evolved from an Indo-European storm god-- as
the King of the Hill. Zeus is roughly the same character as Ba'al Hadad (recently in the news),
the

Ugaritic

storm

god

absorbed

into

the

Yahweh

cult.

And who's the storm god in the Egyptian pantheon?

So this conflict between Zeus and Prometheus- later passed down as the conflict between God
and Lucifer- has deeper connotations. Things are definitely not what they seem.

But to make a long story short, I think I've pinpointed where that conflict began
and why it began. And I think it has everything to do with what is going on in the world
today.

I wouldn't spend so much time writing about it if I didn't.

THE FALL

The Fall myth speaks of human beings falling out of communion and I believe that was based on
an actual historical event, a very well-known (and well-recorded) event to students of ancient
history. I believe that that fall was then encoded into our Piscean mythologies and created a
constant yearning for a world that many feel was takenfrom us. A world we deserve.

And it's something I didn't quite realize until I followed this archetype back in time.

Like I said, I'm just a poor slob lost in the woods here. But I know enough to realize that the socalled experts don't know much more about any of this than I do. So much of history is built on
raw conjecture. Academics are like octopi- they squirt out a lot of ink when their vulnerabilities
are exposed. Sure, it confuses a lot of people but it doesn't exactly solve their basic problems
either.

That being said, I think I know where Lucifer really came from, and how he ended up as
Prometheus and why he was later demonized (does the whole Venus thing really make any sense
to you? Yeah, me neither). And it's making me see the world today in a whole new, um, light.

HAMMER OF THE GODS

Gordon and I were discussing Prometheus and he borrowed an analogy from the TV
series Supernatural; he said that Prometheus is a kind of spell built to contain Lucifer, or
"Lucifer's Cage" in the show's mythos.

Prometheus is an archetype that represents a monopoly of the state on the dissemination ofindeed, the actual definition of- knowledge and technology, which is why CSICOP borrowed the
name for its publishing arm.

But notice how the name was also used for the recent Alien prequel, itself a movie about
mankind looking to return to a state of communion with the gods. I don't know if it goes any
deeper than that, but even so you may want to re-read this post on the film.

I told Gordon I was trying to be methodical and trace Prometheus back to his most
likely precedent. I could skip a bunch of steps and chalk it all up to Neolithic fire gods but it's
that next step in the backwards voyage that tells us why Lucifer-- again, who is not Satan-- is
rising on the world stage today (Satan's been here for a long time).

But the crucial bit here is that there seems to be a huge hole in the story, a body of
evidence removed from the record. That in itself is incredibly revealing. It's the missing
minutes in the Nixon White House tapes writ large. This proto-Lucifer seems to be the object of
a large-scale historical cover-up. We don't know much about him because we don't have access
to the literature about him.

How can I say such a thing? Because what we do have speaks to the immense power and
importance of this figure, which seem to far outweigh the scanty bits of evidence in the public
record. Something is clearly missing. And the question is why. I think the "why" has a lot more
to do with just an emerging archetype, I think it has to do with contemporary struggles which
are just very, very, very old grudge matches in disguise.
---------

And to answer the group member's question, why "Lucifer" and why not Horus or Apollo or
whomever, I'll borrow another analogy from Supernatural. In the episode "Hammer of the
Gods", a coalition of old pagan, Hindu and Voodoo gods assemble in a remote motel to join
forces against Lucifer (yeah, it's very much a riff on American Gods).

They all bitch and whine about the onrushing Apocalypse and resolve to unite and destroy their
common enemy. Lucifer then enters the hotel and annihilates them all without breaking a sweat.

Lucifer is obviously a demonic character in Supernatural, but there's still an important lesson
here.

Gods have their time and place. Their power is provisional, and depends on the
energy invested in them not only by people but by the Zeitgeist itself. It's no accident
that Lucifer is associated with knowledge and technology, it's been that way for thousands of
years now. And his own power comes from the fact that he's been locked away for so many
years.

Like a said, this is a guy with a score to settle. A rebel with a cause. Literally, a torch in the
darkness. Which is especially potent as this tenebrous Satanic/Setian/Saturnian energy
smothers

the

earth

like

shroud.

Sync Log: My Free Will horoscope for this week went up this morning:
Author Courttia Newland quotes the pre-Socratic philosopher Meno: "How will you go about
finding the thing the nature of which is totally unknown to you?" In response to this riddle,
Newland riffs on what it means to him: "Even more important than the journey itself, is the
venture into the unknowable. The ability to find comfort moving forwards without quite
knowing where you are going." I nominate these to be your words to live by in the coming
days, Cancerian. Have open-hearted fun as you go in search of mysterious and
impossible secrets! I'm confident you will track them down -- especially if you're
willing to be lost.