In Defence of Smoking Mirrors
Rixon Stewart March 24, 2010
In answer to suggestions that Les Visible/Smoking Mirrors was promoting an agenda inspired by Lucifer
Les has never struck me as a Luciferian in any way. If I saw anything in his writing that suggested as much I would have second thoughts about linking him. But beyond his use of mind-altering substances which I personally have strong reservations about, see footnote I see nothing that even hints at such.
Of course if you regard his attacks on his Christian readers as an indication of an affiliation with Lucifer then I would have to disagree.
For many who profess they are Christian and regular churchgoers are in their hearts anything but Christian.
Conversely, I never go to church and enjoy activities as long as its beer or cognac and the women are single that many conventional Christians might regard as "sinful". But that doesn't make me a follower of Lucifer.
Like Les I do not have a high regard for many professed Christians. I think of my former web master, a conventional lay preacher who suddenly lost his nerve when the website was accused of "anti-Semitism".
As many who voted for Bush belatedly discovered, saying you are a Christian like Bush doesn't necessarily mean that you are one, at least in your heart.
Indeed, many conventional "Christians" do their professed faith a great disservice with their own extremely limited understanding of what being a Christian means.
From Brian Arney [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: RE: request for info
"I am in total agreement with you about those who call themselves Christian. I no longer go to church either, as I am fully aware of the complicity of today's preachers and churches. So please do not think I am one of "those" Christians or anything like the fools who followed Mr. Bush, as I have pointed out those liars of Christian faith for years, and done so to anyone who would listen.
"My question about the Luciferian thing is truly a question, as I've always felt a trust in your site and assume you're better studied on the subject than I. But what I'm talking about and what I'm sure those who angrily commented with Les were questioning is his stated beliefs like; all religions are serving the same God and that Krishna is Christ. He also mentioned his chanting and use of the Tarot and suggested dealing with angels to modify their lives. As I understand it, many of these practices are forbidden in the Bible. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Bible's wrong. And some of his thoughts and practices also seem to go against the Christian belief of "one way through Christ", [the Oprah debacle], which I feel was a great objection to these readers.
"And then there is the picture of Les giving the "horned diablo" sign and here's a link from your site describing this sign as Satanic. Some claim a difference between Satan and Lucifer, some do not. I am not well versed in the difference, if it exists.
"Rixon, please understand that I am not head-hunting after Les - just trying to understand what it is I'm missing...
To which Rixon replied:
I once toyed with the Tarot and don't regard its use a necessarily evil.
Regarding Lucifer and Satan: these are indeed two distinct entities embodying different qualities. Moreover, they are both opposed to human spiritual evolution because this will lead to mankind ultimately taking precedence over them in the spiritual realm. To overcome their opposition man requires a vital third force referred to by Christian esoteric teacher and researcher Rudolf Steiner as the Christ force.
Regarding Les's "Diablo" sign: I'll reserve judgement on that, it's not prominently displayed and may not be intended as a "Diablo" salute. It may be no more than a coincidence. (In fact I've subsequently been informed that it is a Hindu gesture that can be either good or bad.)
Regarding Les's chanting: again esoteric Christians employ similar arcane techniques. Once you get to the more esoteric level of any spiritual path you encounter seemingly bizarre practises. Nonetheless, all these different spiritual paths lead to the same ultimate destination.
Regarding Les's belief that "all religions serve the same God". Well I have to agree, all genuine religions do serve the same God. Although outwardly they may appear different often due to the cultural, historical or racial context in which they appear they all have the same ultimate goal.
The important thing here is the inner meaning, not the outward appearance.
Regarding Les's belief that "Krishna is Christ": according to Christian esoteric researcher and teacher Rudolf Steiner the Christ force can manifest in ANY individual. Jesus Christ was simply the first to embody and exemplify it. He was in effect an ideal for us to work toward.
Steiner taught that in the second coming the Christ force would manifest more widely. That doesn't mean that Jesus Christ will return as an individual but that the qualities he embodied will now manifest more widely in more people.
So saying "Krishna is Christ" is not as sacrilegious as it may sound. I'm not well up on Hinduism but Krishna and Christ may well have exemplified much the same qualities.
Finally you may ask who taught me about Rudolf Steiner's teaching and why do I refer to it so often?
Well, an old Christian esoteric researcher and psychologist taught me about Steiner's work when I lived in South Africa. When I returned to England some years later I was involved in a serious motorcycle crash that left me in a coma and, in the words of the surgeon who operated on me, with "severe and extensive brain damage".
Weeks later I awoke and against all expert diagnosis wasn't paralysed and could actually walk. Thereafter I contacted my former teacher and he in turn referred me to an old friend of his, the Rev. Rachael Sheppard, the head of the Rudolf Steiner Church in London, both a school (for adults) and a church.
I went to see her and she said things that I need not repeat here. I did not see her again after our meeting and sadly she passed away a few years later. I hadn't started the website by then but was producing a small print publication, the forerunner of this website.
Nonetheless I used the Internet for research and I still remember very clearly what happened late one Friday night.
I was working on my computer when I suddenly became aware of great radiance in the room. It was Rachael Sheppard and SHE WAS BATHED IN LIGHT. One might even say she appeared in THE LIGHT OF CHRIST!!!!
Mainstream Christians might say she was "with Christ" but that would not accurately express what I believe happened. To be more precise, I believe she was radiating what Steiner called the "Christ force".
Moreover, I was not alone in this experience. I understand that Rachael visited another prominent member of the church after her death.
You may want to check out Rudolf Steiner but I found his work very heavy going and was only able to grasp an understanding of it with the aid of my teachers. Nonetheless it is genuine esoteric Christian teaching and it covers everything from diet and breathing, to history, art, horticulture, farming and more. And it's nothing like much of what calls itself Christianity today, particularly in America.
Footnote March 24, 2010
The reasons behind my reservations over drugs are spiritual. Certain drugs can open up ones spiritual organs but to do this before the necessary moral groundwork has been done is dangerous. Because a premature opening of the spiritual centres can open one up to spiritual forces, both benign and malign.
Unless the necessary spiritual spadework has been done sometimes-over many lifetimes drugs can open the user to the influence of malign spiritual entities. In such cases the individual can be influenced, often quite unconsciously by these entities. Resulting in aberrant and erratic behaviour, broken homes, crime and prostitution and ultimately mental illness.
I am reminded of a story recounted by G.I. Gurdjieff who at one stage was in a group studying with a spiritual adept in India, I think. During the course of studying how the higher spiritual centres worked a beggar was brought in and fed mind-altering drugs. He was used to illustrate a point but once it was made the beggar was left to his own devices.
In effect, he was discarded because whatever spiritual potential he might have had was exhausted, for this incarnation at least.
This also explains why conversely drugs do not negatively affect others such as Smoking Mirrors. Through work over many lifetimes, they are at a level of development where they cannot be influenced by such negative entities.
Last updated 26/03/2010