Pondering on transhumanism, esotericism & the future of humanity

Something that’s been on my mind lately as I’ve been delving into learning about the so-called “esoteric arts” and whatnot is this question of hate. This is a term popularly tossed around in political discourse these days and is intended to denote a sense of self-righteousness, superiority, vulgar mistreatment of others, etc. Though it’s now commonly being tossed around so haphazardly in response to differing opinions that it’s losing its meaning and is regarded by many of us as merely a dismissive gesture toward opinions one doesn’t care to wrestle with or take seriously.

But the notion of hate runs much deeper than that. It used to be said that hate counters love, but over time it makes better sense to me to see hate and love as passions that are countered by indifference (apathy) at the opposite extreme.

When it comes to the esoteric traditions, however, the word hate takes on a different meaning altogether. Not sure how deep I care to get into my thoughts on this subject today, but I’d like to at least touch on the topic for a while here, because it’s troubling me and thereby forcing me to continue conducting research so as to gain a better understanding of the traditions of old and to question my own social conditioning and how that actually might be misleading me (and others in society).

There’s a theology of sorts referred to as Luciferianism. I won’t claim to be terribly familiar with it yet, but Lucifer (the fallen angel, also associated with the Devil) is historically understood to be the “light bringer.” Now, if we back up and consider biblical scriptures of the Old Testament, we are aware that the story of Adam and Eve centered around them eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, presented to them by the serpent. Knowledge — that being the key point there. Expanding human awareness.

Another biblical story that keeps returning to mind lately is that of the Tower of Babel, in which humans somehow united to where they shared a common language as well as technologies available at the time which they then used to construct (presumably metaphorically) a tower that reached to the heavens. In essence, this appears to be about human ingenuity reaching toward God-like status. And this was achieved through the unification of various peoples throughout the land, hence why their punishment (again, best understood metaphorically) was that they were all scattered and given different languages and essentially knocked back into dark ages, effectively destroying their chances of attempting such a feat again anytime soon. Literal interpretations of this story tend to obscure the real danger being pointed to here: the great proclivity within human beings to strive to come together and to create societies and/or institutions and/or technologies that might rival that which we call God.

So often we hear people speak almost childishly about such stories, proclaiming them to be mere testaments of how jealous the Christian God of the bible is. But that’s a distracting way to look at it, in my opinion. Because I see us now striving to create just that same sort of “tower to heaven” once again. And we’re being instructed to unite and to love one another and to see past our differences, all of which sounds appealing on the surface. But what if we’re actually being encouraged to go against our natures in a way that isn’t ultimately beneficial in the ways we might dream it could be? What if, perhaps, we’re actually serving an ideology that has trans-humanist ambitions that would wind up eradicating all that we value in human life?

Probably sounds like a stretch, and I would’ve thought so too not that long ago.

Food for thought (exhibit A):

The topic of tribalism keeps returning to my mind also these days. Partly because of racial/cultural conflicts here and abroad. Partly because of events in my own life that have been forcing me to reckon with the very real need for us as humans to identify with and belong to some sort of tribe (though not necessarily in accordance with racial divisions – in fact, I believe it’s distinctly ideological/cultural). This does not appear to be a proclivity we can overcome nor that it will likely prove beneficial for us to attempt to do so beyond a reasonable extent. Why? Because this is how we as humans function psychologically and socially and it’s where meaning is derived in our lives. We function best when trying to solve problems and overcome obstacles and while preserving and protecting what we deem sacred.

Everything melding into everything else is the opposite of that. When lines and boundaries become indistinct and relativity undermines all morality and cultural differences, we cannot help but lose our sense of self.

But, new-age movement people might say, that is healthy for us since we should be striving at this point in history to overcome our ego identification and instead to see ourselves as part of a greater unity. Yes and no. There’s value in examining both sides of that duality, but we humans indeed must live with duality. The oneness some are placing on a high pedestal these days isn’t a place where humans can live, thrive and continue to function day to day as what we are. Hence why this proposed “upgrade” requires us to be biologically and technologically enhanced so as to accept it. Lest we simply go mad in the chaos it cannot help but usher in when all values are destroyed.

Why do we strive toward such an idea? Why has it become so tempting? One reason is because it has been sold to us as the pathway toward peace. BUT, considering that such a transition is trans-humanistic to the core, it’s essentially calling for our destruction as human beings. We must cease to be what we are in order to move forward into this vision for the future. And in this vision that some are celebrating (see the video above), artificial intelligence and other man-made technologies are what become idolized. Are these not false prophets and idols? Not because a jealous God might proclaim them to be, but because our faith in our own ingenuity can’t guarantee this game will play out as hoped. I am willing to bet everything that it will not lead us to the paradise we seek. Unless by paradise we simply mean death, and yes, in death there may indeed be peace. Perhaps.

I get conflicted on this subject, wondering if maybe this is truly the next frontier that we humans will be forced to reckon with, whether we want to or not. That maybe this is some sort of “natural” trajectory, if only because our species is prone to fall in love with its own creations and discoveries (albeit while demonstrating repeatedly a severe shortcoming in terms of long-term foresight). We are dreamers, and this is the new dream for some among us. They wish for us to believe a more centralized world where virtual reality can replace the hardships of actual reality will be a worthwhile escape for our species.

In this I see extinction. I see death. I see arrogance and pride and greed. I see an unwillingness to grasp the blessings we have already, even if they must be hard-won through suffering and introspection and pain. The dream to transcend this reality strikes me as a foolish nightmare where I cannot follow. But perhaps enough others do wish for such possibilities to come into being, and who am I to try to stop them? Wouldn’t do any good if I tried, most likely.

Still, I look back on what historical records we do have access to and see this is not entirely a new trend. Human folly has a way of circling back around and renewing itself over time, that much is a given. Interesting to learn about though. Probably the key takeaway in all of this pertains to the need to work on and save oneself. Might not be able to ever change the minds of others, and certainly we can’t draw others nearer to us and our worldview without showing them that this reality and humanity as a whole isn’t so terrible, that attempting to transcend it isn’t really the better option. But how do you show that in this day and age when so much indeed is terrible? When politicians on all sides are woefully corrupt, when major businesses invade our privacy and mold our thinking, when there are so many divisions that have been sown and we drive one another nuts on a daily basis?

I don’t know. Am thinking there’s no real way out of this conundrum since I’m pretty damn sure humanity is heading in the trans-humanist direction because they believe that dream might prove better. So there’s your apocalypse on the horizon. Artificial intelligence embraced worldwide appears to be what the bible refers to as the Anti-Christ. The reason it is Anti-Christ is because it is anti-human. Christ was first and foremost our Brother, and this new era seeks to transcend Him and us and all that we ever were or otherwise could be.

Not speaking as a Christian here, but I do have an admitted fondness for Jesus. His story confuses me at times too, though, seeing as how he encouraged us to love one another, yet it’s not terribly clear where we should draw lines. Make a scene in the temple and disrupt the usurers, yes — but now we live in the land of usury. Love all as if our neighbors and kin, sounds good — but also we’re instructed to hate the sin. The bible is a very confusing and complicated text that seems to contradict itself throughout. What does it mean to love in the way Jesus intended? To show mercy, yes, but what about justice? Why has justice been downplayed? So that those currently in power can get away with their crimes, of course. Why were we humans instructed in the bible to behave as lambs? Are we to understand that to mean we should be so docile that we become prey? Are we to be pacifists? How human is that?

Back to the notion of light and knowledge — what is it we’re trying to illuminate here? Humanity’s capacity for good and evil? Surely we will get to see plenty more of that. Why is Lucifer, the bringer of light, considered the bad guy of the bible, the Devil? Are we to take that to mean we’re better off ignorant? Or is it simply pointing to the reality that knowledge is a double-edged sword? That seems to be it. Is it possible that the greater the dream, accompanied by the technologies capable of possibly manifesting such a dream, then the greater the consequent fall? I think that sounds about right also.

Perhaps we’re incapable of turning away from such dreams once they’ve sprouted in our collective imaginations. The desire to know where a path leads overpowers us, engages our curiosity and tempts us into believing we can resolve our worldly problems. Nevermind that there are very powerful people behind the scenes pushing this agenda. How might they plan to benefit? Is what they’re selling to us the full story? Do you really think those who’ve grown most powerful across the world are looking out for all of humanity’s best interest? Do you believe this to be an altruistic ambition on their part? When always before they have acted in ways that lead to them accruing greater power, wealth and control, always greater gains for themselves regardless of how much blood must be spilled in that pursuit.

Seems to me, whatever those belonging to old, wealthy, powerful families and institutions are pushing for, we’d be wise to go the opposite way.

When have they ever led us somewhere truly beneficial that hasn’t come with great pain and a high price to pay in exchange? But perhaps that’s just the way of people and of life and maybe it cannot be helped.

I get to thinking lately that being knocked back into a stone age might actually be a better place to wind up than to allow ourselves to be permanently genetically, biologically, and perhaps even technologically transfigured. Though contaminants in our environment are already altering us hormonally and likely genetically, so I guess the process is underway whether we like it or not. That’s a cost of living in the type of world we have right now, leaving aside for a moment whatever the future may hold in store.

Crazy times. So much to ponder on. But this Luciferian thing, and its rise in popularity that even celebrities appear to be embracing (at least symbolically), is a very strange trend.

More food for thought (exhibit B): The Lucis Trust.

Light, love, unity, and the future. I don’t know what to make of all of this yet. Basic speculation on my part, and I don’t have an extremely firm position on any of this one way or the other.

“Psychology of Redemption in Christianity”

A lot of truth spoken there…

What is patriarchy?

It refers to a period of time ranging approximately 4,000 years so far as we’re aware, stemming back shortly before the advent of the first Abrahamic religion (Judaism). As discussed in a video clip I created several months back and will link below, once humans gained a better understanding of the process of procreation and came to track patrilines along with matrilines (matrilines are obvious due to women birthing babies, but this notion of a man’s seed factoring in came along much later, approximately 7,000 years ago), it was only a matter of time before that pendulum swung to the opposite extreme and patrilineality rose in prominence.

(Skip about 6 minutes into the video and you’ll find where that talk begins):

So what’s the significance of the focus being placed on the patriline? Well, it wound up diminishing the matriline for reasons I’m not entirely clear on since the cognatic approach had been embraced by countless cultures over thousands of years. Yet some cultures took it to this new extreme, and it just so happens those same cultures also were agrarian (agrarianism is said to have began approximately 10,000-12,000 years ago, that being the most radical change to have initially kicked this all off). Agrarianism is important here because it changed everything for humans — it gave rise to the first civilizations (and the slavery that accompanied them once greater specialization became possible), and humans learned about crop cultivation and animal husbandry and thereby became first acquainted with this idea of domestication. And all of that had a PROFOUND impact on humans’ worldviews. PROFOUND. Unprecedented.


Some of these cultures came to embrace the idea that womankind was too wild and undeserving of being leaders going forward into civilized times. Why is that? Well, because women had very different standing in all past cultures up to that point in time, and those cultures were coming to beInanna_sumerian_goddess thought of as barbaric and savage and comparably less civilized than the new orders being established. Part of the blame was cast onto womankind for what humans came to see as their predecessors being locked into basically animal existence. Some humans came to wish to strive to become above that, and the rise of civilizations promised this possibility, so they aimed to separate themselves from that past through demonization of it (as is all-too-common in the rise of the Abrahamic religions). All we need to do is read the Bible to see that those “Pagan” rituals of old were shunned, along with free sexual expression for both women and men. Because otherwise these new societies would fall apart if men and women weren’t locked into marriages prior to the conception of children so that the patriline could be known. This was an important part of this new cultural framework.

ancient_roman_father_sonWhy? It appears to come down to maintaining this new social order people were wanting to support. They saw it as “progress” to become “civilized” by following these new civilizing religions and creating more complex societies where specialization became possible and a wider array of knowledge could be attained. But these cultures specifically granted men as suitable for the intellectual endeavors that held such potential for advancements, whereas women were relegated to sticking with the “domestic roles.” Think about that. What were domestic roles before the advent of agrarianism? Very different from what they became, that much we know. But through these new religions there arose this idea that women are either wicked or stupid, but either way needed to be controlled by men and by wider society. Because otherwise they could undermine this new way of life.

Snake_Goddess_Crete_Minoans_1600BCNow, a big problem people have with this is that it also entailed that since men were viewed as the intellectuals of the species (or at least some among them possessed that potential), it was only fitting that they held all the high positions in the religious and cultural hierarchy being created. We have to keep in mind that none of this occurred overnight and that during the transition that could have lasted thousands of years, women maintained varied levels of power throughout that time until around when Judaism arose. Then women’s power became severely restricted, and that continued on until very recent times, at least in those cultures and societies that embraced (or continue to embrace) one of the three Abrahamic religions.

What this meant was a woman could not be a Rabbi or a Pope or a Cardinal or a priest (though there had been priestesses of old from past religions and continued to be within cultures outside of the Abrahamic paradigm). The father was considered the ruler of the home and had the final say over his wife and his children (not that wives didn’t have influence, that’s granted, but this is a serious limitation to be imposed). This meant a woman’s chastity became ultimately prized to such a degree that her loss of it, Herakles_and_Telephos_greek_godseven if through being raped, led to her value being completely diminished and her family was shamed for this “bad fortune.” Did the same double-standard hold for boys or men? No. Boys don’t possess hymens to prove their virginity either way, but this comes down to women’s sexuality needing to be more strictly regulated than men’s because the whole system was hinged on this notion of what amounts to a man’s world where his offspring were known to him. A woman who’s engaged in sexual activity with others proves to be a liability in this sort of scheme, whereas not so much for a man, hence why he could have multiple wives. The major punishment that came down on men who were sexual outside of marriage pertained to them having sex with another man’s women (whether that be his wife/wives or his daughters) because that again messed up this whole system by making it impossible to keep up with which woman is carrying which man’s offspring. It was more or less seen as a property crime—the diminishing of value of another man’s property or domain.

This is essentially a “man’s world” setup—that’s just what it came to be. That doesn’t mean women were completely powerless within it, however there were major power differentials between the sexes. A woman who chose to do as she wished sexually would be severely punished, if not killed. That was not allowed. Let one do it and they’ll all think they can do it. Hence why you hear of stonings of women under Islam just based on the accusation that she was sexual with another man, no concrete evidence required. Though I’m sure other societies handled it in other ways, like through ostracizing the “offending” woman, exiling her, which could very well lead to death without the protection and provisions of one’s tribe. That’s a big deal.


When we look at the Bible we see the talk of “whores” and “Jezebel” and others of ill-repute, most of the focus was on women. In fact, I can’t recall a single story in the Bible that chastised a man specifically for behaving like a man-ho. There’s the admonishments for spilling one’s seed (anti-masturbation decree, likely arising from the desire to grow these communities and thereby grow their religions, making it all the more important that people produce large families) and for not coveting thy neighbor’s wife (again, going back to that property rights issue mentioned already). What else? Men are encouraged to engage in sex only with their wife/wives, yes, but where is the story of a man being stoned for having sex with a prostitute? There is the story of the men about to stone the prostitute, however.

Lilith_(John_Collier_painting)Prostitution uniquely became reviled by the Abrahamic religions and is mentioned again and again and again throughout their scriptures. In the Bible’s book of Revelations, the great downfall to come will be ushered in by the Whore of Babylon who rides upon the seven-headed beast. That’s not a coincidence — whores were seen as a real problem, destructors of the new order, tempters of men away from the “enlightened” path, a scourge needing to be annihilated, lest she unleash abominations into the world once more. Ha (Or at least that’s how some folks literally interpret these scriptures…)

It’s goofy how people think, but there it is — it’s no secret. And of course these worldviews have undergone changes over time, especially as Christianity came on the scene and then later Islam, and these Abrahamic religions grew and spread out and were introduced to all corners of the earth thanks to the imperialist ambitions of some of their followers. The Catholic Church rose in power, abused the shit out of the power, which then spawned the rise of Protestantism in response (which also coincided with the advent of the printing press, allowing people to have their own personal Bibles so that they no longer had a need to rely on Catholic Priests or other officials to speak scripture to the masses — that’s power taken into the hands of individuals and families — a major game-changer). Interesting shit.

But then what happened next? Well, scientific exploration came around and over time undermined the religious order, particularly in the Era of the Enlightenment (around the 17th century C.E.). And ever since then humans have been heading toward a new order, socially, politically, paradigmatically, technologically, economically, scientifically, spiritually—you name it. And included within the social change has been a major scrutinizing of these old gender norms. (What’s funny is Plato way back in Ancient Greece also advocated educating women with the same curricula as men, and notice how long it’s taken for that idea to come around to being taken seriously.)

It’s a whole new world in a way, though it’s built on the old world and the older world before that one, and on and on it goes. But when people today refer to patriarchy, they’re usually pointing to the customs associated with Abrahamic religions, though I do believe the term tends to be overused and misapplied and that many who use it aren’t very familiar with human history so as to realize male domination of societies hasn’t always been the norm, nor was it ever to such an extent in those societies that managed to stay free from Western influence (various aborigine and indigenous cultures demonstrated this). People tend to use the term so casually as to render it meaningless, and hence others don’t find it very accurately descriptive in many instances. But we do continue to wrestle with these ideas of old and this fixation on female sexuality and the desire to somehow regulate and control it.


This is demonstrated by prostitution remaining criminalized, and it’s obvious in the attitudes and opinions many people express about sexually “promiscuous” women. People might not approve of a man behaving like a gigolo, but the female “whore” sparks indignation in people on a level that’s irrational. We’re talking hatred in some cases, and all you have to do is wander around the internet or pick up a book written by a Christian or listen to one of my ex-father-in-law’s sermons to figure out how much a woman’s free expression of her powers and sexuality is still despised. Not by all, and attitudes are changing, but change takes time. And in the meantime we’re still wrestling with this shit, some more than others.

That’s what patriarchy means to me at least. As always, I am a ponderer, not a teacher, so look into shit for yourselves. Feel free to chime in if you see things differently, but do try to remain civil since this blog is my personal corner of the internet.