How much of Christianity was lifted from the pre-Christian world?

Sorry to keep you waiting with this post. I guess I should’ve mentioned that the second semester of my third year at university is now in full swing.

In this post I’ll attempt not just to outline how many of the main points of Christianity are borrowed from pre-Christian/pagan belief systems, but by the end establish what that means, focusing on some of the key points found in popular Christianity as it is imagined today.

 

God himself

We already know that Yahweh/Jehovah, the supreme deity of the Bible, was originally a minor Canaanite deity of war, who ascended in status within the Hebrew pantheon as the chief deity of their people (in other words the God of Israel), the context of which transitioned from that of a merely henotheistic tradition (that is the belief that there are many gods but the practice of worshiping just one; i.e. on the basis of tribalism) to that of a full-blown monotheistic tradition. As time passed, Yahweh also accrued many characteristics associated with other deities such as El or Zeus, and became the far more warlike and supposedly omnipresent and loving version of both. And after the Jews were exiled from Babylon, Yahweh transformed from just the God of Israel to the ruling deity of everything.

Yahweh himself is just another deity in a long line of supreme deities with slightly similar characteristics. Ahura Mazda in Persia, Aten and Ra in Egypt, Ba’al and El in Canaan, Marduk in Babylon, Indra and Varuna in India, and of course Zeus in Greece. And we know that before the ascent of monotheism, Yahweh was in direct competition with other deities. Among his biggest rivals was a deity named Chemosh (or Kemosh), whom the Bible refers to as the “abomination of Moab”, a deity that archaeological evidence points to as being not so different from Yahweh.

Kemosh (aka Chemosh)

Kemosh (aka Chemosh)

 

The messianic archetype

Jesus himself was not stolen from paganism, contrary to what Bill Maher and Peter Joseph would have you believe. However, the role he plays in the Bible is that of an archetype that has been passed down throughout the ages. The archetypal role assumed by Jesus is of course the role of a dying and rising deity, or divine being. One of the most familiar examples of this in Mesopotamian mythology is the deity of vegetation known as Tammuz, the deity to whom the origins of the Christian cross are sometimes attributed. Tammuz was believed to have died at the hands of the spirits of the underworld or his wife Inanna/Ishtar, and descended to the underworld only to rise again every six months. Then there is Osiris, who was killed by Set only to be resurrected by Isis and go on to become the lord of the Egyptian netherworld. Among the deities worshipped by the Phrygians was a deity of vegetation and fertility named Attis, who went crazy and mutilated himself only to, depending on who you ask, either resurrect or reincarnate as a pine tree. In another sense, Ishtar’s descent into the underworld is sort of similar to the descent of Jesus into Hell, except that Ishtar dies and resurrects while in the underworld while Jesus is crucified to death and then goes to Hell in order liberate the souls of the damned. In the case of Ishtar, her mission was to save Tammuz who had apparently been dragged to the underworld by Ereshkigal’s spirits.

There are other aspects associated with messianic archetypes that I’ve covered in my post about the “Divine Individual“.

 

Some familiar public holidays

I’ve talked about this before in the early days of my blog and I plan on covering this subject in greater detail in separate posts dedicated to the eight holidays associated with the Neopagan wheel of the year, but we’ll quickly go through the holidays popularly celebrated in the West. The timing of the Christmas holiday season is based on Saturnalia and other winter solstice festivals and is found nowhere in the Bible, the premise of Easter hinges on a myth that, as was just explained, derives from pre-Christian archetypes and storytelling, and while the modern Halloween is largely shaped by Christian and American tradition, the date of the Samhain celebrated by Celtic pagans is, perhaps coincidentally, near to the date that Halloween is celebrated now, and the theme of monsters and night terrors associated with Halloween was also found in European pagan traditions which hold that time to be either Samhain, Walpurgisnacht or both.

 

Heaven and Hell

The belief in an afterlife divided in terms of a blissful kingdom of light versus a dark nether realm filled with demons or monsters has been traced to as far back as ancient Egypt, as has the basic concept of the individual soul being judged after death. The Duat was the ancient Egyptian version of the underworld, filled with all manner of monstrous figures and daemonic beings and the site of the regular journey of the solar deity Ra. It is even documented within Egyptian lore that a serpent bent on mankind’s destruction slithers through the underworld, waiting for the opportunity to strike at Ra whenever he journeys into the underworld, which is similar enough to the Christian view of Satan as the adversary of mankind who also appears as either a dragon or as “that old serpent” intent on striking down Jehovah/Yahweh. However, for the ordinary Egyptian, being trapped in the underworld was not the main fear, rather the prospect of being annihilated in the jaws of Ammut if the soul was found wanting by Anubis. The equivalent heavenly realm is Aaru, a prestine field of reeds which resembled life in Egypt, which the Egyptians felt was the greatest thing on earth and wanted to continue living for eternity. And if the soul was deemed worthy of passing into such a beneficent afterlife, then it would indeed be allowed to pass on an live forever with loved ones and pets. Does that sound familiar?

Don’t forget that many pre-Christian traditions have their own conceptions of the afterlife, and there are several heavens and hells found in the mythologies of the world. In Greece, for instance, those who lived a good and virtuous life or were heroic in some way would enter Elysium, provided that they were remembered by their peers and their descendants, while more wicked individuals would descend into the dungeon of Tartarus, where the Titans were also imprisoned, and everyone else would go to the fields of Asphodel, a meadow in the underworld where ordinary souls pass on that was neither a heaven nor a hell, all after the judgement of the soul. Oh, and much like how Christians believe that Yahweh reserved a lake of fire for the devil and his angels, Tartarus is the place where deities like Zeus cast down their enemies, such as Typhon.

Fallen angels in Hell by John Martin

Fallen angels in Hell by John Martin

 

Angels and demons

Pre-Christian belief systems all had their own varieties of spirits, with plenty of them falling into either the angelic or demonic categories. Mesopotamia had the Shedim, which were largely seen as demonic beings. Other demonic beings included Gallu, Lamashtu and Pazuzu, the baddest of the bunch. Evil spirits were often viewed as the cause of disease and were sometimes capable of bringing harm to humans and abduct their children, particularly night spirits such as Lamashtu and Lilitu, the latter a precursor, at least in name, to the the Biblical Lilith (we’ll get into that in a future Mythological Spotlight, once I get around to writing one). The closest things to angels in Mesopotamian lore were probably beings such as the Apkallu, who were winged sages or demigods who were viewed as teachers and protective spirits. Egyptian, as was already established, was host to several spirits. What we would could demons were viewed by the Egyptians as liminal spirits, frequently either hostile beings or guardians of the netherworld who could be called upon to protect humans, and thousands of nameless demons have been found in depictions on all manner of items from both religious and mundane items in Egyptian society. The Greeks recognized the term daemon – from which we get the nomenclature “demon” – as a general term for spirit, and often these spirits were seen a guiding forces, though there were of course malevolent spirits in Greek lore (a disease spirit named Aerico immediately springs to mind). Romans had a similar belief and believed in the concept of genii, who often served as the spirits of the household. India and Persia observed the similar divide between good and evil spirits. For the Indians, it was the devas, apsaras and sometimes yakshas on the good side, with the asuras, rakshasas and other ghoulish spirits on the evil side. In Persia the devas were actually on the evil camp, identified as “daevas” and the minions of Angra Mainyu or Ahriman, while the good spirits are identified as the Amesha Spentas in service of Ahura Mazda. In fact it’s in Persia via the Zoroastrians that we encounter one of the earliest clear cut incarnations of the concept of good versus evil personified as God versus Satan in the form of Ahura Mazda versus Angra Mainyu.

 

 

Good old fashioned Christian values

The “family values” platitude that is stereo-typically attached to conservative Christians are not especially new. In fact, at the very least it goes back to the Roman Empire. The emperor Augustus instituted a series of reforms aimed at aligning Roman society towards “traditional Roman values” – values such as monogamy and chastity. He even went so far as to criminalize adultery and imposed financial penalties on people who did not marry and have children, which to be fair seems a tad more extreme than the kind of family values politics that Western societies would have to deal with in the modern world.

The concept of marriage, which is often seen as a Christian institution, has been a recognized social and romantic union for longer than Christianity has been recognized as a religion. Marriage rituals have been known to exist in ancient Greece, Rome and China, and the contract of marriage, and divorce, has even been around in ancient Mesopotamian society. In Mesopotamia, marriage was valued for much the same reason we do now – to ensure the continuation of a given family line. Rome also considered monogamy to be the tradition for marriage in society, just as we do now. Of course, the ancient world had a tendency to value arranged marriage, whereas in the modern world we value the choice of getting married.

Then there are some of the debatably more positive values sometimes ascribed to Christianity, which have been observed as far back as the days of ancient Akkad.

 

The influence of the mystery cults

Greece and Rome were home to a particular phenomenon known as the “mystery cult”, which is basically a religious movement characterized by secretive rituals and the tendency to center around a specific deity (like Mithraism for example). There was an Eleusinian mystery cult centering around the goddess Demeter, based around the story of the abduction of her daughter Persephone, the wrath she wrought upon the earth and its fertility and the resurrection of vegetation and thus life. The re-emergence of Persephone was supposed to be representative of the possibility of eternal life through participation in the mysteries. The exact nature of the ritual performed in the Eleusinian mysteries is disputed, but it is possible that the ritual took place in an underground passage or theater and was intended to convey the whole death and rebirth message. It is also said that the Eleusinian mystery participants purified themselves by bathing in the sea. The cult of Dionysus had its own communion, typically described as a sharing of wine (which would be befitting of the deity of wine). The Mithraic mysteries were also known for featuring an oblation of bread and water or wine, at least for initiates of certain degrees, which may have served as either a reminder of their faith or as a means of giving them the power to resist the forces of evil. The Orphic mysteries stressed that only by following their rites, practicing abstinence from sensual pleasures (such as sex) and devoting yourself to the mystery can you guarantee salvation and join the gods on the fields of Elysium for all eternity. And don’t forget the Egyptian mysteries, including the mystery of Osiris which proclaimed “Be of good cheer, O initiates, for the god is saved, and we shall have salvation from our woes”. The promise of eternal salvation through initiation into the mystery cult and performance of its rites very much strikes accord with the Christian idea that you can be saved by being baptized, receiving communion and following Jesus.

 

So what does that mean, exactly?

I do not consider Christianity to be a complete clone of one single religion, as many critics of Christianity are want to do, instead I consider it to be supported by collection of ideas that existed well before both Christianity and Judaism. It started off as an offshoot of Judaism, which itself emerged out of the henotheistic tradition observed in the land of Canaan, and it embraced many ideas that happened to be observed by the rivaling pagan traditions, but in doing so the Christians essentially repurposed them for their own belief system. Many of these old ideas, it seems, are in fact very ancient, and have been with humanity for a very long time. And as much as the idea that Christianity took over solely through violent conquest is an appealing narrative to people more vociferously anti-Christian than I (and believe me I still am considerably anti-Christian; it practically comes with being a Satanist/Luciferian), I suspect many appropriations of polytheistic teachings and those of the mystery cults were more likely either reflective of the religion as a product of its time – remember that the religion had developed in the Roman Empire alongside the other traditions – or as a means of drawing pagans away from their old belief systems and into the new one. I think that when this is understood when dealing with modern Christianity, you can render Christianity essentially harmless for what it is – a messianic Jewish faith that with synthesized pagan beliefs, sometimes the same beliefs that are also present in Judaism I might add.

 

Just as an aside to close this post, I can’t guarantee that I will post as frequently as I would like to, due to university commitments, but I’ll see what I can do.

Jesus was fucking crazy!

I will never understand how Jesus’ reputation as a peaceful hippie type leader has stayed so influential in the West. I feel the same way about the idea that the Old Testament was the evil book of the Bible and the New Testament the good book of the Bible.

Why do I say this? Because in the New Testament there is plenty that can be used to point to the idea that Jesus was not the ancient equivalent of the leader of a hippie commune as some have painted him as, but rather a crazed revolutionary.

I mentioned this first point on the last post I wrote, “The Divine Individual“, but Jesus is not here to overturn the cruel laws of YHVH. In fact, he’s very much in favor of it. So much so that one of his criticisms of the Pharisees was that they didn’t execute their sons for being rebellious.

 “For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death’. But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.” – Matthew 15:4-6

For the record, here’s what the Old Testament has to say about that.

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.” – Deutoronomy 21:18-21

That is the word of YHVH telling his believers that if you have a disobedient child then you have to punish that child with death! And Jesus is all in favor of that.

Now for some stuff I didn’t mention in a previous post. At one point, he actually advises his followers to cut off their own hands and feet in order to avoid being damned to hell for some reason.

If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.” – Mark 9:43-48

He was very much a fire and brimstone preacher as well. Contrary to what the liberals would have you believe, I think he would have gotten along with the Christian right, even the fundamentalists to a certain extent, just fine. This next verse is an example of why I feel this way.

But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town we wipe from our feet as a warning to you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God has come near.’ I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades.” – Luke 10:10-15
Essentially he’s saying that cities that refused to hear his teachings would get a worse fate than that of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement. And make no mistake, he believed the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

But on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back. Remember Lot’s wife.” – Luke 17:29-32

What I find most troubling about the character of Jesus is how he says he has come to pit families against each other. Literally.

 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” – Luke 12:51-53

Gee, a guy preaching about the end of the world, about a heavenly being saving their souls if they fear him and obey his every command, and having people turn on their own families for him? Why, oh why, does that sound like he might just be the leader of a cult?

But it doesn’t stop with just the living Jesus. Later on in the New Testament it’s said that, when Jesus returns, he will destroy non-believers.

And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” – 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9

His second coming is also set to be very destructive.

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar, the elements will be dissolved in the fire, and the earth and its works will not be found.” – 2 Peter 3:10

Once you get to Revelations you find that Jesus is pretty much a cosmic mass-murderer on behalf of his father YHVH, and he has some angelic buddies in on the action as well.

I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one like a son of man with a crown of gold on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand. Then another angel came out of the temple and called in a loud voice to him who was sitting on the cloud, “Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.” So he who was seated on the cloud swung his sickle over the earth, and the earth was harvested. Another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. Still another angel, who had charge of the fire, came from the altar and called in a loud voice to him who had the sharp sickle, “Take your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of grapes from the earth’s vine, because its grapes are ripe.” The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great wine press of God’s wrath. They were trampled in the wine press southside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses’ bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia.” – Revelations 14:14-20

The last verse I want to show, just to hammer home how, in another instance where it seems the people talking about how Jesus was a peacenik don’t know shit about Jesus, Jesus turns to be something of a warmonger.

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.” – Revelations 19:11

Also, if you read the New Testament, there are many more verses that show that not only was Jesus a mad and violent prophet, but that the God of the New Testament is clearly no less evil than the God of the Old Testament. I really don’t know where people are getting the idea that the opposite is the case.

Where is your Catholic God now, progressives?

I remember when Jorge Mario Bergoglio, aka Pope Francis, entered the scene back in 2013, and almost instantly it seemed like I had no trust in this guy whatsoever. To me he was just the new Pope, and his benign and progressive personality was nothing more than an marketing ploy designed to redeem the image of the Catholic Church after the last pope, Georg Ratzinger, became known as the face of an organization that was simply out of touch with the modern world and complicit in the covering up of the sexual abuse of children by the Catholic priesthood. I have been expressing this on my own blog in the past since its early days, and I have to say I don’t think I’m entirely wrong on this.

Let’s get one thing straight: Francis himself does not appear as liberal and tolerant as he is believed to be. In fact, some of his famous quotes on the subject of God, the church and belief have been shown to be faked. For example, there was one alleged quote that was famously shared on Facebook in 2014 that goes as follows:

“It is not necessary to believe in God to be a good person. In a way, the traditional notion of God is outdated. One can be spiritual but not religious. It is not necessary to go to church and give money — for many, nature can be a church. Some of the best people in history do not believe in God, while some of the worst deeds were done in His name.

It’s a perfectly admissible statement, to be fair, but he didn’t actually say it. There is no record of Francis ever having said that in real life. There is record of a homily that was made by Francis about atheists, and how he believes that even the atheists are or can be redeemed in the blood of Jesus on the grounds that all humans are created in the likeness and spirit of God, and according to a Vatican spokesperson, Friar Thomas Rosica, it is possible that this homily got lost in translation.

He also never claimed that the Catholic Church no longer believes in the traditional doctrine of Hell, nor did he declare that all religions were true and nor that the myth of Adam and Eve was indeed a fable during the “Third Vatican Council”. This seems to have been a hoax spread by a blog called Diversity Chronicle in 2013. What is Diversity Chronicle? Apparently it may be a satirical website, at least judging from the disclaimer. The icing on the cake. There was no “Third Vatican Council” for Francis to make these statements in to begin with.

Also, for someone who is supposed to so progressive about homosexuality, having allegedly stated that Christians should apologize to gay people because of the actions of the intolerance of their ancestors and also allegedly stated that homosexuals and transgender individuals should be embraced, he has more recently affirmed that the Catholic Church does not allow homosexuals into the Catholic priesthood, and the Catholic Church does not approve of anyone in support of “gay culture”. He also considers abortion to be a grave sin, not a million miles away from the typical conservative Christian, he just gives his priests greater power to forgive this “sin”. And he has recently made it clear that the Catholic Church will not repeal its ban on women entering the priesthood, stating that, in his opinion, the edict put in place by the church under the papacy of Karol Jozef Wojtyla (John Paul II) is to stand “forever”.

That being the case, I don’t think I understand why progressives and liberals are so keen on embracing Francis, as well as the hope that the Catholic Church could become anything other than the same old religious organization that it always was that is only trying to redeem its storied image in the eyes of the modern public. Hell, I never understood why liberals, progressives and especially homosexuals even needed some religious figure to guide them and give them hope to begin with. Judging from the scores of articles that go on about him supposedly delivering blows and stings to conservatives and right wing Christians, I can only assume that the left wants a progressive Christian figure to use as a stick with which to beat conservatives and other Christians, particularly in the United States of America where Christianity is still a big deal for people on the political right. It’s all part of an ideological/cultural war that the West is still fighting in the modern world, and the left will stop at nothing to morally browbeat its opposition. Religion, when it’s convenient, is but another justification for such things.

Pope Francis with a dove

Pope Francis with a dove

The Demiurge

I sometimes see in Satanic and Luciferian circles the idea of a Demiugre, whether it’s a literal or symbolic one, that has created the material world and kept Mankind as prisoner. When people talk about the Demiurge they are most likely referring to the Gnostic Christian concept of the Demiurge, the being that creates the world and imprisons the spirit of Man in its creation, who is usually identified as Yaldaboath. The Gnostic premise is the the Demiurge refers to a creator deity or creative being separate from the true God – the unknowable supreme spirit, the source of creation (sometimes referred to as Bythos). This Demiurge is usually treated as a malevolent and tyrannical being who created mankind as a way of keeping the soul, or souls, bound to the world and subject to the sufferings of life. For the Gnostics, not only is matter inferior to spirit but the world is also evil because it is created by an unjust deity. They also identified their Demiurge with YHWH as he is depicted in the Old Testament – that is, they are treated as the same being. The Demiurge often goes by the name Yaldabaoth, but has also been named Samael, which is the same name as a certain fallen angel from Jewish and Christian lore who is often viewed synonymously with the conventional Satan (in fact, it’s possible that Samael was originally the closest thing to evil incarnate in Jewish lore).

The Gnostic conception of the Demiurge as the creator of the material world may have its origins in the Platonic conception of the Demiurge. For Plato, the term “demiurge” referred simply an entity that fashioned the world, or the cosmos, as described in the Timaeus, his dialogue on the creation of the universe. The word itself simply means “craftsman” or “artisan”, thus in Plato’s Timaeus the Demiurge is a celestial artisan responsible for the creating of the universe. The Timaeus, it should be noted, is not a religious text, but rather a philosophical text entailing what Plato himself only considered to be a likely explanation for how the universe came into being. The Platonic Demiurge would generate the cosmos by imposing order on the chaos that came before it by imitating a pre-existing eternal model of creation, in contrast to the Gnostic Demiurge who is often considered to be either bumbling and incompetent or entirely malevolent.

In substance, the Gnostic Demiurge is essentially taking Plato’s conception of the Demiurge and sort of demonizing it whilst interpreting it, or identifying it, as Yahweh, the deity of the Old Testament and the deity commonly perceived as the “God of the Bible”, which they in turn equate with the demon named Samael. The clear takeaway is that the creator of the world, within the Gnostic framework, is evil and so is his creation. It seems baffling to me, then, that a Satanist or a Luciferian would embrace that idea because Satanists, by contrast, don’t see the world as evil and neither do Luciferians. We, ultimately, embrace this world, we embrace life and we intend to derive fulfillment from it. To me, at least, a Satanist who believes that the world is created by an evil Demiurge and believes that he/she must seek to transcend the evils of the world and of matter is not much different from the Christian rebuking Satan, the lord of this world, because according to the Gnostic teachings this is what it is in practice. The only difference between the Gnostic and the mainstream Christian is that that the Gnostics believe that Satan is actually Jehovah/Yahweh.

Yaldabaoth, the Gnostic demiurge

Yaldabaoth, the Gnostic demiurge

National suicide in the name of Jesus Christ

The migration crisis in Europe is no better than it was before, except now we in the UK are apparently faced with reports of migrants being entered into the country and recognized as children when in fact they were adult men in their 20s. In fact, the Home Office has revealed that two thirds of so-called child refugees are in fact over the age of 18. There was even a story that came out recently of a women who adopted a young migrant who turned to be a 21-one year old jihadi and child abuse porn enthusiast. Meanwhile, I have no reason to believe that countries like Germany, Sweden, France, Denmark and the rest of the European Union are faring much better than they were before – still experiencing an increasing burden on their economy and an increase in crime, accompanied by the slow rise of radical changes to the culture, demographics and cohesion of the country.

And yet I have a feeling that nothing’s going to change. Lily Allen will still bleat for us to show some blind compassion to everyone being allowed into the country in the way that they are, even as it looks like a lot of them actually don’t deserve our compassion – particularly economic migrants from countries other than Syria, as well as young Syrian men who appear to be in fighting shape and for all we know left their families to suffer or die in their own war-torn country just to get a slice of the pie that awaits them in Europe. She’ll probably do it from a very privileged position too, being a celebrity after all, and without taking in any refugees herself. We’ll probably see more people like Gary Lineker virtue signal in support of an agenda that the people of the UK and Europe didn’t ask for. John Oliver is probably going to grandstand about this issue again, probably using disabled children as an emotional appeal like the disgusting shill he has proven himself to be in recent months. The European Union will probably continue its bullheaded stance of maintaining its open borders regardless of the mounting cost (thank gods we voted to Leave).

Let me ask you this question regarding the European migration crisis: how is the pathological altruism that leads to the mentality of “we must accept all the refugees” not drawn from a desire to be more Christ-like? I think Mark Steel in The Belfast Telegraph put it best:

When you see the rage and fury from politicians and newspapers about whether the child refugees we’re allowing in are actually children, it makes you proud we’re a Christian nation. Because we all remember the sermon of Jesus, in which he said: “Let the suffering children come, for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these – but not him, he’s 19 if he’s a day. Look at his stubble, he can clear off and get crucified by the Romans.”

And if you go into the article and scroll down to the comments section you will quickly find him being dismissed and/or mocked as the ideologue he seems to be. But, bizarrely enough, I think he illustrates where part of the pressure to take in refugees is coming from. “What’s wrong with you? Aren’t you good Christians? What would Jesus do?”. I know it doesn’t seem that way, due to religion being by and large absent from the rhetoric and Europe being largely secular. But if most of the people shouting their false virtue from on high are secular or atheistic, they came across to me as nothing more than what Anton LaVey called the Christian Atheists – people who may have left the Christian religion and do not believe in or worship a God, but still retain at least parts of Christian morality and ultimately preserve Christian mentality. Or maybe they’re the typical “liberal” (I prefer the term progressive to describe them, honestly) Christians you might see on social media using Christianity as a prop for their own progressive politics (presumably while complaining about those evil right-wingers doing the same for their politics). Just look at what you find on Google Images if you want to find a good illustration of their ideas. Personally I suspect a lot of it comes from America. For you see, in America, even people who believe America wasn’t a Christian nation to begin with are willing enough to fight over whether or not Jesus was more suited to liberalism or conservatism. I, meanwhile, am not in the least bit concerned about whether American liberals or conservatives faithfully observe the teachings of a dead Nazarene. I don’t doubt too much that many of the people who bleat on about the pathological altruism they espouse having the teachings of Jesus Christ or Christianity somewhere in the back of their minds, subtly influenced by the useless altruism of both.

As a Satanist, and as a Luciferian and outside both realms, I reject Jesus Christ. I reject Christianity. I reject the inane and anti-pragmatic altruism that would otherwise please the sight of the lamb of Jehovah. I believe that individuals are naturally oriented towards their own needs, and the select others that they care about through whom they may fulfill certain needs. And I don’t think there is anything wrong with nations looking about for their own interests, mainly by nations putting the interests of the nation and its people first. That is nothing less than a Satanic principle. To me, a nation choosing to go the opposite route in the face of domestic political reality smacks of suicide. And it shall be suicide in the name of Jesus Christ.

The Crucifixion of Jesus

Of course, that may not be absolutely true for a lot of these progressive figureheads. They could simply be seeking the cheap high that they attain through showing their false sense of virtue. In which case, I can only hope they enjoy such a foolish high while they are still able to do so.

An unexpected face-heel turn

Let’s begin this post with a question for fellow Satanists: have you ever seen videos of Christian preachers who claim to be ex-Satanists and give talks about their supposed stories of being Satanists?

The subject of this post is much the same except he’s a Luciferian, not a Satanist. Meet Jacob McKelvy, a former leader of the Greater Church of Lucifer. He left the Greater Church of Lucifer earlier this year, claiming that he felt it was too difficult to run the GCOL and simultaneously raise a family and run his own business, particularly in a community where he fears his Luciferian beliefs would be heavily ostracized. Eventually it was found out that Jacob had been taking money from donations that had been sent to the GCOL and spending them on various things without the permission or knowledge of the other leaders of the GCOL. Essentially he had been taking money from the GCOL that wasn’t actually his nor had been given to him as an individual and spent it on personal recreation. Some time after leaving the GCOL, he apparently also decided he was done with the occult altogether because he claimed it was all some kind of “ego cumshot”.

And then, apparently, he became a born-again Christian and started his own church which he calls Jacob McKelvy Ministries. And it’s another church where you can give money to help spread the “God’s love” to the world like so many televangelists before him.

This is what Jacob does now.

This is what Jacob does now.

He also has a YouTube channel where there are videos of him visiting churches and giving talks about how he used to be a Luciferian until he converted to Christianity, apparently as of only a few months ago. In one of his videos, he describes his position as the leader of the GCOL as “an executive in the armies of Satan himself”. If only.

Frankly, I don’t know what to make of all of this. But I have my suspicions that he is simply a con man who found in his old nemesis, the Christian faith, a new way to scam individuals after he failed to use the Greater Church of Lucifer to take money from ordinary people. Some might be more charitable and say that his conversion was genuine and driven by a sense of emotional turmoil and spiritual crisis. But then why is he now making money off of his story, under the guise of spreading “God’s love”?

At the end of the day, this is a guy who went from a leading figure in Luciferianism, at a time when the GCOL opened its first physical headquarters in Houston, Texas, to a man who was exposed as taking money from people and using the GCOL as the means to do so, to just another Christian preacher trying to get more mula for Yahweh from a crowd of useful idiots.

Haram Month #4 – Pope Francis: An apologist for Islamist violence

Seriously, fuck Pope Francis. Both for making me defend Catholicism and for being such an incorrigible, weak-minded, intellectually dishonest douche.

This is what the Pope had to say when asked by a reporter about the phenomenon of violence inspired by Islam:

I don’t like to speak of Islamic violence, because every day, when I browse the newspapers, I see violence, here in Italy… this one who has murdered his girlfriend, another who has murdered the mother-in-law… and these are baptized Catholics! There are violent Catholics! If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence…

Why? How many Catholics are suicide bombing places these days? How many Catholics want to execute gay people or push them off of buildings because they hate gay people? How many Catholic militias are there actively trying to take over a country by force, destroy its heritage and murder or abduct its citizens and sell them into slavery? How many Catholics post videos of them beheading non-believers and waging holy war on Western civilization, or any civilization for that matter? How many Catholics do you think are so fanatic that they view other Catholics as heretics to the point that they justify killing them on that basis? How many Catholics think that apostasy should be punished with death? How many Catholics think adultery should be punished by stoning? Are you really going to tell me that there is an equal amount of violence from Catholics in today’s world to the amount of violence from Muslims or Islamists? Because if you are, you are clearly lying. I’m not kidding – you can’t tell me with a straight face that Catholicism inspires just as much violence as Islam, knowing the actual facts of the matter.

He also thinks he knows what this terrorism is caused by:

Terrorism grows when there are no other options, and when the center of the global economy is the god of money and not the person — men and women — this is already the first terrorism! You have cast out the wonder of creation — man and woman — and you have put money in its place. This is a basic terrorism against all of humanity! Think about it!

Are you serious? The Pope is basically saying that Islamists want to kill non-believers and gays and they want the West to be structured around Islam and sharia law because of capitalism, because to him the very idea of an economy based on simply profit is tantamount to terrorism. There is no way you can be this stupid on purpose. That, or it’s just a standard line for the fucking Russell Brand of popes to take. Besides, it’s a lie. We know that pretty much all of these Islamists and jihadists are religious and ideologically motivated. They want the West to ordered around Islam. They want sharia law. They want to take over your civilization. This has been shown time and time again. This has nothing to do with capitalism, or even to do with Western foreign policy, simply because they would hate us no matter what primarily because we are non-believers. We know that for a fact, and to claim otherwise is both farcical and repugnant. Beyond that though, that is some nice victim blaming coming from the Pope. Imagine that, a jihadist shouts “Allahu Akbar” and kills some people and they butcher you, and they do so because you and your fellow citizens are non-believers, but it’s not their fault! Right!? What miserable apologia.

There is a part of me that actually feels sorry for the Catholics, particularly family members of mine who are Catholic, simply because they have such a weak man representing their faith.

Again, fuck the Pope.