LUCIFERIANISM OR GNOSTIC SATANISM OR …? by F.O. (English Version)

It is not a novelty that man occasionally detaches himself from his most admirable creation, spirituality, in order to approach in more appropriate terms a neutral consensus of the wonderful limitations of the material world that surrounds him. Obviously it is not a path without satisfactions or exclamations of pure amazement, when however this approach is applied with a sort of maddening rationalism even to worlds not of this life, in which case then it is damaged, ruining the enamel rather than revealing any beauty hidden part of the thought that has not yet been fully explored despite millennia of approaches. Millennia known and received, since on the other hand man also has the masochistic tendency to forcefully restart everything when empty ignorance prevails, but this is another story.

Returning instead to the binomial rationalism / spirituality, sometimes one wonders how much more effort should be made to hypothesize reconstructions of the life of a character whose sources are four texts chosen at the time because they are the most useful to join an already fragmented religious movement, if not out of mere curiosity and inability to read behind the lines of a broader and deeper thought than just the physical events told in the texts. It is obvious that the problem occurs in both directions, and the fault is essentially the loss of a true spiritual capacity of modern man. It is indeed true that currently only in certain areas of the so-called esotericism (now obsolete and meager term according to the writer) a high spirituality is maintained where, however, we witness the macabre phenomenon of the maddening blindness of its followers that pollutes the clear waters of the Research. Certainly this environment has been touched by the rational fanaticism of man, just think of the Church of Satan of LaVey, which has had the advantage of diminishing the structure of anti-humanity by downgrading what was still considered reliable stories and which are still at the basis of the success of many cinematographic films. However, the fact remains that it is only a more colorful atheism, and the rituals are downgraded to effective psychological motivations, therefore this road remains a theater of nice appearance but without a soul.

Among the many movements that have recently arisen from the ashes of various more or less folkloristic and more or less colorful movements, Luciferianism is carving out its space little by little in the middle of what was once cataloged as the great family of Satanism, al to tell the truth an overused term. In fact, how and why this detaches itself more or less fully from Satanism proper is not particularly clear to everyone. According to the writer’s conviction, among the many authors who define themselves as bearers of a Luciferian message (and therefore of univocal personal lighting), almost becoming a fashion, it seems to be the predominant tendency of certain intellectual circles of left esotericism , there are three particularly interesting for the positions taken: M. Ford, J. Christner and J. Nefastos.

The last mentioned author has already dealt with his work the Lucifer Catechism, in which Gnostic Satanism is systematically outlined, but not for this summary. The conceptual strength of the “doctrine” of Nefastos is the effective implementation of Gnostic, therefore tendentially Platonic – Christian concepts, such as the figure of the demiurge recognized in the biblical YHVH, fallacious creator prey to the same weakness of matter, at the elevation of a higher God , very close to the purely hermetic reminiscences (which have always merged and mixed with the Gnostic concepts) and for this perfect but indefinable, so that the biblical Satan is no longer a traveler but rather a close collaborator of the single principle. This opponent is clearly differentiated from the bearer of light, no longer identified with the now well-known passages of Isaiah, but exclusively as a figure who plays the role expressed by his name, Eosforo (Phosphoros or Fosforos as reported in one of his books) or Latinized in Lucifer . Although it is sometimes difficult to clearly distinguish the ideas of this Finnish author from the Christian concepts, fully integrated, valued and analyzed by him, it is certainly the role defined by the opponent that distinguishes this unique and profound vision of modern theological esotericism .

The satanist is therefore the one who does not allow himself to be led astray by the dictates of the deluded of the religious congregations, led astray without realizing it in the game of the lesser of the principles, and therefore guided by the opponent challenges materiality in a pure but difficult spiritual ascent, with an awareness of the prison in which he is forced to exist and act. All this clearly transpires from the rituals formulated by this theologian sui generis, where prayer is intended to recover the sacredness of one of the most powerful magical gestures (which is always used without awareness of its effectiveness), mixing Christian virtues with rebellious power of the mere clay that has self-awareness, where even Satan is an entity with which to establish a personal exycasm. But the sloppy prayer of the faithful common is not to be confused with these formulations of Finnish. These are to all intents and purposes rituals in which only a prepared mind and spirit can undergo without causing apparently irrelevant damage but which over time could manifest themselves in an even more serious form..

J. Christner is the author of the recent Sermons to the Serpent’s Servants, a totally misleading title for what is the idea that many have erroneously developed after the ideological confusion that took place in certain circles especially in the 80s / 90s. It is no coincidence that the subtitle of this book is mesocosm, which indicates a natural environment studied in controlled conditions. In this first volume, in fact, this author the American is engaged in a lucid and no-frills analysis of the existence of man who goes in search of personal spiritual rediscovery. As reiterated from the outset, according to Christner, luciferism is the Gnostic progression of mere Satanism, a progression that leads the individual to a frantic search for knowledge without however yielding to excesses that are usually accepted by many Satanist currents. Of course, even here at first glance it is somewhat difficult to notice differences regarding a certain Christian Gnosticism, and in fact these sonominime differences, because as reported by the same author a Luciferian and a Gnostic Christian “share a telos”.

Also in this case the classic figures of Gnosticism are incorporated, and the demiurge and his errors are often put in the pillory, but there is a different spirituality, partly held back by the realization that this world is the only one we know and which as such shares with us the same senseless existence aimed at extinguishing itself into nothingness. This is followed by brief but effective philosophical analyzes that on several occasions highlight the weak point of almost every philosophical system, that is, the inability to give concrete answers. This however does not discourage the Luciferian, who by feeding his frank and realistic spirituality does not admit to using violence and reducing himself to the vulgar level, but avoids the hypocritical stance of not understanding the inevitable importance of the microcosm that surrounds it, constituted by loved ones or even by acquaintances. Even in Christner there is no full-fledged adherence to a real movement, but there is a recognition of oneself as adversaries of a closed, imperfect world, whose veil has been torn and the way has been made possible.

Mesocosm does not mention purely spiritual elements, but a basic guide based on a frank and pessimistic philosophical mold on existence based on a vision slowly matured over time by the author himself. A Gnosticism that is based and must be based on a sincere awareness of existence and its emptiness but with eyes and mind turned elsewhere and not on the green but tasteless hills of this planet. An opposing path that allows you to keep your feet firmly on the ground over time, the envelope in which we recognize ourselves will hold up, without having to deny a so to speak serene existence. A sensible, mature and reasoned development of one of the highest points of Western spiritual thought.

Among the best known names in today’s panorama, M. Ford has over the years acquired for obvious merits the title of extremely prolific and capable author, outlining in his writings formulations that are difficult to misunderstand, taking full inspiration from consolidated traditions as well as from a thorough research on more archaic esoteric mysteries, thus trying to revive as much as possible peculiar traditions such as the mysticism of Zoroastrianism. In all of this, Ford’s path is classically Gnostic, even if this term is never mentioned in his writings. The ability of this American author to find analogies between different cults, his flexibility in using ancestral names and adapting the recitative formula to the context, always obtaining a result of personal spiritualization, allow him not to restrict his field to a mere Satanism orthodox (although this should be the fabulous representation of the vintage inquisitors). In fact, Ford is the spokesman of his personal vision, chronologically among the first, casually called Luciferianism.

Unlike the previous authors, in Ford’s case, any underlying dependence on LaVey’s constructs can be seen in the statements contained in his work The Adversary’s Bible where he always strongly reiterates the total adversity for the Christian / Nazarene God, seen as mere slaver who induces the faithful to a senseless plea. Another very democratic point in which slight rationalism peeks in is not to exclude a rationalistic approach that can coexist with the purely theistic / spiritual side of the formulations that he himself provides in his writings. However, it should be noted that the concept of worship is not present even in previous authors. Nefastos uses concepts of faith which however are more akin to a pistis sophia, where one cannot exist without the counterpart of personal gnosis, without an entrustment with totally closed eyes. The adept is therefore obliged, if willing to follow this path, to efforts, personal evolutions and incessant challenges. In Christner’s case, however, where the already full aversion to the biblical God completely distances him from the blind and useless faith of the average believer (but also from the weekend satanist), the rationalism that peeps out is actually a reflection of Gnostic pessimism in his awareness of the ephemeral existence on this rock, and is therefore used in facing a worldly life, as an excellent balance to avoid a reverse fall that precludes a healthy personal evolution.

Tornando ora a Ford, è breve il passo che porta a scoprire l’amplesso gnostico che è il fondamento del suo procedere, dove esplicitamente viene nominata la gnosi, ed esplicata la necessità dell’illuminazione dell’Io (è alquanto curioso che molti si dimentichino di una certa massima di Agostino d’Ippona), utilizzando aspetti angelici e demoniaci, eliminando implicitamente la dicotomia che erroneamente spesso si utilizza in tali ambiti.

If apparently these authors may appear extremely different from each other, they have a common point and it is evident. Their concept of Satanism is so particular that it can be considered completely in its own right with respect to the now widespread semi-indoctrinations that have ruined free personal research even in this environment. The foundation of gnosis, that knowledge so misrepresented even by many church fathers, and most likely also by the material proponents of this thought (there is no doubt the revisiting of certain thoughts in a key never before so gnostic), is the the fulcrum of these systems of thought which can offer a balance between rationalism and spiritualism but which deep down require a not insignificant spiritual immersion and a more demanding individual search effort than many other self-styled movements. The individual who hears a call with such systems will not fail to find a similitude of thoughts and ends, just as perhaps, if he will be able to distinguish from the imperative dogma that the church and his sisters have imposed, he could find similarities even with currents like this. said right-wingers who ultimately do not follow a different path. This, however, is a risky step for many, as they may experience the fall of a part of their credibility of their elevation to God, whatever this name is being defined. This is the case of Ford, who in his writings firmly distances what belongs to the right side (but who in person has shown that he is capable of exemplary respect for other paths), while in the high spiritualization of Nefastos it is the organization ad to be abhorred in its many forms, where then Christner even exerts a commonality of fraternal intent with Christian-style gnosis, because names are what often mislead the good researcher from a valid way only because his childhood fantasy is affected in terms of power.

In conclusion, some more and less, regarding Luciferianism, or in any case with any derivation towards the specific figure of the misrepresented light bearer, reference is made to a Gnostic component of the left hand path. So in this case the iconographic and nominative component is the master against a tendentially satanic imagery, but which would be too obtuse to enclose only in this sphere of action. It is therefore a more complex movement than the classic comic orthodoxy constantly propounded, but the depth of concepts and the way in which these are often treated and exposed certainly makes this class of thought a school, now as then, basically for a few souls.

Rispondi

Inserisci i tuoi dati qui sotto o clicca su un'icona per effettuare l'accesso:

Logo di WordPress.com

Stai commentando usando il tuo account WordPress.com. Chiudi sessione /  Modifica )

Google photo

Stai commentando usando il tuo account Google. Chiudi sessione /  Modifica )

Foto Twitter

Stai commentando usando il tuo account Twitter. Chiudi sessione /  Modifica )

Foto di Facebook

Stai commentando usando il tuo account Facebook. Chiudi sessione /  Modifica )

Connessione a %s...