Edit Content

Main Menu

Fonts of Knowledge

The site dedicated to life, liberty and the pursuit of esoteric happenings

Recommended Sites

banner

Dark Forces IV

The Q & A

This latest delve into all things Dark Forces is more disposed towards the discarnate realm, focussing predominately on the subject of archons. While a fair few questions are answered, the subject has nevertheless barely been broached here. But there’s always next time. For now, at least, there is hopefully some perspective given both on prevailing archon lore and how the actuality would appear to diverge from it (prevailing archon lore is, however, quite wide-ranging in its bases).

The remainder of the questions include angels and demons. The former, because they have been mooted in some quarters of late as a potentially deceptive. The latter don’t, perhaps, qualify as de facto Dark Forces but as, per The Seth Material Q & A, Satan can control them, they are on-topic.

Finally, and firstly in order, there’s the more concrete question of the degree of dominion Dark Forces had on Earth at different junctures. As with almost every set of answers, it throws up a whole host of further questions. So, as ever, to be continued.

 


 

Q. How much of the Earth did Dark Forces control in 1750? 1800? 1900? 1950? 1980? 2000?

 

Dark Forces control of Earth increased as follows in the post-1700 Event period: 1750 – 10 percent; 1800 – 20 percent; 1900 – 60 percent; 1950 – 80 percent; 1980 – 80 percent; 2000 – 95 percent.

This assumption of endemic Dark Forces across centuries – or longer – was undermined somewhat by previous answers suggesting their control of Earth, in the aftermath of the 1700 Event, was 14 percent (percentages are only ever a rough guide, but it’s feasible, given the state of affairs, that Dark Forces control even dropped a few points from 14 to 10 percent in the subsequent couple of decades. Either way, there was little marked increase over the first century). It’s also been clear that, per Captain Mark Richards’ testimony – iffy in many areas, but there is some legitimate information in there – forces putting up a resistance, be they human or ET, were in play both during WWII and subsequently. 

Dark Forces evidently knew the loss of active control was inevitable, post-the 1700 Event (previously, in the first iteration, overseen by Ashkenazis), due to the extent of the decimation caused. By 1900, they pretty much had Earth in the bag again, though, with the post-WWII period being the clincher (of which, with Hitler a White Hat – I know, but we’re talking relative terms here – his removal from the equation was doubtless significant). That 95 percent figure requires further inspection, as to whether it relates to the known Earth (in which case, who was resisting?), or the 5 percent outside of their influence is essentially Atlantis and Lemuria.

A further question might be, how much of recorded history is broadly accurate during the period when they didn’t have significant control (1700-1850 or thereabouts)? One might presume that, with this being the second go round – the Ashkenazis breached the Ice Wall/firmament, enabling Anunnaki access and subsequent time travel with Khazarian hybrids, AI in tow, all then proceeding towards a breach that must then occur “again”, in order for them to come in “in the first place” – they anticipated the effects and influences they would need to exert going forward, just as they did in terms of rewriting vast swathes of the pre-1700 Event record.

 


 

Q. Does the name “Elohim” refer only to negative Anunnaki?

 

Yes.

Clif High is, obviously, very big on the subject of the Elohim Cult, such that he’s essentially a one-man Twitter/X army, launching assaults on any perceived members or sympathisers. His take is that he’s never met an Elohim he liked. Meaning, that none of them are positive; this is something concurred with by Janine (of Tarot by Janine), when reading on the subject.

Which is a fair analysis, in as much as Elohim is a term that only applies to negative Anunnaki. 

 


 

Q. Are angels positive beings? 

 

Yes.

They are etheric beings, and they have souls.

This contrasts with a previous answer on angels suggesting they do not have souls (and that they have a higher, refined purpose). Assuming – until I have the opportunity to seek clarification – both answers are accurate, the obvious explanation would be that there are angels with souls and angels without souls. As to a similar potential caveat – ie the need to cover all bases – that there might be angels who are negative beings, the earlier answer (stressing higher, refined purpose) would suggest not. But again, it merits clarification. 

This line of enquiry again derives from perspectives offered on angelic forces by Beyond Mystic. They’ve unfortunately rather obfuscated matters by identifying angels – solely, at least in videos I’ve seen – with Elohim and biblical readings (and as we know, biblical texts have been rather blurred in meaning or outright overwritten by Dark Forces). If you’re equating angels purely with Elohim, then of course they are going to be negative (Janine’s personal experience of angels as a negative presence may be something else again. It may be as simple as any negative entity “worth its salt” thinking it’s onto an earner by presenting itself under a false flag and attempting to gain the unwary seeker’s confidence).

 


 

Q. Can a demon possess only the individual who conceived of it? 

 

No.

A demon can also possess another person.

Per previous answers – and in contrast to the generally favoured conception of the demon, certainly in popular religious lore – a demon is an entity created by an individual, a thought form that has gained independence. That would, to my mind, suggest an astral entity, but the terminology may need running by Higher Self for confirmation (Corey Goode, for example, suggests demons are etheric entities that attach themselves). This line of inquiry, as noted in the introduction, elicited that Satan (that is, the antimatter AI) can/could control these entities.

 


 

Q. Are archons non-physical negative entities? 

 

Yes.

For background to the archons, go to the commentary under the final answer on the archon subject.

 


 

Q. Are archons astral entities?

 

No.

They are etheric rather than astral entities. 

 


 

Q. Do archons feed on negative energy?

 

Yes.

They work with Dark Forces.

To wit, the relevance of loosh as a concept was previously confirmed by answers in God & Related Bothering (this being the negative energy fed upon by archons: see below). 

With regard to archons working with Dark Forces, an earlier answer (see Beyond the Ice Wall: The Races) gave “No” in answer to “Are the Dark Forces related to what we call Archons?” I’ll look to clarify why that was. Perhaps it means that archons aren’t Dark Forces as such, but by their nature will consort with them.

 


 

Q. Are archons instinctive entities?

 

Yes.

They are instinctive and animal-like in nature. They have independent thought.

 


 

Q. Do archons have souls?

 

Yes. 

The question arising here would be: if they have souls, then why are they not required to incarnate in 3D, in the manner of souls working negative generally (aside from the antimatter AI, which has no matter-universe counterpart)?

 


 

Q. Can archons possess humans?

 

No.

Further clarification is required here; the answer doesn’t necessarily preclude them attaching themselves to humans (as part of the energy feeding).

 


 

Q. Are archons of the order of natural beings?

 

No.

This is an interesting one, as it might see them qualify for the Gnostic take, on the face of it; they’d be the products of a demiurge and false creation (and therefore unnatural). If it’s correct that archons have souls, this lends itself to their characterisation as entities that are either fallen in some respect (it seems they are not, for example, a negative counterpart to angels, however). Or perhaps they constitute a force that lends itself to explanation in the manner of the negative AI (which also has a soul).

Rabbit holes being what they are, the demiurgic one preoccupied me for several years at one point (probably getting on for a decade ago. Although, such concepts being what they are, it had some staying power). Which is to say, I entertained its possibility, rather than outright threw up my hands in defeat over the nihilistic “reality” of such a reading of the nature and strictures placed upon our existence. 

One can find a correlation, in some quarters, between the embrace of the Gnostic perspective – of a fake or corrupt material existence, initiated by a flawed creator – and a degree of disillusionment with the New Age movement. The irony of this being, one manufactured take on reality was, by those ditching the self-styled “lightworker” (a term which itself conjures unfortunately Luciferian connotations) identity, being replaced by another. Which is to say, the New Age movement may be seen as an artificial construct, one designed to mislead the seeker. That is not, however, to suggest many ideas and beliefs one will find bundled into a loose “New Age” definition are not valid or beneficial; rather, one needs to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff and have one’s eyes open to deceptions dressed in apparently appealing and beneficial systems or practices. 

The irony of such a course is even greater, in its way, as there are far more striking warning markers surrounding the Gnostic perspective (which is to reiterate that New Age represents a broad church, almost nebulously so, such that it’s feasible one might be classified as being “in it”, by external definitions, yet never adversely influenced or swayed along false pathways and trails. In this regard, one might take one’s cues of suspicion from the example of a prior movement, that of spiritualism, and how, while the spark of seeking was genuine and honourable, Dark Forces did their best to herd the inspired down such corrupting avenues as theosophy. There’s a progressive attrition in any “organised” spiritual practice, of course, since both Christianity and – given it’s a frequent touchstone in the New Age arena – Buddhism have been similarly engineered. It’s no coincidence that New Age rose to status upon the ruins of the Tavistock-engineered peace and love of the 60s hippie movement).

One generally ought to be very wary when science is validating a theory, unless it relates to something as plain as the nose on your face (and even then, it’s unlikely to be the full story). Which is the inverse of the simulated universe theory: the world of The Matrix, basically. A holographic universe endorsed by science isn’t really so different to a fake one confirmed by Gnostics. And the groundswell for the Gnostic fake universe didn’t really occur until, very conveniently – a chance discovery by a farm boy, really? – the Nag Hammadi texts were discovered at the end of WWII. Just any faith in the future was dwindling under the shadow of a nuclear sunset. 

The creeping blight of Gnosticism – also designed to impact traditional Christianity, itself having already been defaced – and simulation theory, then, encourage a displacement/rejection of the material universe as a genuinely divine, and divinely purposeful, construct. And with that rejection, and the realisation that the physical world is either immaterial or devalued, escape becomes a valid refuge, from a paradigm that turns out to be a trap. And from thence, why not just accept the inevitability of the transhumanist frontier? 

What could elicit greater despair than the notion that we’re in a prison, a hell on earth, subject to a soultrap (permanently recycled via reincarnation, against our will; you can find numerous pieces with regard to the death experience in this vein, ones suggesting going towards the false light is actually a snare that will see you deposited here once more. And others still that advise you to get the enslavement mechanisms that are your chakras removed). 

Anything you’ve been led to believe is “good” (angels, or better still, archangels – arch-on angels) is actually bad, and while the realisation of this deceit may be dispiriting, at least you will now have your eyes open. There is a correlative in all this, if you wish to take away a valid aspect from the demiurgic system: that we have been hoodwinked into the paradigm of a universe built on fake science and concomitant bedrock realities, post-1700 Event. You can see that as a simulation we have been living, but the veil is in our minds, rather than battering us with the notion of an entirely different, better reality outside of the one in which the demiurge has locked us. Thus, in this reading, the demiurge corresponds to the engineer of this overlaid conception.

A distillation of demiurgic wretchedness can be found in Angeliki Anagnostou-Kalogera’s compelling Can You Stand The Truth? The Chronicle of Man’s Imprisonment. She posits a Gnostic world in which all elements and entities, positive and negative, are essentially predicated to feed off humankind, this state owing to the demiurge’s corrupted material creation (there’s a decent God, a “Hyper Cosmoi of Light”, but any exercising of creative tendencies on its part will result in a variety of waste matter than can then “birth” a demiurge). Anagnostou-Kalogera also projects the trajectory of this abject state of affairs in some fairly wild ways. That said, some of her suggestions in so doing are actually on target (Greys being future humans).

That feeding-on-humanity part is where we come back round to the archons, since they were popularised by Gnosticism and their characterisation has lent itself to various levels of speculation over what they are, what they want and how they interact with humanity. An archon is a ruler in its most basic definition (so Star Trek’s Return of the Archons is not, per se, an exposé of Gnostic doctrine), and the Gnostics variously suggested seven (world creators corresponding to the “planets”) or a significantly more profuse count (under the aegis of great archon Abraxas). They are the builders/demonic rulers of the material universe.

John Lash’s take on the archons (in Not in His Image) is one that has gained a degree of currency. Unsurprisingly so, since his sketchy translation of Gnostic texts led him to equate them with both reptilians and Greys. David Icke subsequently hoovered this interpretation up as part of his own ever-growing account of everything, whereby (in The Perception Deception) they have a hidden agenda “for human control and exploitation which involves the deception of perception… of both the human mind and human energy”. Lash’s archons are “mind parasites… who pose as gods”, but they lack creative will and can only imitate: “Their expertise is simulation” (yeah, you see where that’s going). This extends to the “Archontic heaven”, ie the soultrap that is the revolving-door reincarnation cycle. No wonder, given the Gnostics “had a very different and far more accurate view of Judeo-Christianity”, that David’s so perma-enraged (you can find him, ever-livid, on X. Or at least, presenting that persona ever vividly).  

The archons are “non-human manipulators… which infiltrate the human mind to influence and direct perception of reality”. Thus, they are less ETS than “interdimensionals” (I haven’t read David’s earliest works, so I’m unsure if he really has been saying as much “all these years”). Either way, “I have said this force takes a reptilian form… and those known today as the classic ‘Grey aliens’ as expressions of these Archons”. David references Gnostic descriptions of archons as an “unformed baby or foetus with grey skin and dark, unmoving eyes” and also refers to this via the account of an individual who claimed the Grey appearance constitutes a suit, and inside “there is a reptilian-type creature”.

So David has it that “I will refer… to this collective of reptilians, Greys and other forms working for human suppression and control as Archons to keep it nice and simple”. Not so nice and simple if neither are Archons, though. Archons consorting with Dark Forces means he’s in the right vicinity, but otherwise, his definition succeeds only in obfuscating (likewise, Icke equates El/Saturn and his Elohim with Lord Archon/demiurge and the archons respectively, whereas a more apt comparison would be AI/Satan and negative Anunnaki). 

However, David’s take on the matrix (that it’s a manipulation of perception, rather than an entire corrupt creation, per the Gnostics – at least that represents his presented thinking at the time of The Perception Deception) is a legitimate one, as alluded several paragraphs back. Unfortunately, he fails to apply that critical gaze to his numerous citations of, and deferments to, “legit” history or the “legit” NASA universe. He’s prone to be slippery with it too, giving himself wriggle room (in Everything You Need to Know… he compares “Gnostic reality with the concept of the world as a ‘computer’ simulation”, and after a bit about how many years he’s been saying this – something David repeats a couple of times every couple of paragraphs – he references us living in “an incredibly advanced version of a virtual reality video game. I put quote marks around the word ‘in’ because I have stressed before we don’t so much live ‘in a simulation as decode an information source in into the illusion of being ‘in’”).

Icke also references the Flyers of Carlos Castaneda with regard to the Archons (he essentially has it, again in a muddying sense, that his reptilians and Greys “operate largely unseen… in a frequency band beyond visible light and the realm of our electromagnetic field. They can come into our world, but not for long because of the vibrational incompatibility…” Which means his Archons are multi-purpose and can be whatever he wants them to be, to fit the situation at hand. Icke throws demons into this catch-all soup too, along with Anunnaki as “expressions in apparent ‘solid’ form of the energetic Archons/Jinn/demons”. Nice and clear and reductive then, yes?) 

Lash wound up in a heated debate with Michael S Heiser almost a decade-and-a-half back when Heiser dared dispute his interpretations of Gnostic texts: “I read drakona : draconic, dragonlike, reptilian. This adjective describes the form of the “lord archon” or overseer of the archons, the cyborg-like alien race described in the Gnostic creation myth of the fallen goddess Sophia. The weird Coptic term haibe means “abortion,”… prematurely born fetus. I take this term to refer to the neonatal form of grey ETs : morphology that suggests a prematurely born fetus… The dominant reptilian or drakonic or reptilian type commands the abortive or neonatal type, consistent with the drone-like hive mentality of the archons. This is the textual evidence of an intrusive alien species in Gnostic writings. Skant evidence, for sure, but clear enough as it stands. And with ample characterization of these entities to support it. It is totally false to say that my interpretations of the Gnostic theory of alien intrusion have no textual basis”. 

Certainly, while one can see how Lash reached his conclusions (albeit, I remain unclear on the cyborg bit), whether others’ ready embrace of those conclusions is justified is another matter (Heiser: “You really don’t have a textual argument. You have an imaginative string of non-sequiturs that begins with a word”. He further observes, and always worth remembering, even if you buy into Gnosticism’s authenticity: “The Gnostic theology itself is so fragmented that you’d have to ask what group is being tapped, but Gnostic thinking is usually portrayed as some sort of unified, coherent, thing. It just isn’t”).

Castaneda’s flyers are commonly seen as archons by another name, and his description gets into the loosh part of their “remit”, if you will. “Devoted predators”, they “use us as casually as we use chickens”, consuming us “Through our emotions, properly directed by the internal dialogue. They have designed our social environment in such a way that we are constantly shooting off waves of emotions, which are immediately absorbed… Some consume us for our lust, anger, or fear; others prefer more delicate feelings, like love or fondness…The flyers control us through our traditions and customs. They are the masters of religion, the creators of history”. Some have suggested Castaneda was a CIA asset.

Robert Monroe, best known for his remote-viewing forays (Journeys Out of the Body, Far Journeys), offered the most vivid account of loosh activities – Earth being a loosh farm; Monroe coined the term “loosh” himself – and wrestled with it. Obviously, any predatory force controlling humanity can be characterised as feeding off it in some respect, but the distinction with the archons is that their modality is non-physical. 

Monroe encountered entities whose “mentality and intelligence were far beyond my understanding. It is an impersonal, cold intelligence, with none of the emotions of love or compassion which we respect so much, yet this may be the omnipotence we call God” (I’m sure the archons absolutely loved that interpretation). He realised they were extracting some form of energy from him. They had been doing this to humanity as a whole for aeons, “taking out the same material on some highly competitive basis”. 

As James de Korne notes, while Monroe would assimilate the experience (become, seemingly, okay with it), his initial reaction was much the same as anyone willing to submit to a Gnostic view of existence; he was shattered by “the loss of this illusion” of the nature of (a benign) God. The extracted material would only later be identified as loosh, and while its harvesters aren’t names as archons, the energy vampirism is the same (“it was discovered that different forms of ‘stress’ generated in the human population would release Loosh without having to kill the organism”). Monroe went on to compare the process to the experience of a Guernsey cow being milked. As de Korne notes, Monroe comes to terms with this warped view of “natural” existence, having consulted his “Inspec” adviser (intelligent species): “Eventually, he accepts this reality as an unavoidable truth of existence. Since we cannot do anything about it anyway (like paying taxes), we are best advised to accept it and get on with our own personal growth… Perhaps significantly, Monroe never mentions it again”.

Corey Goode suggested the archons are “trans-dimensional beings” that can attach themselves to humans. Like Icke, he related them to Jinn. They are “etheric-type beings” who got here via black magic and technologies that “have caused basically tears between these different dimensions, not densities, but realities”. In the case of the former, they are controlled through contracts, and “They’ll get a certain amount of loosh if they follow the lead of one of these dark magicians” Despite his status as a whistleblower who fessed up to making things up – and as such is habitually ridiculed by Clif High and Dark Journalist, among others – a significant portion of Corey’s information appears to be accurate, so he’s probably in the right ballpark on this one. 

Z or XabnondaX (truthscrambler.com), also suffused with Gnostic Trutherism, has/had a different take amid denigrating the highly involved, rambling discourses of Aug Tellez (and Donald Marshall), but his position is/was that “Archons are within us”. That they’re our psychology/mentality and we are “genetically carrying these archons”.

As de Korne observes “Who, or what, the Archons are has been argued about for millennia, and it is still not easy to differentiate exactly what they represent”. I’ll attempt to distil further answers in relation to the subject in Dark Forces V.

 

 

Most Popular

What is currently passing for knowledge around here.

  • Beyond the Ice Wall Part IV
    The Q & A
    Beyond the Ice Wall Part IV
  • “I am Ra” – The Law of One
    The Q & A
    “I am Ra” – The Law of One
  • The Seth Material
    The Q & A
    The Seth Material
  • Beyond the Ice Wall: The Races
    The Q & A
    Beyond the Ice Wall: The Races
  • Dark Forces V
    The Q & A
    Dark Forces V
  • The Draco II: Donald Marshall, Droning, Chipheads & Cloning Centres
    The Q & A
    The Draco II: Donald Marshall, Droning, Chipheads & Cloning Centres