Wednesday, September 22, 2010

What the hell is a "Luciferian?"

Diane Vera, founder of a New York City-based Satanist group, doesn’t think Tea Party-backed Delaware GOP Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell was ever a Satanist of any kind.
[...]
“As far as I am aware, no serious practitioner of any variant of either Wicca or Satanism would have a picnic on one’s altar,” said Vera, the founder of NYC Satanists, Luciferians, Dark Pagans, and LHP Occultists. [LHP = Left-Hand Path, i.e. black path, in this context. Also, I doubt that any organization by such a name really exists.]

Good point, but nor would any real Satanist admit to being one, or even know that he/she IS one. [Also, assuming you know that someone is a Satanist, it's a bad idea to trust them in general, because one of their main activities is lying.] For my opinion on the likely nature of Vera's supposed group, see Wicca: The Cult of Isis' "magical pagan" front and Ye Olden Con. Vera might consider herself to be a female black magician, i.e. a witch. (Interestingly, "witch" converts to 63, "wizard" to 81, and "warlock" to 81.)

I'm beginning to wonder if any de facto Satanists actually consider themselves to be Satanists. Perhaps they do, but only because they equate what is in fact Satanism with the pursuit of an initiation into black magic. I define a de facto Satanist as someone who does Satan's will by doing things that are designed to open them to possession - but again, without knowing the actual purpose of the activity. (I know of de facto Satanists who believe they're Christians. Satan doesn't care what you believe, or claim to believe - just that you do what he wants you to do. He'll tell you whatever it takes to trick you into it.) Satanism might also take the form of someone who supports organized Satanism with their obedience and discretion, for their own selfish gain (as in a group of grifters), without realizing that they're supporting organized Satanism.

However, I find it interesting that Diane Vera would claim to have founded a Satanic organization, especially one that includes "Luciferians," which to me is either a sign of ignorance, or mockery of the widespread ignorance, of the distinction between Lucifer and Satan. I suspect that Vera is either ignorant, or an actual Satanist intent on mischaracterizing Satanism to allow it to operate in plain sight. (I don't see why anyone would mischaracterize Satanism except out of ignorance or a desire to deflect our attention away from actual Satanism.)

Just as I define Satanism as a matter of opening oneself to Satanic beings, I define Luciferianism as a matter of opening oneself to Luciferic beings, which have essentially the opposite effect of Satanic beings. However, becoming Luciferically possessed, which is a hazard of mysticism, is hardly beneficial, because it causes people to become constantly "enraptured" and disconnected from the real world. I believe this is what Barbara Marx Hubbard really meant by "supra sex," despite her alternative explanations. For more detail on this topic, see the aforementioned essay Ye Olden Con.

"Luciferian" might also be a proper term for a member of a certain top-level group of initiates who are "inspired" by Lucifer (but also largely independent), although this is hardly something that could be confused with Vera's group.

Satan and Lucifer also exert their influence by constantly suggesting certain perspectives. Satan's influence is that of materialism, and Lucifer's influence can be characterized as delusions of grandeur, of being more "god-like" than we actually are. An example of the former would be PBS' constant efforts to drum Darwinism into our heads with insulting sleight-of-logic, and an example of the latter would be A Course In Miracles.

I have moderated my opinion of Christine O’Donnell, and now see her as an opportunist who plays fast and loose with the truth, and is perhaps being used by various groups to advance their agenda. But I still consider it possible that she is an actual witch, i.e. a female member of organized Satanism, whom I know for a fact are typically pathological liars, but usually better at it than O'Donnell. Furthermore, although they can be old or young, or ugly or attractive, they are cruel to outsiders at every opportunity, and strive to become more so. O'Donnell doesn't strike me as someone who would go out of her way to be cruel, but then she wouldn't show that side of herself in public.