The Luciferians are inner cabal of Vatican according to Malachi Martin (And have been for a long time as I have demonstrated in other books.). They created that fiction about 'for good of mankind' which led to Salvation after Jesus was crucified. They have grown rich beyond their wildest imaginations as benefits of special dispensations and confessionals have poured in to their coffers. They have been given large amounts of land as well as special tax status that their Divine Kings share.
Chopra wrote about Merlin as an analogy of sorts; but Merlin (Who prophesized Joan of Arc for one.) may well have been a name of advisor/sorcerer to a Arthurian Merovingian king that archaeology shows did live on Cadbury Hill. The Royal Stuart and Merovingian group when joined in social engineering efforts like religion or The Royal Society are Hibernians. I think Arthur of real legend was from a far earlier time; but creation of Grail fiction by Hibernian who founded Cistercian Order is a Luciferian myth. This is Bernard of Clairvaux and later we have another well known occultist participating with Borgias/De Medicis in founding of Jesuits by Alumbrados (bringers of light). The Hibernian involved with Borgias/De Medicis in founding of Jesuits was Nostradamus. Bernard was a double agent in ‘play both ends against middle’ game they play. He sat on Inquisitor Panels and yet helped Chrétien de Troyes write a Parsifal tale. But if Nostradamus had a “stone’ to see future as we see on cover of books about him; who else in their number had this awesome tool? Let us consider words of John Dominic Crossan of De Paul University for some historical insight into Divination.
“Magic as Religious Banditry
Recall from earlier how Eric Hobsbawm’s concept of Robin Hood element in social banditry was severely criticized by Anton Blok. Blok was, I argued, superficially correct but profoundly wrong. Bandits may seldom rob rich and give to poor and even more seldom rob rich to give to poor, but validity and perdurance of Robin Hood mystique is based firmly on fact that they do rob monopoly of violence from rich and distribute it to poor, and, more significantly, they rob aristocratic and structural violence of veneer of morality under which it operates. They force question: what is moral difference between a gang and an army, a peasant bandit on make and an imperial entrepreneur on throne.