Gnostic Luciferian Dreamworlds - Nocturnal Frequency

[Chakra]

Been doing a deep dive this past year into the contortions that have been created specifically coming from the bible. Originally around Yahweh being Anunnaki etc. through Paul Anthony Wallis and if Yahweh is actually the god of oppression / war / slavery etc.

Then what was Lucifer (it is a title) = Latin - for light - the actual Lightbearer? And the Archangel / Being that tried to take him out - the Archangel / Being that wanted to enlighten humankind to the lies of this new god?

Which we can see the has had a very negative impact on the world, one that we're trying to evolve from? The indoctrination obviously over this has been very deeply ingrained.

Anyways before anyone here has a heart attack over this - Jeremy Crow has lots of video's on the more resent history of the latin use of the word Lucifer. I've listened to many of them and find He has a very balanced and educated perspective. I have had many many Catholic embodiments so ya I know how challenging those belief systems can be difficult.
https://www.youtube.com/@JeremyCrow

But it is what it is you can only truly grow spiritually if willing to challenge yourself and where the beliefs came from.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=vZK5s-3JjzI

"I had a spontaneous visit with my friends Alex and Steve from the Nocturnal Frequency Radio podcast S15E7 on Nov 13, 2022.
Here are some of the highlights where we discuss the difference between Satan and Lucifer. Who is the Devil? Is this universe the dream embedded in a higher dimensional mind? Why is the Gnostic Demiurge/Creator God described as blind? Is God a vampire, feeding on our loosh? Can we become lucid in the waking dream? What did H.P. Lovecraft have to say about it?"

On a side note Lucifer IS NOT (was not) Satan (adversary) two completely different beings.

Then in my research I found that there was a Saint Lucifer, ok like what the hell?

"St. Lucifer of Cagliari (Latin: Lucifer Calaritanus, Italian: Lucifero da Cagliari; died 20 May 370 or 371) was a bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia known for his passionate opposition to Arianism. He is venerated as a Saint in Sardinia."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer_of_Cagliari

hmmm so when did the title of Lucifer become the embodiment of all that was evil? Apparently in the Book of Isaiah - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

Anyways very interesting when you start researching origins and this is now the cycle of death of the old - the lies we've been told are being exposed and renewal in the growth of knowledge.

[norman]

While you're at it, have a proper listen this too, from 52 minutes onwards in particular:

G&E - Courtenay Turner: The Emerging Theosophic & Transhumanist World System
Posted Jan 17, 2025

It's the theosophy aspect that's most alarming to me. Even if you believe the bible is a crock, the theosophists have built their man-is-his own-god communistic goal out of inverting the fundamentals of it.

You'd think, if the bible is a crock and they know a greater truth, they'd start with a blank sheet from scratch, wouldn't they?. Nope, they seem to have it in for something and are deliberately opposing it, by mockery inversion. When we see that elsewhere in human relationships it tells us . . . . what?.

[shaberon]

Posted by Chakra (here)
Been doing a deep dive this past year into the contortions that have been created specifically coming from the bible. Originally around Yahweh being Anunnaki etc. through Paul Anthony Wallis and if Yahweh is actually the god of oppression / war / slavery etc.

It's not Sumerian, it's Israeli.

It's the god of Israeli oppression and war. It says this very plainly. Nothing to dig for. Yahweh was summoned by Elijah ca. 900 B. C. E. and immediately used as an attack on Ekron. By 600 B. C. E., Josiah was expelling, oppressing, or converting non-Jews.

Strictly speaking, it is the only instance I know of where a deity expresses divine hate towards other deities.

And yes, they are still obsessed with this to this day...destroy the pagan...

That's very clear. Everything else violent in the ancient world is just mundane conquest. The idea of destroying the deity of the people you conquered would not have occurred to anyone. That is why the Persians re-built the Jewish temple. The Jews were so grateful, they called this guy:


Cyrus Christ

That's the, eh, historical precedent, of...this last name.

hmmm so when did the title of Lucifer become the embodiment of all that was evil? Apparently in the Book of Isaiah - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

Paradise Lost.

Isaiah and other examples are just "morning star". It's not Latin. The Latin term was, yes, clean enough for a bishop to use.

The basis for the devil is more likely Zoroastrian Ahriman. Asmodeus from the Book of Tobit is Zoroastrian Aesma Daeva, very nearly equivalent to Ahriman. But that itself is a multi-generational digression, original Zoroastrianism has nothing to do with the devil. I pay no attention to it. The appeal seems to affect a certain mentality that I don't have.

It's primarily Protestant and usually woolgathers the Book of Revelation. Although it is in the Bible, Orthodoxy has never used it for a reading. And, I know they will walk around with a pocket full of opinions, but Protestants and Catholics are not Christians. Those are splinter movements.

Ha'satan is Hebrew, having to do with "accuser" in the sense of court of law. Interestingly, the Gospel of John positions Greek Paraclete as the opposite or something like a defense attorney; and although it is a Greek word, in attested usage, it is by far a Jewish legal term.

Just as a natural fact, I have no problem with an "accuser", I may even be one. If the truth is on his side, the consequences are deserved. If one has a mental problem with Satan, then those are issues you need to fix. Something is broken or dishonest. If at some level you know those accusations are real, you better deal with it. If the accuser is speaking falsehood then prove it.

So, I, at least, have no trouble understanding Satan and Paraclete as psychological metaphors. There's something to it. But it's not a matter of making one more "powerful" than the other, or praying to it, it's about making the truth where it ought to be. That is, the truth of "you". As soon as we turn these into "beings" on a mission, it gets out of hand. The blame is shifted to something cosmic, relieving man of responsibility.

Judaism never forbid "demons", that is, beings of some kind who walk around like people. It forbids a certain kind of sorcery.

Because I don't know what these "beings" are, I have to say that they have taken the normal Greek term "Daimon" and tied it to a limited category. If I wanted to speak of something evil or harmful I would have to say kakodaimon. And it does not seem this means a "being" in the Jewish sense. Therefor, in English, "demon" is meaningless mush.


As far as I can tell, there is a terrific gouge in continuity of important Greek terms such as "Daimon" or "Christos", and many more. Messing up a language and changing things around does not make a case for anything. Unfortunately, English is made of all these compromises.


Transhumanists are not Theosophists either. It's a legitimate name from neo-Platonic Gnosticism. When they made Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn you didn't think they were real Hermetists did you?

Nineteenth-century Theosophy is against people inventing things. It's about the classical traditions, that's all.

But yes, of course, the Nazis and everyone else take existing material and run with it. It's like that Jewish advisor of Klaus Schwab, just because he takes some kind of Buddhist influence doesn't make him a Buddhist. We notice another kind of mentality, that likes inventing clubs, titles, degrees, and so forth, and these are not the real ones of the original which they mimic.

That's basically what you have there -- crew of mimics.

[Chakra]

Posted by norman (here)
While you're at it, have a proper listen this too, from 52 minutes onwards in particular:

G&E - Courtenay Turner: The Emerging Theosophic & Transhumanist World System
Posted Jan 17, 2025

It's the theosophy aspect that's most alarming to me. Even if you believe the bible is a crock, the theosophists have built their man-is-his own-god communistic goal out of inverting the fundamentals of it.

You'd think, if the bible is a crock and they know a greater truth, they'd start with a blank sheet from scratch, wouldn't they?. Nope, they seem to have it in for something and are deliberately opposing it, by mockery inversion. When we see that elsewhere in human relationships it tells us . . . . what?.

I'll check it out but I am at a loss to understand the connection between them that is a huge stretch .

Theosophy is about sovereignty, in being whole in the divine. It's even in the definition of the word. It's not about following someone else's ideology or rules - totally invented for control - like all the major religions of the world.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/theosophy The term theosophy, derived from the Greek theos (“god”) and sophia (“wisdom”), is generally understood to mean “divine wisdom.”

The other - Transhumanism and Communism - is about surrendering your body and soul to the gods of the elites ( at that time ) and technology.

[mountain_jim]

On a perhaps related note, I am now reading:

The Master Game: Unmasking The Secret Rulers Of The World

I am not far enough in to evaluate their ultimate intentions concerning the history and purpose of Free Masonry, but the history of the Gnostics, Manicheans, Cathers, and Bogomils who were driven underground by their attempted extermination by the officially endorsed versions of Christianity, particularly the Roman Catholic Church after it became the 'official' religion, adds support to the view I have long held that evil Jehovah and the Old Testament are no grounds for building a Jesus-based religion upon, and have no business being certified for that purpose. IMHO.

Those spiritual groups named above all viewed Jehovah as an example of an evil god, not the God of Light/Love, and most saw Jesus as not an incarnated human but an energy-manifested being of sorts.

I don't see how one can learn this history without coming to view Catholicism as a very dark, if not completely evil, religion.




The Master Game is a roller-coaster intellectual journey through the back streets and rat runs of history to uncover the traces in architecture and monuments of a secret religion that has shaped the world.

Pivotal historical events and processes, not least the Renaissance, the birth of scientific rationalism, and the French and American revolutions, are radically re-evaluated in the light of new investigative evidence presented in The Master Game. Even the belief that the United States has a "global mission," so obvious today, may ultimately prove to be less the result of a short-term reaction to terrorism than the inevitable working out of a covert plan originally set in motion almost two thousand years ago.

The Master Game refers to a scheme or "game" played on the world stage to bring about a world order governed by a lofty goal which, today, we term the "Masonic Ideal." The Master Game traces the origins of this game of symbols and words and talismans from ancient Egypt all the way to modern times, and places it squarely on the elitist Scottish Rite Freemasonry, headquartered in Washington, DC, and ruled by a secretive and powerful brotherhood of men who have attained the thirty-third degree. The Master Game exposes this world order's true purpose and, more importantly, shows how it has affected the United States of America and badly backfired on 9/11.

The book is adapted and expanded from the authors' earlier, out-of-print book Talisman.

Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval are the best-selling authors of such groundbreaking books as Fingerprints of the Gods (Hancock) and The Orion Mystery (Bauval).

[norman]

Posted by mountain_jim (here)

I don't see how one can learn this history without coming to view Catholicism as a very dark, if not completely evil, religion.

I do.

It stripped faith down for parts, mixed them up with black death cult magic and built a fake religious monster.

Now the whole world is going to get mad with the fake religious monster and kick the faith out with the bathwater.

If anything gets me angry, that does.

[shaberon]

Posted by mountain_jim (here)
Jehovah and the Old Testament are no grounds for building a Jesus-based religion upon, and have no business being certified for that purpose.

I'll attempt to present the current literary critique.

The New Testament is a hatchet job designed to make it appear that Paul had a massive conversion based on Jesus.

More than likely, Paul never met or heard of Jesus.

However, I would suggest they were both independently rebuking the religion of Israel.

Paul was doing so based in the Egyptian vernacular of Serapis. Jesus was perhaps trying to show that the then-current Jewish authorities were making stuff up and disposing of whatever may have been good in that tradition.

The job of those who produced the Testament was to "control the narrative", as well as invent "theological Jesus", which seems to have no real precedent.

What is notable is that Gnostic texts have practically zero biographical information about Jesus. They are primarily based in "Sayings". In that sense of the word, there are far more "sayings Gospels" that have simply been omitted from the canon. Given there was some hundred years' "dark age" before we know of anything written about him, then, it seems the situation would have been a batch of new sayings going around. And if it was me, I would be curious about what was said, what is this teaching, rather than postulates that were assigned later.

Most of the Testament and its supporting letters rely on miracles. They have to "prove" something unrealistic happened, and then you believe. That's what they're doing. They're not persuading by any well-formed argument. They are baffling with fluff.

Both Testaments put together barely deal with perhaps the most important "Spiritual topic", Afterlife. But this was common in other cultures. Here, we only find it in the apocryphal Book of Enoch. Again, this is not a "unit", but five or six layers of accretions of possibly independent origin.

Everyone else, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Ishtar-ism, Ra-ism, whichever one you like, is more focused on spiritual fate than worldly affairs.

Judaism and Christianity are a remarkable black hole about this, consisting instead about someone telling you that you will go to hell if you do not support their miraculous claims.

Let that sink in for a while. They're actually anti-spiritual in terms of content.

And yes, Europe was thoroughly conquered by this mono-polar force, and thus they represent a thousand years of non-spiritual illiteracy. It is only in very recent times that the corner has been peeled back. That would be Theosophy. It's not a spiritual practice. It is a set of intellectual weapons against Dogmatic Religion and Materialistic Science. That's not what people who have adopted the name are doing. The core of it was, however, traditional Hermetism.

And what this means is that the *only* system that grafts Abrahamism such as Enoch *to* the more universal beliefs of Egypt, Babylonian Astrology, Gnostics etc., was what you might call the Hermetic Lodge. It is the only attempt to mesh Jesus *to* the world, rather than covering it with a new dogma.

It's like holding an option open, since I would be sympathetic to anyone whose whole life was conditioned by one teaching. The blame, so to speak, lies with the crafters, rather than those who were dragged into it. That keeps me from railing against the followers of religion, in general, if they keep it mostly harmless.