Helena Petrovna Blavastsky was a cultural provocateur among other things and ran a journal called Lucifer, in which the first article covered the name choice. It argues that “Lucifer” only became a synonym for Satan as a gradual result of pagan-inspired imposition, by an early Pope, on words written more than a thousand years earlier by the prophet Isiah.
Naturally Blatvasky roused some consternation with the name of her journal and this continues to the present, with attacks that seem ignorant of the fact that their own arguments were explicitly addressed in that first article.
There is also a lot of demonisation of Alice Bailey for carrying on the tradition with Lucifer Trust (now Lucis Trust) and additionally for being a dreaded globalist since she conceptualised a “new world order” in the 1957 book “Externalisation of the Hierarchy,” five years after Elanor Roosevelt read her Great Invocation as prayer on a UN broadcast.
This conceptualisation was arguably very good one, yet we all know what happened to the concept in the mouths of the Bush dynasty. Many contend that this was the design from the outset, whereas I suppose old world disorder was always begging for overhaul and is still due for every improvement recommended in the book.
A Latin equivalent of the expression, ‘Novus Ordo Seclorum’ (literally ‘New Order of the Ages’ and plainly referring to this world), is on the US dollar bill and Great Seal of the United States. It is said to derive from a poem by Virgil in the first century B.C.. Like the pyramid and eye of providence above it, the phrase contextualises the transition of epochs where the underlying and overarching are expressed in new forms. Naturally the Masons and others have always been preoccupied with such themes and symbols, for better or worse. The Seal dates to 1782, just prior to the war of independence and roughly seven years before the French Revolution and ratification of the US constitution, which were arguably not all bad.
I have no prejudice against conspiracy theories or theorists, but do seek to disabuse anyone under influence of the notion that some downward trend in global affairs is to be blamed on the works of Blavatsky or Bailey.
Part of the charge against them concerns guilt by association, including influence, and so much only needs to be noted as a classically fallacious. Unless Jesus to is to blame for the Spanish Inquisition, neither Blavatsky nor Bailey are responsible for actions of those who might claim to be their followers. Moreover, Lucis Trust was founded by Bailey a hundred years ago, upon books which attribute the authorship to a certain Tibetan for whom she was merely the amanuensis and who was explicit that very few people at the time would correctly understand.
All that needs to be addressed in the present context is alleged peddling of satanism, which we might define as worship or emulation of one supremely evil individual.
Technically this is a non-starter on the grounds that neither the works of Blavatsky nor Bailey allow the possibly that such a being exists. For they are entirely rooted in a perennial faith that evil cannot be absolute and is merely a corollary of the descent of spirit into matter for the purpose of evolution which is ultimately warranted and achieved by all.
Nonetheless, they do refer to a “Black Lodge” by which is meant a collective of mostly discarnate individuals whose overdeveloped and power-hungry personalities inclined them to cut the link with their higher selves and thus lose the means to reincarnate.
Such are thereby constrained to start again upon their evolution in a subsequent aeon after losing consciousness and memory at the end of the present one, which they accordingly do everything to prolong by retarding collective evolution through telepathic promotion of maximal chaos.
These and those who effectively worship or emulate them can well enough be called satanists in that auxiliary sense to the primary definition of satanism above, naturally without including Blavatsky or Bailey in any way or causing any likely confusion.
Good vs Evil
The aforementioned great invocation from Bailey ends with the expression “seal the door where evil dwells,” referring to the crux of a present battle on Earth between forces of light and darkness.
There is no particular location where evil dwells; the New Testament in the Book of Revelations speaks of evil and of the destruction of the devil and of the rendering of Satan impotent. Those passages all refer to the same time cycle with which this Invocation deals and which it seeks to bring about.
The “door where evil dwells” is kept open by humanity through its selfish desire, its hatreds and its separateness, by its greed and its racial and national barriers, its low personal ambitions and its love of power and cruelty.
Discipleship in the New Age Vol 2 p173.
Note that this reference to the devil and Satan implies a difference between them and does not concede their individuality as anything more than apparently assumed in the Bible, which it purports to be addressing the same events as.
Note also that humanity, rather than the Black Lodge, get a knuckle wrap for keeping the door open. The reason why is clearly explained elsewhere:
The Black Lodge is also far more advanced in externalisation than is the White Lodge, because materialism and matter are, for it, the line of least resistance. The Black Lodge is therefore far more firmly anchored upon the physical plane than is the Hierarchy. It requires a much greater effort for the White Lodge to “clothe itself in matter and work and walk on material levels” than for the Black Lodge. Owing, however, to the spiritual growth of mankind and to the steady, even if slow, orientation of mankind to the spiritual Hierarchy, the time has come when the Hierarchy can materialise and meet the enemy of good upon an even footing; the Hierarchy need not be further handicapped by working in substance whilst the Forces of Evil work both in substance and in matter. Once the reappearance of the Christ and of the Hierarchy is an accomplished fact, these Forces of Evil face sure defeat.
The Externalisation of the Hierarchy p688.
Though tentative, the prospect of humanity fulfilling this role of providing traction for the White Lodge to overpower the Black in human affairs is emphasised as real. The former is also called the Planetary Hierarchy above, not because they order us around, but rather because they progressively step down and co-ordinate the uptake of timely ideas that conduct divine purpose.
Infowar is Spiritual War
The picture is thus fundamentally of the influence of ideas upon humanity, which is torn between darkness and light on mental and emotional levels, largely because of what has dominated the relevant infowar content on the physical plane.
The links between ideas on their own level are the only robust or pure ones. People cannot make these any more robust or pure. They can only imperfectly express or apply them and typically drag them down into obscurity in the process, with debasement or factionalism.
Connecting dots along a money trail is often important for exposure, while connecting them on association or affinity basis can provide helpful clues about how ideas are being used or abused, but all too often such focus results in factionalism and debasement simply due to stimulating imagination and suspicion together in relation to some bad thing.
Only demonstrable truth and pure ideas in their right relationships amount to clean infowar content and reference to people can only factor into such by way of hard facts that are properly construed.
Semantically Misguided Accusations
So do we have any grounds for laying blame on Blavatsky or Bailey for the diabolical Great Reset of transhumanist technocrats like Klaus Schwab, or revolting displays like this ceremony dominated by satanic imagery which occasioned the Gottard Tunnel opening in the Swiss alps?
Apart from fallacies invoking association and influence, I am only aware of such claims being advanced on the basis of certain references to Lucifer made by Blavatsky and Bailey (and also one to Satan by Blavatsky, addressed later).
Lucifer is borrowed from Latin where it means light bringer and the morning star (specifically Venus when visible in the morning). Naturally it was known in a similar way before Roman times and was often regarded as divine in ancient cultures.
The name appears only once in the King James Bible
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isiah ch14.
Taken alone this could make it seem like Lucifer is being addressed as bad angel and it fact that is precisely how has been taken by many, though according to Blavatsky, not until Pope Gregory imposed such an allegory into and over the context, which it otherwise, and I would say in any case, does absurd violence to.
For while astronomic/mythic reference to the light of the morning star (Venus) is indisputably part of the poetry here, the passage is about a sarcastically scorned human king and the very same poetic dimensions are applied, in crucial contrast, non-ironically, to Jesus who is described as the morning star in Revelation 22:16.
The same verse from Isiah is in boldface below in the whole relevant passage from the New International version.
Also in bold are the opening verses 3 and 4 and the explicit reference to its subject as human in 16 and 17 (which also applies in the King James version).
3 On the day the Lord gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labor forced on you, 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:
How the oppressor has come to an end!
How his fury has ended!
5 The Lord has broken the rod of the wicked,
the scepter of the rulers,
6 which in anger struck down peoples
with unceasing blows,
and in fury subdued nations
with relentless aggression.
7 All the lands are at rest and at peace;
they break into singing.
8 Even the junipers and the cedars of Lebanon
gloat over you and say,
“Now that you have been laid low,
no one comes to cut us down.”9 The realm of the dead below is all astir
to meet you at your coming;
it rouses the spirits of the departed to greet you —
all those who were leaders in the world;
it makes them rise from their thrones —
all those who were kings over the nations.
10 They will all respond,
they will say to you,
“You also have become weak, as we are;
you have become like us.”
11 All your pomp has been brought down to the grave,
along with the noise of your harps;
maggots are spread out beneath you
and worms cover you.12 How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
13 You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.”
15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead,
to the depths of the pit.16 Those who see you stare at you,
they ponder your fate:
“Is this the man who shook the earth
and made kingdoms tremble,
17 the man who made the world a wilderness,
who overthrew its cities
and would not let his captives go home?”18 All the kings of the nations lie in state,
each in his own tomb.
19 But you are cast out of your tomb
like a rejected branch;
you are covered with the slain,
with those pierced by the sword,
those who descend to the stones of the pit.
Like a corpse trampled underfoot,
20 you will not join them in burial,
for you have destroyed your land
and killed your people.Let the offspring of the wicked
never be mentioned again.
21 Prepare a place to slaughter his children
for the sins of their ancestors;
they are not to rise to inherit the land
and cover the earth with their cities.22 “I will rise up against them,”
declares the Lord Almighty.
“I will wipe out Babylon’s name and survivors,
her offspring and descendants,”
declares the Lord.
23 “I will turn her into a place for owls
and into swampland;
I will sweep her with the broom of destruction,”
declares the Lord Almighty.24 The Lord Almighty has sworn,
“Surely, as I have planned, so it will be,
and as I have purposed, so it will happen.
25 I will crush the Assyrian in my land;
on my mountains I will trample him down.
His yoke will be taken from my people,
and his burden removed from their shoulders.”26 This is the plan determined for the whole world;
this is the hand stretched out over all nations.
27 For the Lord Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him?
His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back?
We see the real Lucifer on many dawns and sunsets because Venus stays close to the sun.
Can anyone honestly say in their heart of hearts this radiant entity is one with the devil or a proper symbol of him in any but the most ironic setting?
Since I’ve quoted so much already I’m also going include some fine prose to reveal in the light of her soul and intellect, something of what kind of person it’s author was, H.P.Blavatsky. It’s an extract from the article linked above.
Hardly had the title been agreed upon, when the first premonitions of what was in store for us, in the matter of the opposition to be encountered owing to the title chosen, appeared on our horizon. One of the editors received and recorded some spicy objections. The scenes that follow are sketches from nature.
A Well-known Novelist. Tell me about your new magazine. What class do you propose to appeal to?
Editor. No class in particular: we intend to appeal to the public.
Novelist. I am very glad of that. For once I shall be one of the public, for I don’t understand your subject in the least, and I want to. But you must remember that if your public is to understand you, it must necessarily be a very small one. People talk about occultism nowadays as they talk about many other things, without the least idea of what it means. We are so ignorant and — so prejudiced.
Editor. Exactly. That is what calls the new magazine into existence. We propose to educate you, and to tear the mask from every prejudice.
Novelist. That really is good news to me, for I want to be educated. What is your magazine to be called?
Editor. Lucifer.
Novelist. What! Are you going to educate us in vice? We know enough about that. Fallen angels are plentiful. You may find popularity, for soiled doves are in fashion just now, while the white-winged angels are voted a bore, because they are not so amusing. But I doubt your being able to teach us much.
II
A Man of the World (in a careful undertone, for the scene is a dinner-party). I hear you are going to start a magazine, all about occultism. Do you know, I’m very glad. I don’t say anything about such matters as a rule, but some queer things have happened in my life which can’t be explained in any ordinary manner. I hope you will go in for explanations.
Editor. We shall try, certainly. My impression is, that when occultism is in any measure apprehended, its laws are accepted by everyone as the only intelligible explanation of life.
A M.W. Just so, I want to know all about it, for ‘pon my honour, life’s a mystery. There are plenty of other people as curious as myself. This is an age which is afflicted with the Yankee disease of “wanting to know.” I’ll get you lots of subscribers. What’s the magazine called?
Editor. Lucifer — and (warned by former experience) don’t misunderstand the name. It is typical of the divine spirit which sacrificed itself for humanity — it was Milton’s doing that it ever became associated with the devil. We are sworn enemies to popular prejudices, and it is quite appropriate that we should attack such a prejudice as this — Lucifer, you know, is the Morning Star — the Lightbearer, . . . . . .
A M.W. (interrupting). Oh, I know all that — at least don’t know, but I take it for granted you’ve got some good reason for taking such a title. But your first object is to have readers; you want the public to buy your magazine, I suppose. That’s in the programme, isn’t it?
Editor. Most decidedly.
A M.W. Well, listen to the advice of a man who knows his way about town. Don’t mark your magazine with the wrong colour at starting. It’s quite evident, when one stays an instant to think of its derivation and meaning, that Lucifer is an excellent word. But the public don’t stay to think of derivations and meanings; and the first impression is the most important. Nobody will buy the magazine if you call it Lucifer.
III
A Fashionable Lady Interested in Occultism. I want to hear some more about the new magazine, for I have interested a great many people in it, even with the little you have told me. But I find it difficult to express its actual purpose. What is it?
Editor. To try and give a little light to those that want it.
A F. L. Well, that’s a simple way of putting it, and will be very useful to me. What is the magazine to be called?
Editor. Lucifer.
A F. L. (After a pause) You can’t mean it.
Editor. Why not?
A F. L. The associations are so dreadful! What can be the object of calling it that? It sounds like some unfortunate sort of joke, made against it by its enemies.
Editor. Oh, but Lucifer, you know, means Light-bearer; it is typical of the Divine Spirit –
A F. L. Never mind all that — I want to do your magazine good and make it known, and you can’t expect me to enter into explanations of that sort every time I mention the title? Impossible! Life is too short and too busy. Besides, it would produce such a bad effect; people would think me priggish, and then I couldn’t talk at all, for I couldn’t bear them to think that. Don’t call it Lucifer please don’t. Nobody knows what the word is typical of; what it means now is the devil, nothing more or less.
Editor. But then that is quite a mistake, and one of the first prejudices we propose to do battle with. Lucifer is the pale, pure herald of dawn –
Lady (interrupting). I thought you were going to do something more interesting and more important than to whitewash mythological characters. We shall all have to go to school again, or read up Dr. Smith’s Classical Dictionary. And what is the use of it when it is done? I thought you were going to tell us things about our own lives and how to make them better. I suppose Milton wrote about Lucifer, didn’t he? — but nobody reads Milton now. Do let us have a modern title with some human meaning in it.
IV
A Journalist (thoughtfully, while rolling his cigarette). Yes, it is a good idea, this magazine of yours. We shall all laugh at it, as a matter of course: and we shall cut it up in the papers. But we shall all read it, because secretly everybody hungers after the mysterious. What are you going to call it?
Editor. Lucifer.
Journalist (striking a light). Why not The Fusee? Quite as good a title and not so pretentious.
The “Novelist,” the “Man of the World,” the “Fashionable Lady,” and the “Journalist,” should be the first to receive a little instruction. A glimpse into the real and primitive character of Lucifer can do them no harm and may, perchance, cure them of a bit of ridiculous prejudice. They ought to study their Homer and Hesiod’s Theogony if they would do justice to Lucifer, “Eosphoros and Hesperos,” the Morning and the Evening beautiful star. If there are more useful things to do in this life than “to whitewash mythological characters,” to slander and blacken them is, at least, as useless, and shows, moreover, a narrow-mindedness which can do honour to no one.
To object to the title of LUCIFER, only because its “associations are so dreadful,” is pardonable — if it can be pardonable in any case — only in an ignorant American missionary of some dissenting sect, in one whose natural laziness and lack of education led him to prefer ploughing the minds of heathens, as ignorant as he is himself, to the more profitable, but rather more arduous, process of ploughing the fields of his own father’s farm. In the English clergy, however, who receive all a more or less classical education, and are, therefore, supposed to be acquainted with the ins and outs of theological sophistry and casuistry, this kind of opposition is absolutely unpardonable. It not only smacks of hypocrisy and deceit, but places them directly on a lower moral level than him they call the apostate angel. By endeavouring to show the theological Lucifer, fallen through the idea that
“To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell; Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven,”
they are virtually putting into practice the supposed crime they would fain accuse him of.
A Tale of Two Trinities: Motion, Consciousness and Matter vs Evil, Ignorance and Stupidity
Father, Son and Holy Ghost, like Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma, correspond respectively to power, love and light in the aforementioned Great Invocation and specifically in H.T.Laurency’s terminology, to the aspects of motion, consciousness and matter.
Bailey’s primary version is life, quality and appearance (Esoteric Psychology Vol1 p14), though others are presented, including will, wisdom and intelligence (A Treatise on Cosmic Fire p244).
Being so fundamental, these are all naturally pure and positive, in accordance with the logical necessity of negatives only being conceivable as relative privations or perversions of positives.
Yet the latter give rise to a corresponding negative set: evil, ignorance and stupidity.
Those who believe in one personal God will surely agree that He knows evil is never worth engaging in. This implies that evil is predicated on spiritual ignorance, which is a form of stupidity insofar as it is not just innocently helpless.
The cunning and depraved have most of their stupidity aggregated in the moral or spiritual domain, and as we know from Forrest Gump, “stupid is as stupid does.” Likewise, wisdom is as wisdom does.
In myth these qualities and many others are anthropomorphised, cunning and depravity have been personified in an individual called Satan, though esotericians take the prime examples to be members and instruments of the Black Lodge. Moreover, while strict personal individuality of Satan, and for that matter God in the monotheistic conception, is purely mythical according to esotericians, the latter actually view stars and planets in the ancient tradition as literal divinities, according to a very basic metaphysical principle.
Existence is a trinity of three equivalent aspects: matter, motion, and consciousness. None of these three can exist without the other two. All matter is in motion and has consciousness.
This effectively means that every particle, star, solar system and evolving planet is alive and conscious in proportion to its level of integrated dynamic organisation. Esotericians hold that nine planets in our system are in various stages of evolving a vast number of lives, that only on earth does this currently involve organisms (electromagnetically bound “etheric” aggregates with a similar chakra system elsewhere) and that Venus is the most advanced and our most intimate and helpful assistant.
The difference between material and spiritual aspects can inspire a dualist mistake of either denying one of these in some regard or thinking they are somehow autonomous. Hence the astronomically savvy who had the wits to identify Biblical archangels with planets ended up persecuted, despite slipping in a couple of references to Jesus as the morning star in the New Testament.
Blavatsky’s explanation for Pope Gregory’s egregiously contrived interpretation of Isiah, which is still employed by those accusing her of satanism, is (to put it in simple terms) the influence of a pagan myth that Mercury prevailed over Venus as the good guy in a fight.
Such mythical slapstick would not be an isolated occurrence. Plato expressed gripes about Homer being taken so literally that citizens were expected to believe the visible gods of the heavens were a whacky bunch engaged in cartoonish exploits on a local mountain.
Myth is one thing, but superstition is another and they easily become entangled, resulting in dogmas, whether it be in religion, philosophy or for that matter, even science.
Left to its own tendentious devices, narrative becomes increasingly stupid, ignorant and evil, with inevitable matching effects in society.
Satan
Further on the topic of planets, the word ‘Satan’ also has a non-trivial connection with Saturn.
In Blavatsky’s Secret Doctrine, Vol 2, published after the ‘Lucifer’ article, she approvingly reviews from p233 (scroll a bit from here) another author’s published view that Satan had in antiquity been the proper name of the non-evil entity ensouling Saturn.
This is of course notwithstanding that her earlier Lucifer article (I concede with some ultimate irony) was content to treat references to Satan as synonymous with the devil.
To reiterate, the Bible only uses the term Lucifer and its literal translations with duly positive connotations, including in its single sarcastic use with respect the human king of Babylon in Isiah 14:14.
Yet it definitely uses the term Satan as synonymous with the devil in Rev 20:1–3.
In astrology Saturn is called a “malefic” since its influence mostly centres around karma, external pressures and restrictions. So its easy to see how it — especially when conflated or otherwise associated with impacts of the Black Lodge — could have mythically inspired the Biblical devil figure and to boot, in deeply appreciable ways for each scriptural reference.
I am unsure as to whether all those Bible references are not poetic with respect to Satan being a single individual or else categorically evil, though I suppose it might depend on the Greek adjective used by John when referring the ‘evil one’.
It is also interesting that the Jewish holy day is Saturday, named after Saturn and that in the book of Job, God has strikingly cordial conversations and affairs with literally Satan in relation to the protagonist.
Summary on Lucifer and Satan
The Bible, poetically or otherwise, uses Satan and the devil, but never Lucifer, to synonymously refer to, consistently or otherwise, an archetypal evil individual.
Esotericians hold that there is no such archetypal evil individual, but rather a collective which temporarily fills a close enough role.
Venus is Lucifer, the morning star, beneficent and wise, in reality, mythology and the Bible.
Saturn is patently not Venus or thus Lucifer, but equally divine, strict, not evil and arguably the most proper referent of Satan, notwithstanding the at least superficial conflict with scripture.
Moral of Story
Orwell has Winston say in 1984 that “Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4. If that is granted all else follows.” This conversely implies that all oppression is ultimately oppression of expressing serviceable insight. Stupid assumption and dogmatism are the lifeblood of harmful deeds and that is why mental oppression is often more serious than physical oppression, which ultimately results from nothing else. Every curtailment of freedom which is neither natural nor fully justified is proportionately due to applied stupidity and none of the latter’s instances fail to oppress in some regard.
Suppose then for the sake of argument that esotericians are right about planetary spirits and that their philosophy is net wholesome and reasonable by comparison to the dogmas of organised religion and materialism to date. If so, what better and more insidious way could there be to oppress on the grandest scale than to pervert collective consciousness by adding ‘Lucifer’ to names for the devil?
Bailey’s white magic is net harmless and impersonal, in the sense of antithetical to personal or even collective selfishness. On this understanding it should not be controversial to say that most of what is conceived of as magic is not white, or therefore anything promoted by Bailey.
‘Rain falls equally on the just and the unjust’ is an old and indeed biblical expression. Baddies are often among the first to pore over any newly dispensed insight for whatever power they might derive from it and this goes for the works of Blavatsky and Bailey too.
As often applies, Bailey is as good as her demonisers imagine she is bad. Nonetheless, satansim which may or may not call itself “Luciferian” and invoke some of her teachings, may well be amok at the UN.
If this seems paradoxical I suggest it should. Evil ultimately has no ideas of power of its own. Every last bit of it is stolen, twisted and abused.
Personally I think the UN was founded on a mostly good and necessary basis, which is not to say that it provided no significant opportunities for satanists. For all I know they have so much power that they would have prevented the UN forming if it excluded all such possibilities.
Power is always a balance in some sense and in the esoteric worldview good ultimately triumphs. Who ends up playing who to best advantage over any partial timeframe can be a complex issue, yet Laurency and others emphasise that the satanists power is limited to actuating bad karma that people have laid up for themselves.
He also neatly captures what I think satanism means to most people in its naked essence:
Evil manifests itself in many forms and has the satanists as its most powerful representatives; those who with every imaginable diabolical means counteract evolution, act negatively in all respects, make a system of lying, preach the right of violence, the obvious justification of egoism, the self-glory of self-assertion.
Naturally this is significantly diluted and intermittent for those who retain any measure of humanity, but the essence remains distinct.
It stands to reason that an externalising spiritual hierarchy can only work with material that it has, and likewise the satanists. In some ways it’s the same material, stretched over a spectrum, so the contrary influences might be overlapping in individuals and groups, right up through to the most powerful and compromised institutions.
Everyone is already more or less “guilty” through various kinds of collective responsibility and only thoughts and deeds can be pure.
The identity or motive attaching to any public expression is also distinct from its net significance, which is to say, how it ultimately impacts society, which is the primary concern in regard to collective evolution.
Factionalism is everywhere, including UN. There is certainly a lot of it in the “esoteric community,” which I put in quotes since I discovered first hand that there’s really no such thing. There is just a bunch of people interested in certain authors and inclined to refer to them in going about their lives, research, careers, scams etc. I’ve never been a member of Lucis Trust but know a few decent people in those circles.
It seemed to make a bad move by taking copyright action against Bailey’s works being posted online, on the absurd grounds that they might be tampered with, when printed versions to check have circulated globally for decades and remain in demand. They were not written to be profited from or finance an institution but to be read by a needy world.
Institutions can end up selling out what they were founded on rather quickly, not excluding political parties, NGOs, activist groups, churches, the UN, etc. Sometimes they must be replaced or abandoned and other times reformed. To what extent these options should be pursued is usually also a complex and thorny issue.
Fortunately ideas have their own integrity, untainted by association, whereas human foibles debase and factionalise whatever is corruptible, including all legacies and “isms” that aren’t purely abstract.
Moral of story: There is oppression to the extent that facts, ideas and their proper relationships become bastardised in narrative.
When Jesus, by way of earning his Bibilical morning star epithet, said “the truth shall you make you free,” he was not issuing a felicitous promise, but intimating the flip side of that law.
Perhaps it is invoked best of all, in our post WW2 phase of the ongoing battle between darkness and light on earth, by this passage from Laurency:
The ruling idiologies [not a typo] in religion, philosophy, and science must be destroyed to make room for the esoteric knowledge. This is necessary since those totally mistaken views of reality, life, and the Law idiotise mankind and make true understanding impossible. Criticism is obviously not enough. The new tactic, “you should not criticize, you should not be negative”, etc., is a satanic trick to counteract the esoteric knowledge. How can you make people see through perversion when all the authorities of the day sing its praises in all keys? There is a limit to everything. It is not lack of patience. That quality is there, and to excess. But if people refuse to adjust to the new cosmic vibrations, then a disaster is inevitable. Those vibrations will shatter everything that hinders the new forces of life from working expediently.
So criticism is not enough. You must use strong words so that you make people listen, something that can be heard above the noise and din of the satanists. If such things annoy some people, it is their own fault. They want to have their spiritual corns wrapped up in the softest fur.
Everyone who sees the necessity of fighting lies and hatred, stand up in the name of truth and swear off this cult of lies! The time has come to speak out and act, the time of silence and suffering under the satanist yoke is gone.
The planetary hierarchy has prepared for this revolution for the past five hundred years. The religious wars during the 17th century, the social revolution during the 18th century, the scientific revolution during the 19th century, and the two world wars have prepared for the last blow, the death-blow to lies, hatred, inhumanity, to all that barbarism called culture. Has it not unmasked itself clearly enough?
Shall we blame esotericians for the present shattering of life, or finally recognise that they were right to warn us of the danger and equip us to deal with it?