An Uprising Against "Promethean Hubris" pt.1

Prometheus

We're lucky to have some time with brothers Phillip Darrell and Paul David Collins. They recently published an updated version of their crucial book, The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship.

The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship

Paul & Phillip Collins

★★★★★

Before beginning, I'd like to take a moment to thank Phillip and Paul for their amazing research and their enthusiasm in answering these questions. I hope you find this as enlightening as I did.

From your research, do you believe that the concept of creation of the universe implied to ancient man that an end point (in a physical sense) was a natural progression?

Well, not in all ancient cosmologies, but definitely some. Especially Gnosticism, which held a scathing derision for all things corporeal. It was also evident in Zoroastrianism. The neo-Gnostic sociopolitical Utopians of Marx and Lenin's time would transplant many of the concepts of these ancient cosmologies within the ontological plane of the physical universe. In the process, they attempted to transform many transcendant and incorporeal concepts into objects of immanent experience.

Fire in the Minds of Men

James Billington

For instance, the mythic character of Prometheus became incarnate within the human mind. Thus, we have the emergence of what James H. Billington calls the "Promethean faith," a secular religion that contended that science and the cognitive powers of man would act as the chief facilitators of humanity's salvation. Evident within this revolutionary faith is the Gnostic doctrine of "self-salvation," an occult dogma that would be edified by the Darwinian claim of "self-creation" (encapsulated within the thesis of abiogenesis, which seems to be derivative of the Kabbalistic myth of the golem).

This is why Wolfgang Smith refers to Darwinism as a "Gnostic myth." Interestingly enough, both Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, which were outgrowths of the Promethean faith, were premised upon the Gnostic myth of Darwinism. As W. Warren Wagar  observes, "The faith of progress itself--especially the idea of progress as built into the evolutionary scheme of things-is in every way the psychological equivalent of religion." This explains why such stridently secular movements sociologically behaved like religions.

Of course, there are many that say that the traditional Abrahamic faiths are derivative of older occult religions. However, such claims overlook some significant distinctions... specific the Bible's conspicuously different perspective on eschatology. While Christianity and Judaism do hold that there will be an "end of the age," they do not really hold that there will be an "end of the world." Ecclesiastes 1:4 states: "One generation passes away, and another generation comes; But the earth abides forever." Isaiah 45:17 states: "But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end." And, Ephesians 3:21 states: "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." These Scriptures suggest that Judaism and Christianity present no real "end point."

Now, the Scriptures do mention that world is "passing away," particularly in the New Testament. However, to understand what is meant by such verses, one must first examine the etymology of the term "world" as it is invoked throughout the Scriptures. For instance, in the original Greek version of  1 John 2:15-17, the word "world" is translated from the term kosmos. Kosmos means "ordered arrangement." This connotes a particular system. At the time that Jesus invoked this term, what was the dominant system? It was the oligarchical system of Rome, which was swallowing up the world in hopes of establishing a global empire. Such systems have been with humanity for a long time. Ominously enough, one could argue that the neoconservative wing of the power elite has been erecting a system that is virtually identical to the Roman model. What the Scriptures promise isn't so much an "end of the world," but an end to this kind of system.     

Occult eschatologies, particularly Gnosticism, always seem somewhat hostile towards corporeality. Ironically, they remain preoccupied with the immanent cosmos... perhaps because the adherents of such beliefs sought to alchemically alter the immanent universe and apotheosize mankind. At any rate, there is a definite derision for coporeality within occult belief systems.

Such is not the case with Christianity and Judaism. There is no question that corporeality has a legitimate place within the hierarchical order of God's creation. Man's own physical body holds reverence in the eyes of the Lord. In 1 Corinthians 6:15 and 6:19, the apostle Paul makes it clear that the body is the temple of God. Yet, while the Lord honors the physical body and corporeality in general, He has made them ontologically subordinate to the spiritual realm. The soul, which is a spiritual entity, is the energizing mechanism of the corporeal body. It animates the hylomorphic composite of man. This is an appropriate portrait of the soul, especially given its etymological origin. "Soul" is derived from anima, which also provides the root for the word "animation." Thus, while the spirit requires corporeality for embodiment, corporeality requires the spirit to be animated with life.

So, the creation of the universe may have implied an "end point" to some, but not all. It definitely implies an "end point" to occult secret societies. It also means the same thing to the power elite, which is composed of what the deceased Malachi Martin called "sociopolitical Darwinians." Their immanentized Eschaton is a one-world socialist totalitarian government, which they belief will be the natural outgrowth of man's alleged "political evolution."

Is this a precursor to today's Big Bang Theory and more modern ideas about eschatology (a proposed Great Collapse) in the astrophysical or scientistic realm?

Funny you should ask! We address this question in the 2006 edition of The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship! To answer your question, we'll quote directly from our book:

"While scientific materialists and their fellow travelers (e.g., behaviorists, physicalists, functionalists, secular humanists, Marxists, etc.) relegate texts such as the Biblical Eden account to mere myth, an Edenic motif remains firmly embedded within their own Weltanschauung. In the beginning of this secular mythology, Eden was a singularity, which was eventually divided into countless pluralities by the Big Bang. According to the myth, the reconstitution of Eden is achieved through evolution, which invariably requires the assistance of Man (spelled with a capital M to signify humanity's potential to achieve apotheosis through the evolutionary process). Man unites evolution with the science of "progress," which is bodied forth through biological methodologies(e.g., eugenics, population control, etc.) and social methodologies (e.g., communism, fascism, and other forms of sociopolitical Utopianism). As evolution is guided down the desired course, Man returns to the singularity (i.e., a world government and a unified consciousness). Thus, Eden is reborn. However, Eden is confined to this ontological plane and immortality is attainable only through the continuity of the species.

If elements of this mythology sound familiar, it is because it is certainly nothing new. It is derivative of ancient occult cosmologies, particularly Gnosticism. The only difference is that the scientistic version stipulates an Eschaton residing entirely within this physical universe. However, the scientistic myth resembles a religion in every way."

So, yes! Big Bang cosmology is definitely derivative of older, occult cosmologies. It is merely the new scientistic incarnation of ancient occult myths proffered by esoteric secret societies.

Luciferianism is basically the religion of self-deification, apotheosis. It is disseminated on the popular level as secular humanism, which exalts the anthropocentic dictum of Protagoras: "Man is the measure of all things." The promulgation and enshrinement of moral relativism within the dominant cultural milieu has facilitated the rise of this anthropocentric religion. Moral relativism is premised upon the rejection of absolutes, which is a self-refuting position. After all, the claim that there are no absolutes is a declarative statement of fact. Facts are absolutes and, as such, can't exist in a relativistic universe. So, already, the irrationality is apparent. Nevertheless, moral relativism has become the dominant cultural paradigm and it works to affirm the Luciferian contention that man is a god in the process of becoming. In the absence of moral absolutes, subjective proclivities and personal desires hold sway. Suddenly, man shapes his own morality. Of course, any being that can act as the arbiter of its own moral precepts would qualify as a god. And, this is at the core of Luciferian doctrine.

Luciferians need not acknowledge Lucifer as a literal metaphysical entity. In fact, most do not. Like the neo-Gnostics of the Promethean faith, Luciferians transform Lucifer into an object of immanent experience. The Luciferian believes that the Lucifer of religion is merely a symbol for the cognitive powers of man and their potential to apotheosize humanity. Thus, Luciferians venerate a purely immanent force, not a supra-sensible, spiritual entity. However, this makes Luciferianism no less Satanic in character. The Luciferian contention that man is his own god merely reiterates an older lie whispered by the serpent to Eve in Eden: "Ye shall be as gods." And, any mind that is free of moral absolutes is also free to rationalize its own self-interest, irrespective of who might suffer or what injustices might be perpetrated.  The old adage opines, "The greatest trick that the Devil ever played was convincing the world he didn't exist." The Luciferian religion bears out this mantra. While Luciferians may not acknowledge the existence of a literal intelligent evil, they certainly fulfill its objectives. Believing themselves to be their gods, Luciferians still tangibly enact the principles espoused by the very entity that they reject. To put it simply, they don't believe in the Devil and the Devil likes it that way.

Given the widespread acceptance of secular humanism, one could argue that there are many unconscious practitioners of the Luciferian tradition. In The Reign of Quantity, Rene Guenon mentions "unconscious satanism." Such an appellation could be ascribed to modern pop culture. If that assertion seems somewhat strong, then just consider the societal rot endemic to the West. Millions of unborn children have been murdered under the euphemistic guise of "reproductive rights." Sexual sanity is eschewed in favor of the bizarre. Every holiday season, mindless shoppers place their tithe at the altar of consumerism with no thought given to any transcendant meaning that might have once underpinned the festivities. We even have kids shooting each other just to get the new Nintendo Playstation, for crying out loud! What lies beneath this cacophony? There is a wonderful poem by Steve Turner entitled, "Creed." It reads:

We believe in Marx, Freud, and Darwin.
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy's OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything's getting better,
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
and you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe that there's something in horoscopes,
UFOs and bent spoons;
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher although we think
His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same --
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing
because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then it's compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin and Genghis Khan.

We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds,
and the flowering of individual thought.

This poem is followed by a postscript entitled, "Chance." It reads:

If chance be
the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear,
"State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!"

It is but the sound of man
worshipping his maker.

Indeed, it is the sound of humanity worshipping its new god. His name is Man, apotheosized and enthroned to preside over his own crumbling Novus Ordo Seclorum.

Of course, both Masonic and secular scholars like to argue that Lucifer was a fiction concocted by St. Jerome and that mention of Lucifer in Isaiah 14 is merely a reference to the king of Babylon. Mind you, there is no consensus over which king of Babylon that this piece of Scripture could possibly be referring to. Moreover, Isaiah uses terms that are clearly supernatural and could not be ascribed to mortals. For instance, when he speaks of the usurper who is trying to exalt himself above God, Isaiah uses the term Helel Ben Shachar. Translated from Hebrew, this means "shining one." Unless the king of Babylon had naturally luminescent skin, this term must be referring to a being with more ethereal qualities. And, similiar Hebrew terminology is used in Genesis in reference to the serpent, which Revelation identifies as the Devil.

At any rate, we address this topic at length in the 2006 edition of The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship. But, readers who want a basic primer on Luciferianism can find one at http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Luciferianism.htm.

That's a very subjective question. Meditation for the Christian means something entirely different from what other so-called "spiritualist" sects endorse. It really depends upon what you are meditating on and the nature of the meditative state you enter. We'd caution against any practices where the subject is told to focus on their own "internal deity" or other things of an anthropocentric nature. The New Age movement advocate such practices. And, some meditative states leave people extremely open to suggestibility. In such states, they can be easily manipulated. This is very dangerous.

How does the concept of antinomianism fit in with these ideas, if at all? Could it be viewed by some as a charge against a breakaway sect in just the same way as Luciferianism (not that it wouldn't be legitimate)?

There are antinomianist elements within Luciferian doctrine. Jacob Frank of the Frankist movement claimed he was the messiah and had the power to render religious law null and void. He also said that he could do away with Christianity and Judaism because they were merely precursors his religion of self-deification. Frank came out of the Sabbateans, a movement that had many Masonic trappings. So, this idea of resisting ecclesiastical authorities seems to overlap in some aspects with Luciferianism. That is not to say that ecclesiastical authorities should always be obeyed. But, disobediance is really only acceptable when the ecclesiastical authorities deviate from the faith. Some religious decrees have nothing to do with the precepts of Christianity, but are merely political and social expediencies. Interestingly enough, the Calvinists have been frequently accused of promoting antinomianism. Yale, which is the home of the occult secret society of Skull and Bones, was established by Calvinists. Many Skull and Bones members certainly act as though they are accountable to no one. During his time in Vietnam, Bonesman John Kerry had 24 confirmed kills and none of the bodies had any sort of contraband on them. Bonesman Bush Jr. put Karla Faye Tucker to death even though many held that she was sincere in her conversion to Christianity. Strangely, Bush Jr. gave Henry Lee Lucas, a serial killer with connections to occult groups, a stay of execution. These are just a few examples. The point is that we have individuals carrying out questionable actions with complete impunity. They observe no ethical or moral laws as presented by the dominant religious authorities. So, there could be an antinomianist strain of thought running throughout Luciferian organizations.

Would you say you approach your research from a primarily philosophical / historical standpoint? How do your theological views affect or influence it?

Basically, we amalgamate our experience in our respective fields of study into a multi-disciplinarian approach. Paul has a background in history and political science. I (Phillip) have a background in philosophy, media criticism (particularly semiotics), and classic literature. These diverse backgrounds allow us to examine conspiratorial history from a multiplicity of vantage points. For instance, Paul's experience in political science has allowed him to provide a more scholarly view of parapolitics, as is evidenced by his own individual articles. For instance, "Conquest by Convergence: The Case Against Elite Convergence" (http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Elite_Convergence.htm) critiques the theory of elite convergence by examining the plutocratic warfare that engulfed the Congo. Within that one article, Paul addresses a fallacious political theory, elite criminality, and parapolitics all at once.

Likewise, my background in philosophy has allowed me to examine topics such as the socially and politically expedient role that moral relativism has played in service to the power elite (http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Moral_Rubicon.htm). Meanwhile, my background in media criticism has allowed me to discern specific instances during which the power elite has waged semiotic warfare against the masses and the effects on the public psyche (http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Semiotic_Deception.htm).

For our book, The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship, we integrated all of our background disciplines to provide more of an investigational gestalt. For instance, there is portion of the book devoted to The Report From Iron Mountain. Paul's background in political science and history allowed him to provide a more thorough examination of the parallels between the recommendations of the Iron Mountain think tank and the emergent garrison state of the post-911 world. Meanwhile, my background in philosophy allowed me to apply Foucault's concepts of the panoptic schema and carceral culture to the Iron Mountain proposals. So, the analysis is slightly more comprehensive and allows readers to more clearly grasp the ramifications of what we are discussing.

In regards to our theological views, we have found that the research increasingly affirms what we believe. We do not attempt to change what others believe. Frankly speaking, we don't really care what others believe. We simply provide the information and analysis for the reader's evaluation. If the reader finds himself or herself disagreeing the personal convictions that accompany our presentation, then that is the reader's decision. Of course, there are those who argue that we should take more of a secular approach, as though such an approach would be more reliable.

However, as I (Phillip) have argued throughout most of my work, even the most stridently secular Weltanshauung invariably becomes religious in character. That is because all Weltanschauungs must proffer some core metaphysical claim. Metaphysical claims have always been the province of religion.

And, one could argue that secular Weltanschauungs are conceptually and philosophically predisposed to follow religious trajectories. In the article "Nothing Beyond the Flesh: The Theocracy of Prima Materia," I (Phillip) argue that anti-theistic, anti-spiritual Weltanschauungs are merely camouflaged variants of the same anthropocentric religion (http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Prima_Materia.htm). So, either way, religion enters the picture.

By the way, we don't consider our Christianity a religion. It is really a relationship, a personal relationship. Ever contemplate the etymology of the term "religion"? It means "to bind." Any belief that binds the adherent through a system of ritualized practices qualifies as a religion. I (Phillip) once had a guitar instructor who admonished me to practice my scales "religiously." Football fans could also qualify as members of a "religion." I submit to you the ongoing jihad between Ohio State and Michigan fans. Now, there is a religious war that I think might even make the most ardent Islamic jihadist cringe. Consider Bob Dylan... now there is a deity that has enjoyed being the center of the largest secular religion around.

Part 2 is now posted here -- http://rochester92.vox.com/library/post/an-uprising-against-promethean-hubris-pt2.html.