Illuminism 101A: Illuminist Luciferian-Satanism vs. Judaeo-Christian Islam

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

topic: Illuminism 101A

title: Illuminist Luciferian-Satanism vs. Judaeo-Christian Islam

author: Jonathan Barlow Gee

organisation: the Pythagorean Order of Death (POD)

location: Tallahassee, Florida, USA

date: 4-25-2012

synopsis:

The ideas of right and wrong are universally known of, and cannot be denied by ignorance. Thus, there does exist a moral argument for a proclivity within all nature toward the opposite extremes of these binary options, eg. a universally generalisable axiom encompassing the entirety of all di-polar choices between "good" or "evil." This supra-natural realm, invisibly super-imposed as idea onto nature by our morally-reasoning minds as a species, is necessarily 1:1 with the history of the entire cosmos, but may also supercede our world-line up-till and including now, and imply the existence of a "penumbra" or "halo" beyond and around the edge of the present-lens on the light-cone sum-over-histories. This perpetualy retreating horizon comprising the short-term future, insofar as it is both ideal and morally-reasoned, may prove divisible into the world-lines of a "heaven" and a "hell." The existence of two, potentially parallel, time-lines beyond our own is implied, further, to justify the "intelligent design" model for our own plane of existence as being a middle-ground between these extremes. The ultimate polarity of "right," of "good" and of "heaven" is "God," while the ultimate polarity of "wrong," of "evil" and of "hell" is "Satan." This essay will attempt to analyse the manner in which this model implies to the minds of our species, falsely, a concept of duty to serve either side of this debate.

introduction:

What makes a man "good"? It is said, "good comes from within and is shown forth by a man's actions, their deeds." However, the same is said to be true for "evil." Thus, "good" and "evil" may both be traits within us all that can only be shown forth by our actions and deeds. Therefore, both "good" and "evil" exist within us before we express them because both are ideas that our morally-reasoning minds super-impose onto ourselves and our natural realities. "Good" and "evil" are both ideas, but they are agreed by all alive and who have lived before now to not be able to co-exist within one's minds toether at the same time. One can't embrace the idea of "good" to its fullest at the same time one is embracing the idea of "evil" to its fullest, because these are opposite conditional mental-states. For example, "love" and "hate" are strong passions, but essentially boil down to "approach" or "avoid," the same "fight" or "flight" instinct that is innate even in binary-ended flat-worms. However, if we "love" and "hate" someone at the same time, our passion will feed on this instinct until we lose our mental sense of well-being and sense of survival entirely. Essentially, the proof that "good" and "evil" cannot be co-held at once in anyone's mind is that all who do so end up becoming a danger to their society and to their surroundings.

So, what makes anything "good"? There is no popular consensus, and the majority of our species throughout the period of our written histories at least have failed to resolve this issue before now either. It is said that the ratio of "good" to "evil" favours evil because what is Good is Only Good, but what is good AND Also evil is really only Evil. Therefore, it is inherently a trait of good within natural reality to be rare, but not due to that being a necessary trait of "good" as a universally generalisable truism. So, for example, it can be said, "goodness is scarce, but scarcity is not good." If "good" and "evil" are both ideas originating from within the mind, but which can only be expressed and apprehended as active deeds over time,  but "good" is rarer than "evil," than we can postulate the following to be a truism of "good" in general:

"A Good is what one has less of than one wants." Thus, a "Good" exists in reality, defined by scarcity of supply and increase of demand; but "Good" as an ideal exists only outside reality, in the invisible underworld of the mind. An "ideal Good" is anything that is "too good to be true," meaning that it is "ideal" and exists outside of reality, but can still be apprehended by the mind. The sum total of one's imagination is, for example, "too good to be true," and thus it is the products of one's imagination, ideals and mind that become the products of their active deeds; thus, a "good idea" made real is a "good" or "service." Although the majority of our species might say their mental imaginations far exceed the possibilities for modern reality to provide them the building materials necessary to realise their loftiest dreams, this in itself explains why "goods" are rare, while 3/4ths of all energy and time is spent making "bad ideas" real instead. Even our imagination is, ultimately, based at least 3/4ths of the time on the reality we perceive outside. The mental realm itself is comprised of: the "good" imagination - that which is entirely free; and the "bad" imagination - that part based on prior reality; as well as the realms of past-memories; and dreams, which combine memories and the realm of the imagination. Past memories, dreams, "bad ideas" and "good ideas" combine to form the invisible realm of the mind. Memories, dreams and "bad" ideas are "evil" while only the free imagination is "good" because the mind follows the same rules for ratios of "good" to "evil" as reality (the two must be exactly 1:1 correspondent).

terminology:

The mind is made up of: 1) past-memories, considered evil for being based upon materially real events; 2) dreams, considered a combination of real-memories with imagination, considered evil for being partially based on reality; 3) "foolish ideas," based on "wrong" choices and considered evil for distracting activity toward evil deeds; 4) "inspiring ideals," based on "right" choices and considered the sole "good" in the realm of the mind for being scarce.

Reality is comprised of both natural and artificial constructions of material environments. The mind super-imposes itself morally onto the nature of its surroundings. Thus, reality is below the realm of the mind like the land and ocean are below the air and starry-skies. Insofar as "reality" is determined by imposing the ratio of "3/4 more evil than good" then the mental realm must also be considered "true" in the sense of being a super-natural appendix to material reality.

Thus, there are two forms of "Good": 1) a real "good," such as a commodity that one desires to acquire from someone else through a fair method of transaction with them; and 2) an "ideal good," defined as a "good idea" that deserves to be made real and would benefit nature if it were.

methodology:

The condition of our species existing in natural material reality and in societies with one another is predicated on the dualism between accepting reality as a "necessary evil" and desiring inspiration as the "highest ideal." There are various forms of expression in our active deeds this can engender: 1) enlightenment: when the mind is able to transcend all stressors in its immediate physical environment immediately and ascends directly to a state of calm clarity in which the most reasonable choice becomes most rapidly apparent. 2) meditation: when the mind must set itself aside for a time before being able to attain a state of calm clarity where inspiration may be allowed to occur without impedence. 3) struggle: when the mind aspires toward the ideal of calm clarity and inspiration, but fails to be able to achieve these for any prolonged duration due to environmental stressors and the distractions of reality. 4) self-suppression: when the mind must actively prevent itself from succumbing to distractions in order to simply survive, thus causing itself to avoid ALL temptations, even those potentially leading to a better situation for that mind.

Wherever there is dualism there is quadruplism implied. Thus, between "God" and "Satan" there are 3 other pairs of opposite conditions: 1) "right" vs. "wrong," 2) "good" vs. "evil," and 3) "heaven" vs. "hell." However, from here on out, the more subtle distinctions so far idenfied will be considered as consistently implied by the nature of this topic, however will not be dwelt on in such detail. As we have seen already, the 75% or 3/4ths ratio of "evil" to "good" in all things, both "real" in the material sense and / or in the solely mental sense, is the direct result of this quadrupling of the initial duality. The result of this ratio is the conclusion: "good is rare and evil plentiful in reality and the mind." However, from this point in this essay onwards, we will be looking not at the moral terms of "good" and "evil," but the history of our species' understanding of these as personified concepts in the forms of "God" and "Satan."

history:

The fossil record indicates the hominid populations would have been too sparse and too dispersed to consistently cross one anothers' nomadic migrational routes. However, it is an obvious fact of pre-historical record-keeping times that at some point multiple tribes of early peoples met and exchanged artefacts and ideas that each had previously only been developing within the confines of each individual tribe. While this may not have happened consistently, it must have happened at least once, and this event defines the origin of multi-cultural society. At this moment in pre-history is when the origin of the idea of "God" took place. Immediately after this event, the people involved were left to compete against one another for the "good" portions of the idea. Instead of all understanding "God" the same way, each person present saw the vision of this ideal uniquely. All took back with them an enlarged concept than they arrived with of what constitues an "ideal good" in the form of the other tribes' shared artefacts and ideas; however no two tribes would use this expanded knowledge shared between them all in exactly the same way as each other. From the first multi-tribal exchange of artefacts and ideas, the concept of "God" was born, and from the resultant competition between the tribes to acquire the "goods" of the other, opposing tribes, immediately followed from this the birth into reality of the idea of "Satan."

The moral of the original multi-cultural social exchange between tribes of early peoples was this: sharing of artefacts and ideas is an inherent good, while competition over partial artefacts and suppression of any ideas is, thus, an ultimate evil. Thus, by trading artefacts and sharing ideas, man invented the idea of "God," however, immediately following from this, by competing over broken shards using the tactic of lies, came the naturally equal opposition, the idea of "Satan." If "God" is "good," and distraction-free imagination, trading of artefacts and sharing of ideas are good, then "Satan," being "evil," and "evil" being the opposite of "good," is thus a "God" of war, strife, plague, famine, dismay, rumors, lies and death. If "God" is "good," then "Satan" is the equal and opposite "Adversary of God."

Over time economies grew around the earliest exchanges of artefacts and ideas. The more cultures crossed paths, the more societies began to take root and grow at these intersection-points. These societies became huge cities (with fortified walls ten feet thick in one case, or located on twin hills straddling a river in another) on strategically defensible geography. The residents who lived at these social juncture-points became less nomadic than those who passed through them as hunters or herdsmen; they fed themselves by farming plants and taming animals, and eventually established their cities as a reflection of their priorities for survival, their class structure being based on a small inner city with greatest fortifications to barricade themselves in with store-houses for siege-supplies, surrounded by a metropolis inside a second fortified defensive wall, surrounded in turn by a suburban rural farm-land where herds-men worked the land to provide food to the urban city-dwellers. This was the time when the role of "shaman" or "medicine-man" as "priest" of the "church" split from the role of "chief" or "elder" as "king" of the "government." The chief-king organised the city-planning, the class-structure prioritising and could conscript an army to defend the city. The shaman-priest organised the gathering into the store-houses of grains and meats, and their re-distribution from there first to feed themselves and the king, then to the vassals, then the serfs, then the slaves from conquered tribes, etc.

Eventually there arose three great economic empire regions:

1) the Vedic Indo-Europeans of southern Asia created the caste system, which continues ot serve to this day as the basic model for any form of "society" or "social structure," and is based on variably three to five levels of social "rank" or "value to society" based on physical fitness, horizontal money-supply, mental apptitude and vertical money-demand. The class system incorporated the "ruling class" including the king and priest, the "citizens" who serve some social-good, and the "slaves" who service the wills of the citizens. The Vedic, Indo-European economy was based on use of parallel currencies, metal coins and paper currency-notes.

2) the Sumero-Akkadian and later Babylonian empire of the Tigris-Euphrates rivers' valley, where a somewhat similar social system evolved, however was allowed to build up a much larger military and eventually conquer much of the middle-east, from the Taurus mountains in the east to the Meditteranean Sea in the west, because it allowed the over-extension of credit notes past the due amount of value in metal coins, thus inflating the perceived value of their economy by militarily conscripting a slave class of foreigners by foreclosures into indentured servitude. The Sumero-Babylonian empire used clay engraved with cuneiform to keep banking records, but eventually circulated more cylindar-seal stamped credit currency than they could back with value of saved metals in their banks, and so the Babylonian empire eventually deteriorated from within and the region, by now, has become a desert.

3) the ancient Egyptian Old-Kingdom was founded when the Scorpion-King, Sargon 1, unified upper- and lower-Egypt along the Nile river in north-eastern Africa. Pyramid-shaped tomb building developed as the primary cross-cultural unifier between the socieites of the northern lower-Nile and the southern upper-Nile. To construct the massive pyramids erected in Giza and elsewhere throughout ancient Egypt, a work-force of millions was needed. The Egyptian Pharaohs, "Gods in flesh," organised a two-tier class system of northern-Hyksos and southern-Nubian workers by paying them both in gold coins. Eventually, the project would near completion, and by then the ruling potentate of the era would have tipped the pay-scale to favour the architects more than the laborers, such that one designer might make the same amount of gold as ten builders. This imbalance stagnated Egypt and ushered in a millennia of decadent luxury there, finally ending only by a cross-cultural invasion from Mediterranean Rome.

I mention these as being defined by their forms of economic trade, because these empires all pre-existed the concept of there being only ONE "God." These empires were all pantheists, who believed in many Gods, one guarding over and guiding each and every thing in natural reality, and though they lasted for nearly 6,000 years their ways of life are forgotten and mysterious now to the minds of modern mono-theists. These empires provided material "Goods" in exchange for their citizens' participation in the city-state's society. Thus, their "Good" is defined as material in natural, while the "Good" of monotheist societies has been to seek the ideal good of an inspired mind. This idealism brings into being the social juxtaposition between the roles of the chief-priest and the king. If one is "good," the other may be "evil." Thus, the separation of church and state in monotheist societies is as alike oil and water as "God" and "Satan."

Monotheism, though some modern monotheists might be shocked to discover such, did not begin as worship of the universal ego as the one-true-God based on its being a constantly present idea shared in everyone's mind. It began when Abraham (also called Endubsar or ImHotep) rejected the remainder of all Gods in the existing pantheon shared among the three earliest empries (of s.Asia, the m.East, and n.Africa), and chose to follow only one from among them all, whom he decided he would choose for himself. Thus, the concept of monotheism as the "one God" came into use following it being distinctively divided from the remainder of a pantheon of other, equal "Gods." Abraham called his "one God only" concept "Elohim," meaning "my God," and chose to call his "one God" the "king" ("havdhnya" or "ahdvnhay" derived into "adonai"). Eventually, pantheons of infinite Gods followed suit to this sage and began to narrow their numbers of deities to smaller sums, mostly to seven, to twelve, to three or to some such combination.

The ironic fact of monotheism's "one God" idea being an invention of only one wise individual escapes the minds of the modern follower of monotheist religion who fully believes that the "one true God" is the "universal" (for which the latin word is "catholic") "All" (or "mind of the cosmos"). To the modern monotheist there can be no doubt, no question at all, that there is a universal conscious-mind, because they believe it to be speaking to them in their own minds when they are inspired. That is the modern definition for the monotheist concept of "God": an inspired mind-state. "Allah" is only a derivation of the word "Elohim" and "Jah" only a corruption of "YHVH" the vowels of "Adonai." To the modern monotheist, "God" simply IS the "mind of the universe." No further doubts or questions are possible for them.

If "God" is the "conscious ego" or "brain" of the "universe," then that would mean "Satan," God's opposite, would be the "subconscious id" or "heart" of "reality." And this is quite accurate to the manner the majority of modern monotheists would define the current situation. For the past 2000 years or so, this has been the general perception, and little else has been modified from the original template for the model of building societies. 2000 years ago Rome arose and fell, and since then much of "western civilisation's" history has been comprised of applying the earliest formation for city-states to the more nomadic woods-dwelling celts, saxons, gauls, anglish and germanic Europeans.

Now, in the last 100 years, from 1900 to 2000 ad, we have achieved so much as a species that it would be a shame to lose, but which we are all too ready to part with should it serve to help the resolve the fundamental difference in the cosmos between the "good God" and the "evil Satan." Of course, no sacrifice we could ever offer could abolish all evil, and so the myths of the major monotheisms of today that are predicated on the promise of an afterlife are simply puffing smoke and peddling mirrors. If, indeed, a "heaven" and "hell" exist, it will not be in reality we would find them, but in a perpetual realm of bliss or suffering that exists in the eternal recurrance of our final thought before dying. At the moment of death we confront our own karma, weigh it opposite our mortality, and behold our self-value and worth.

evaluation:

Wishing for "God" - as defined as only one of the pantheon of all possible deities - or for "Satan" - as defined as the adversary of that one God - to exist does not make them do so. The "guiding light" of monotheist-dualism is a false flame of intellect projected over and conflicting against the more blatantly obvious facts of material reality. Thus, belief in "God" is a delusion, and one so popularised that we all suffer from it, regardless of it being man-made. However, belief in God without it necessitating the requisite belief also in his polar duality as "Satan" is still better than any form of belief that allows into incorporate within itself the idea of "Satan" as a counter-point result believed necessary due to the idealised existence of their own concept of "God." There MIGHT be a God, but IF there is one, it does not imply the requisite existence of "Satan."

Indeed, there are, apparent over-top of mutual consensus material solid reality, morals of "right" and "wrong." We can all agree on most of these, and can all see it clearly when someone is making a choice that will prove to be "wrong." However, this does not logically justify rationalising the absolute extension of these mental constructs of our minds to the ultimate anthropomorphications of "good" and "evil" as "God" and "Satan." "Right" and "Wrong" DO exist. "Good" and "Evil" MIGHT exist. "God" and the "Devil" MAY exist, but if either do, what should it concern us as individuals, for it would be a cosmic plight beyond our capacity to influence.

In the same sense as denying the proofs for the existence of God given by the monotheist relgions of today does not invalidate the possible existence of God, neither does it imply accepting the existence of "Satan" as an only alternative to the postulates provided by the modern religions. The pondersome existence and simultaneous non-existence of the idea of God has become the domain of the churches of religion, and these have become divested of any role whatsoever in providing any material goods to the community. "Charity" is a "duty" in monotheist faiths because to them the "will" of each individual must be "bridled" and "tamed" to do "good" deeds in accordance with their faith's commands. People are not, by nature, "good." However, the more relgious priests flee from the mental distractions of necessary survival to embrace the idealism of inspired thinking, the less material good they manage to accomplish for their community. They embrace "wealth redistribution" as a form of reclaiming their role protecting grain store-houses in pre-historic proto-cities. However, chairty is a naturally ideal good, not the forced redistribution of material goods. You cannot "force someone to be good."

The more energy we focus on suppressing imaginary evils which we create within ourself by fear of what is beyond our present knowledge, the longer the duration of time it will take us to achieve any beneficial goals. The more our mind is free and clear of all these spooks, ghosts, haunts and demons who plague our perceptual plane with distractions, the better and the sooner we will be able to contribute any true good to our society of choice.

conclusion:

Although there may or may not be a "one true God" or a "Satan" opposite Him based on this data set, it should be obvious by now that any form of worship and praise we offer to either is wholely personal, unique to each individual, and thus, universally random and arbitrary. If "good" and "evil" are truisms, than rather than "good" facts proving "God" and / or "Satan" a truly universal axiom, we have instead only "evil" belief that they both do, regardless of any proof either in favour or to the contrary. Monotheists have come to believe that "God exists BECAUSE we Believe him to." There is no arguing logically against someone who refuses to use the rules of logic as their guide.

Thus, the entire argument of which is a "better" religion between monotheist Judeao-Christian Islam and Illuminist Luciferian-Satanism is moot. There is no "better" religion between the two, because essentially both of them are false. The fact the religion of monotheism is false does not disprove the possible existence of an all-good "one true God." It simply means that the religion of Satanism and the religion of God that also believes in Satan are both equally evil and to blame for the existence of evil in the form of the concept of "Satan." Only the religion of God that denies the existence of "Satan" can be considered "true" to the concept of "God" as the "one true" and "Most High" ideal good.

Ultimately, your religion is your choice. You are given, by the origin of nature, free-will. No one can choose your path for you, you must choose it for yourself. You are constantly being faced with two options and being told to choose. The correct choice can only be made when the mind is calm and clear. Thus, it is best to calm and clear your mind before making any choice, no matter how mundane or difficult. This clarity of mind is an inherent "good" that we can offer in thanks of the gift given us by nature of the right to choose between "right" and "good" or "wrong" and "evil."

prediction:

As we approach the winter-solstice date of the galactic-solar-planetary equatorial alignment, Dec. 21, 2012, there will be an upsurgeance in research on the topic of "illuminsm" and the philosophy of "illuminati Luciferian-Satanism." Now, my readers, you will know how to answer them whenever someone comes to you asking questions about this topic.

PEACE. - Jon