Witchcraft (so-called anyway) + radical feminism/social justice = autistic screeching

Remember back in 2015 when a group of Mexican witches (or Brujas) tried to hex Donald Trump in order to try and stop him from getting elected or something like that? Apparently there are American witches that are intent on “resisting” Donald Trump. Of course, I say witches, but it’s not evident that these are people who have studied witchcraft or the occult for a long period of time, and much like The Satanic Temple they appear to be political activists who are using spiritual systems as a costume for their existing political agenda. Just looking at the head image I see what looks like a typical Tumblr rad-fem or social justice warrior, not a genuine devotee of the witchy arts. All of the other images in the article give me the same impression: trendy trustafarian hipsters using witchcraft as a costume for their own lame political activism.

Here’s an extract I found rather interesting:

A fantastic 2015 feature at Vice profiled how LGBTQ youth have found sanctity within their witch communities in the face of society’s failure to create spaces for them.

So, basically, LGBT people go to left-wing witchcraft communities because they want them to provide a safe space. Times like this I feel like they would not last long in an path of authentic Satanic, or Luciferian, philosophy. We don’t care about safe spaces, and we don’t believe that society should be obliged to create “spaces” for you, whether you are gay or not. We don’t want you to just be comfortable with who you are, or what you think you are. I’d say we think you should be happy with who you are, but we also want you to grow and become more than that. That is the way found in the spiritual paths that comprise the Left Hand Path. If you want your own space, just make one for yourself, or go and live somewhere with people who are more like you.

There’s also this emotional porn in the article about how witches have always lived in the margins of society. And I’m sure they have, but I doubt that today’s trust fund baby generation of Tumblr witches are as marginalized in the modern West as they think they are. I, as a Satanist/Luciferian, am aware that people like me are in a position where we aren’t exactly considered normal. I even go so far as to think that I have to hide it from people sometimes, particularly potential employers. But am I going to create some kind of victimology about with myself and other Satanists at the center of it? Make some big deal about how I’m a victim because I’m non-conforming in some way? Fuck no! Because I know that it would achieve nothing for myself or other people beyond infantilizing myself and violating my own personal values, and possibly reduce my social standing as well if we successfully move toward an age where making a victim of yourself is no longer trendy or fashionable.

And let me tell you something Catie Keck: THAT is how you survive. You survive by adapting, growing stronger IN SPITE of your present trevails and conditions before you have any hope of changing them, and surpassing yourself as an individual because of it. Survival doesn’t mean you getting to say “I will survive” or “I shall overcome” in some pretentious fluffy bunny bullshit or pursuing some witless and futile effort to change the outcome of an election. And that is why I think these Tumblr witches will never achieve their goals.

At some point the article talks about a group called W.I.T.C.H., which is an acronym for, I shit you not, Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell. Cringe-worthy name aside, this group is actually a feminist and women’s liberation movement activist group which happens to use what it calls witchcraft as part of its activism. For them, this manifests in such ways as performing “hexes” on Wall Street. W.I.T.C.H. has actually been active since 1968, and far from being the 1960’s equivalent of The Hellfire Club, they were a socialist feminist movement dedicated opposing both “the patriarchy” and capitalism. They believed that capitalism and “patriarchy” were essentially two heads of the hydra, and so they allied with a wide range of left-wing causes with the aim of removing capitalism in order to remove “patriarchy” and capitalism and usher in their preferred kind of social change. Their understanding of witchcraft is another point worth talking about. For them, all you need in order to be a witch is to consider yourself a witch. That’s it. You don’t have to study at all, you just have to be a woman who calls herself a witch, perhaps also a woman who’s on board with the whole socialist feminist witchcraft thing. And according to an article from (of all places) VICE, most members didn’t even practice or study witchcraft, despite that the group uses witchcraft as an emblem. In many ways this reminds me of how The Satanic Temple uses Satanism as an emblem, but really they’re just a bunch of atheist activists who push for liberal progressive ideology (albeit sometimes doing so in a positive manner, such as pursuing actual liberal ideals and doing fundraisers for charity) and dress it up in a kind of Satanic philosophy that is significantly detached from the kind of philosophy found in, say, The Satanic Bible. Oh but that’s not all, apparently W.I.T.C.H. were among the many feminists who espoused the claim that the death toll from the “burning times” (the Neopagan term for the European witch hunts) was 9 million, whereas scholars put the highest figure at about 100,000.

There’s not much more to say other than the other examples put forward are feminist witches and Wiccans who actually believe that they live in a world that only allows straight white men to attain political power, and they believe that witchcraft can change the fact that Donald Trump is now the President. I have to say, if a bunch of witches in Mexico couldn’t do anything to change the course of the US election, what makes them think a bunch of self-described queer, feminist and socialist witches, who from the looks of it just think of witchcraft and occultism as something that you don’t have to study at all and can just use as political activism, what makes them think that these delusional self-described “witches” can do anything?


Link to the Bustle article: https://www.bustle.com/p/what-witches-can-teach-us-about-fighting-back-against-trump-30574

Does despotism stand a good chance today?

I really recommend watching the 1946 short film “Despotism”, and meditating on its prescience regarding our present political woes.

Stef's Cave

despotism

So I noticed that a video from 1946 is apparently doing the rounds online again. It seems that it was released as an educational video by Encyclopaedia Britannica, and is notable for how chillingly prescient it was when it comes to America’s transformation from a free society to an authoritarian nightmare. Given that the film was made shortly after the end of World War II, the death of Adolf Hitler, and the fall of Nazi Germany, it’s easy to surmise that the film was made to warn the next generation of the signs of despotism. Assuming that’s the case, I find it tragic that today’s children simply aren’t getting that lesson.

The central premise is that you can measure any community in the world on a sliding scale with democracy on one end, and despotism on another, and that two effective yardsticks for measuring the path to despotism are respect…

View original post 1,535 more words

Some post-Inauguration thoughts

Well, here we are. The peaceful transfer of political power in the United States of America has come to pass and Donald Trump is now officially the 45th President. So ends the whole election (and post-election) saga and a really turbulent chapter in America’s history.

Watching the inauguration ceremony, as well as the Make America Great Again concert from the previous day, I did not get the impression that this was some kind of ushering in of some kind of American reich. Far from it. For one thing, there was no evidence of any goose stepping or anything resembling some kind of Nazi salute. Second of all, the gathering was not a sea of Aryans heralding the ascension of their new orange Fuhrer, but rather a gathering of Americans of all races, male and female, irrespective of creed, united by a sense of optimism and a sense of national pride. Trump’s speech seemed to echo this, focusing on talking about how large sections of the population are disenfranchised and focusing on how American and all other nations should put their own interests first, as well as speaking about some his other political platforms. I kind of doubt that we have heard the creed of a reincarnated Adolf Hitler. The idea of “America First”, nothing more than a proclamation of putting national self-interest above the international order of things, was more important than everything put forward by the extreme left and the extreme right.

Thankfully, the ceremony itself seemed to go without a hitch. However, in the surrounding area in Washington D.C., there were fervent protests from people who were opposed to Donald Trump, and there have been examples protesters blockading bystanders and examples of looting and clashes with Trump supporters during those protests. In fact, as I write this, it seems that there is still rioting going on in DC. At least I can be assured that the new President won’t die, and it doesn’t look like that plot by the DC Antifascist Coalition to release a stink bomb at the Deploraball event has not come to fruition, but it does seem that Washington DC has been subject to a lot of rioting been riots. Twitter is of course ablaze with footage of riots carried out by anti-Trump protesters, which even includes footage of protesters burning limousines and other property.

You know, I think there’s a bitter irony here, one that I discussed with my brother. I can’t help but imagine Ted Cruz standing in front of a podium, talking to a lot of these far left protesters and saying “how does it feel knowing you are the losers now”. After all, I still remember back in 2013 when Ted Cruz and his fellow Republicans shut down the government all because they lost on the issue of Obamacare. You know, when the Supreme Court declared Obamacare to not be unconstitutional. They lost, and they acted like crybabies, only they didn’t go out on the streets and smash shit. Now in 2016, who’s acting like the crybabies now? The left-wing activists who hate Trump so much that they’re willing to smash windows, cause trouble and get into fights with pro-Trump bikers. They lost, and now they’re throwing a huge tantrum over it. It was kind of the same with the Remoaners over Brexit, except I don’t recall a lot of rioting done over it. These people who are now screeching at the thought of a Trump presidency need to instead face the reality of the situation: they will not change the fact that Trump is the president, no matter how many windows they smash, how many limousines they burn or how many bikers they get into fights with. Their war is over, and in fact it has been over since the election ended – they had their time to advance their ideas and convince people to vote in their general direction, and that time is over and they have lost the battle. I said this about David Cameron getting elected in 2015, I said it about Brexit and I’m saying it now – get over it and focus on challenging real problems as they arise instead. And maybe be more willing to unite or cultivate harmony with your fellow countrymen regardless of your political differences instead of constantly creating division and acrimony, or else you will only stifle progress further.

I’d like to also mention that I as a Satanist am rather embarrassed to find members of The Satanic Temple apparently joining in on the protests, as well as joining in on the delusions that they have been fed by the mass hysteria generated by the progressive media – mainly the delusion that Donald Trump is the reincarnation of a certain fascist dictator who will destroy everyone’s rights. Yeah, as if America’s system of government isn’t designed precisely to limit how much the President can do to your rights. Some bastions of independent and critical thinking they are proving to be. I can only assume that they are going to take part in the more peaceful side of the protests rather than the pure vandalism we’ve seen from some of the protests. Also, I suppose now that Trump is the President it will only be a matter of time before they can at least cling to the idea that they are rebels, particularly because up until now they could only truly be seen as rebels in the Bible Belt or other more religious parts of America due to the fact that much of their ideals dovetailed nicely with the kind of left-liberal/progressive ideology that was already mainstream in urban America. The irony of this is that on the same day, I find that The Satanic Temple was willing to defend Milo Yiannopoulos’ right to freedom of speech by disavowing anti-Milo protesters, with Lucien Greaves stating that “If you defend Free Speech, you don’t only defend that which you agree with”. Which of course is fantastic because it gives me some hope that these guys are still willing enough to defend liberal principles. It’s just unfortunate that this has to mingle with the fact they seem to have the same mindset and, in some cases, political philosophy as mainstream progressives. And just like every progressive when it comes to Trump, they act as though the end of the republic is coming and the reincarnation of Hitler is going to take away everyone’s rights. It’s just that unlike their more fanatical counterparts outside of the Satanic movement that comprise the social justice warriors, they aren’t willing to compromise liberal principles (such as freedom of speech for everyone) and they prefer peaceful civil disobedience over mob violence. Don’t get me wrong that’s no bad thing – in fact by all rights I ought to applaud them for going down the route of purely civil disobedience -, but they’re still deluded enough to think that they are protecting your rights from some kind of made up fascist apocalypse. Well thanks but no thanks but I don’t need your protection. No Satanist who actually holds true to Satanic philosophy rather than merely using it as a costume for what is basically pure atheism ultimately does.

I’m not foolish enough to believe that Donald Trump will be the second coming of Jesus, as some of his more die hard supporters seem to believe he might be, and I have my doubts. Indeed often times I sat through some of Trump’s speech and responding with “well I can only hope”. I guess that speaks more to the realist in me mind you. But unlike many people in my country I think I can hold out some hope that Trump will do something of a good job. From what I understand, Trump has already been writing execute orders and set to act on some of them as soon as he gets into office and he has apparently been busy in the months between his election and his inauguration, so he’s certainly giving the impression that’s he’s ready to roll as President. All he has to do in the next four years is live up to most of his promises or, at least, prove that he is a better president than Obama, which honestly might only take being perceived as an average president in contrast to Obama, who many outside his circle of fans (read: CNN) consider to be a failure.

At the end of the day, I am happy enough not only to see Obama out of the White House, but also his chosen successors, the Clintons, defeated electorally and thus denied the opportunity to take power, and in that regard the people who voted for Trump have done well to ensure this. I hope that, at the very least, Trump manages to upend the old order of things in whatever way he can and dispel presumptions many people have of how his Presidency will pan out. Given that America now has the Republicans in pretty much full control of the government I am somewhat concerned about the return of social conservatism, but I also know that Trump isn’t like most conservatives, in fact he’s often been at odds with many conservatives (just ask Ben Shapiro, The National Review or Glenn Beck – the man who, by the way, went from bashing Obama throughout his career to unironically praising the Obama family). If he fails to do this, then I think that will ultimately be the main reason I become disappointed with him.

Until that time, it would be terribly rude not to give him a chance now that he has been sworn in. I wish Trump the best of luck in achieving the upheaval of the old order, and I will keep an eye on Trump’s America as much as possible.

Donald Trump is sworn in as President

Donald Trump is sworn in as President

Goodbye, and good riddance, Barack Obama

Ever since the middle of the 2016 US presidential election cycle (in other words, by the time primaries were drawing to a close),  I have been waiting to send off the outgoing Barack Obama in my own way. So here is a list of the things I dislike the most about the Obama administration, and why I will be glad to see him gone.

 

Auditing political opponents

There’s a reason, among others, that certain people in America have begun to think of Barack Obama as kind of a dictator. In 2013, it was revealed that the IRS (a.k.a. everyone’s favorite tax collectors) selectively targeted conservative organizations – particularly groups that had the words “Tea Party” or “Patriot” in their names – while Obama was running for re-election in 2012, and IRS officials admitted that they were doing it. Under the Obama administration, it seems that the IRS felt that they had the authority to deliberately target certain political organizations for financial auditing. However, they did claim that it was an error of judgement on their part, which they did apologize for.

 

Continuing to fuck up the Middle East

I remember when I was a teenager hearing about how Obama was supposed to bring peace to the Middle East. Which he did. Right?

Wrong.

US troops did not withdraw from Iraq until 2011, and did not cease fighting in Afghanistan until 2014. In 2014, US forces would later return to Iraq to lead the international military intervention against ISIS. In 2015, the Obama administration began aiding Saudi Arabia in its military intervention campaign in Yemen by supplying weapons to the Saudis and helping them bomb the country. Oh, and the US has continued to drop bombs on Syria and Iraq, and in some cases the US military is has been conducting drone strikes that have injured innocent people, including children. Obama’s foreign policy regarding the region has also helped to create the vacuum within which ISIS would exploit the opportunity and rise to power and earn their current status as the one of the great menaces of the Middle East. The USA, under the Obama administration, has also pursued military intervention in Libya, which helped to overthrow the dictator Muammar Qadaffi (and don’t get me wrong I’m still kind of glad he’s dead) but also left the country unstable due the failure of democracy to replace the tyrannical regime of Qadaffi. I’m sure Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with it as Obama’s Secretary of State, right?

 

The NSA scandal

Before Obama got elected, the George W. Bush administration attacked the civil liberties of ordinary Americans by instituting the PATRIOT Act, supposedly in the name of protection from terrorism. Surely Obama would take care of it right? Far from it. Obama continued the legacy of Bush in the form of the NSA’s mass gathering of private information from ordinary Americans. The NSA gathered the phone and internet records of millions of ordinary Americans, in violation of American civil liberty and constitutional law, without any oversight. When this was exposed by Edward Snowden and Bradley (or rather Chelsea) Manning, Snowden was rewarded with basically exile in Russia and Manning was thrown in jail for what was to be a 35 year long prison sentence. That sentence was recently commuted, which means that now she only has five months left before she is set free, but this was only during the last week of Obama’s term. As positive as Manning’s commuting was, I suspect it was a cynical political move, not a sign that Obama suddenly is concerned with human rights or privacy.

 

“Islam dindu nuffin'”

As Islamic terrorism continued to be a major issue, particularly over the course of the rise of ISIS and in the aftermath of the Pulse massacre, Obama has been very reluctant to even speak of radical Islam, not even by name. In fact, one of his notorious sayings was “Remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ”. In the case of the Crusades, not only does this oversimplify a rather complicated historical issue, one in which there were no good guys, but it insinuates that the fact that Christian powers fought against Islamic powers (not terrorists as we would call them) is somehow consolation for the fact that Islamic terrorists still continue to murder innocent people, including other Muslims (on the basis that they are not faithful enough in their eyes), by the thousands, and they seem to be doing it on the basis of a radical political and religious ideology that is supported up by barbarous religious texts. I have explored this in detail throughout August 2016 as part of Haram Month. Obama has given the impression to Christians that the actions of their Crusader ancestors are equivalent to the horrors inflicted by ISIS and that they should feel some guilt because of it, and this is a mantra repeated by the political left to this day. His main reason refusing to talk about radical Islam is supposedly because he doesn’t want to lump the terrorists in with ordinary Muslims. An understandable goal in theory, but in practice all it does is whitewash the religiosity of the crimes of Islamic terrorists when we should be confronting the ideology that continues be the primary source of continued Islamic terrorism. Oh but he considers that to be just a “manufactured issue“. Manufactured in what respect? Is the killing of ordinary people in the name of Allah a “manufactured issue”. Is the discussion of radical Islam a “manufactured issue”. What a callous clown.

 

Being the Celebrity in Chief

I don’t think I have ever seen a President so beloved by the media, to the point that the press has not been particularly adversarial towards him, more than Barack Obama was. I don’t remember any president whose inauguration compels a contingent of celebrities to declare themselves loyal servants of the President. No wonder they wanted the Democrats to win so badly in 2016. The media has not been adversarial towards him. No, every time he makes a media appearance he’s always smiling, and I remember that time where he was dancing on the Ellen DeGeneres show while America was still at war in the Middle East and bailing out the banks. In fact, they are now busy establishing a shining legacy for him. And during the election debates, Obama seemed to be treated as some kind of sacred cow, where one candidate saying something bad about him seemed to amount to a strike against that candidate. It’s like the reality of the Obama administration never sunk in with some people. He was indicative of a kind of celebrity politics – the kind where the worst woman in politics can be treated as a hero to women,  where the Catholic Church is absolved of its sin by another religious fraud (by which I mean “fuck Pope Francis”), and where people who are normally unconcerned with religion can look at a bird landing on Bernie Sanders’ podium and treat him like he’s the reincarnation of Rochindas Gandhi or Jesus fucking Christ!

 

Surrendering ICANN

In the fall of 2016, the Obama administration handed US control of ICANN, the institution responsible for oversight of the Internet and maintenance of web domains and databases, over to the global private sector, ending US control over the regulation of the Internet. This will, of course, open the door for foreign powers or foreign companies to make changes of their own. The problem with this is that the US government usually observes the value of freedom of speech in accordance with the principles of its Constitution. Other countries do not have the same principles – in fact, Europe has been pushing for more legislation to combat “hate speech“, which will require them to control the Internet, and China has been talking about “global governance” of the Internet. By surrendering control of ICANN, the Obama administration has opened up the possibility for foreign powers who are uninterested in First Amendment style freedom of speech and expression to exert their own control over the internet.

 

The lie of the great unifier

Back in 2008, the fact that he was the first African-American to be elected as President was a big deal, for some reason. So much so that he won a Nobel Peace Prize in September of 2009, only nine months into his first term when all he did was bail out the big banks and fuck all else. Americans were willing to believe, somehow, that a first African-American president would magically bring about racial togetherness in the country. But the reality is that, as time flew by under his watch, things have pretty much gotten worse. The rise of groups such as Black Lives Matter and trendy left-wing identity politics, particularly in the form of today’s “social justice” politics, has contributed to increased hostility and mistrust between the races. And this has been apologized for under the odious curtain of liberal guilt, while the facts contradict the narrative that support it.

 

No, you didn’t

“Yes we can”, “Change”, “Hope”. These were the slogans that surrounded an optimistic political campaign for a charismatic politician. Who in the end turned out to be just another politician, cut from the same cloth as all the rest – including the Bush administration. Obama turned out to be a nice little slogan for the Democrats to use in order to get back into power.

And let me tell you something else about Obama: Obama can play 300 rounds of golf, often with Bill Clinton or David Cameron joining in, while he’s doing his taxpayer funded job and nobody’s brow gets raised at least once. His predecessor George W. Bush gets shown playing golf whilst pontificating about how America must combat the threat of Islamic terrorism, and he is crucified as showing the classic hallmark of a typical politician (which, in all fairness, he was).

Oh, and what about the fact that the middle class has been shrinking, or the fact that Americans are poorer now than they were during the Bush administration? What was that again about hope and change?

 

Endorsing Hillary Clinton

Say you have an election on, and one of the candidates has a history of corruption under her name and one of the most hated politicians in the country because of it. What’s one thing you don’t do in that situation? Back that candidate and endorse her as an unofficial successor to your legacy. I can hardly think of anything more damaging to the Hillary Clinton campaign, other than Wikileaks or Project Veritas, than this. What this essentially communicates is that one of the most disliked and reviled presidential candidates ever, one who has been treated with contempt as a politician for longer than Donald Trump has I might add, and one of the most dishonest politicians I can think of is being endorsed by a President who has failed to be the change that he promised to be in the eyes of many. Imagine you are the kind of American voter who, prior to the 2016 election, supported for Obama and voted for him in either 2008, 2012 or both, and afterwards you become disillusioned by the Obama administration because, in your eyes, things have not gotten much better under his watch. How are you going to feel knowing that this guy has deemed Hillary Clinton as fit to carry out her legacy? You’re probably going to think “this guy was a failure of a politician and a charismatic liar, and he’s just endorsed one of the biggest liars and most corrupt people in politics”.

 

Really, the only good things I can see coming out of the Obama administration were the nationwide legalization of gay marriage and the end of the Cuban embargo, as well as marijuana being legalized in parts of the USA and the last-minute commuting of Chelsea Manning.

 

Some pre-Inauguration thoughts

This week I will be disrupting my plans for the blog slightly in order to release a few posts about the upcoming inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States of America, including this one as well as a post on my thoughts on the ceremony itself after I finish following it. I’ll also be releasing a post about Barack Obama that I’ve been sitting on for a long time since the 2016 election cycle, sending him off as he leaves the White House in that special, cynical way that I feel inclined to (let’s face it, if you followed my blog from its early days you’ll no that I just don’t like the Obama administration, for reasons that will become clear as you will see within this week).

Truth be known, however, I write this particular post with a sense of concern on my mind. While I think it is likely that the inauguration ceremony will go ahead on Friday without too many problems, there is a fear that I had at the back of my mind. I know that there will be those who will seek to protest the inauguration, in fact there is a movement of protesters who plan to “disrupt” the inauguration of Donald Trump in whatever way, but that is not my main concern. I know that there is great animosity, indeed I would even say antipathy, towards Donald Trump among many people in America. There are many who refuse to accept him as President, despite having been elected just as any other President before him has been, and it seems the US media is actively against him to the point that they will print or give credence to unverified gossip and even conspiracy theories in order to try and undermine him. You even have people who believe that they are part of some kind of “resistance” against Donald Trump, drumming up the kind of propaganda that some will recognize as echoing the era of the Cold War, and some people who unironically suggest violence against either Trump or the Republicans. It may only a matter of time before some violent ideologue, or some political zealot, uses that to carry out some kind of violent action, kind of like how Micah Xavier Johnson went from a troubled US army veteran to the murderer of five police officers in Dallas.

My main fear is that, and keep in mind that I consider this to be the very worst case scenario, either someone will once again try to assassinate Donald Trump, this time during the inauguration ceremony, or that the protests that occur in the country will eventually become violent after some radical agitates things, perhaps hijacking what may overall a peaceful protest, and cause destruction and harm innocent people in the process. We already know that after the results of the election came in and Donald Trump was elected President, America saw protests across the nation, which then devolved into riots. The fact is that there is a contingent of the politically active American population that is so anti-Trump that that will not allow themselves to accept the legitimacy of a Trump presidency no matter what, and I suspect that some of them will stop at nothing to prevent it from happening if it were up to them. There’s even already talk of political violence among some in the DisruptJ20 movement.

And guess who else is getting involved?

None other than Antifa: that infamous band of far-left brownshirts who don’t even realize that don’t even realize that they are the ones acting like Nazis by imposing their political will on others by violently attacking people who hold the opposite opinion, and the very same group of people who tried to disrupt the International Left Hand Path Consortium last year. I wonder what Augustus Sol Invictus must be thinking right now. Anyways, not only do they intend to show up as part of the DisruptJ20 protests,  which they have announced on Twitter, but if a recent video courtesy of Project Veritas is accurate then they may be plotting some kind of political violence at the Deploraball event. It seems likely to me that these people will stop at nothing to try and thwart the inauguration of Donald Trump by whatever means they deem necessary, and will not have any qualms with their methods.

Honestly, I hope I am wrong and that nothing happens, everything turns out to be fine and everyone including the president elect is safe and unharmed. But I wouldn’t put it past some of the radicals to try and make sure that the inauguration ceremony is marred by political violence. I am hopeful, for the sake of my American readers, that what I anticipate for Friday turns out to be incorrect, and that anyone in the area of the inauguration ceremony or of any potential protests remains safe.

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.

The Divine Individual

This is the first of a series of posts I will write discussing the topic of the mythological figure of Jesus, because there’s a lot about the subject, and of the related subject of Christianity that I have on my mind. And to start, I’d like to write about an idea promoted by Jordan Peterson, professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, because he sparked some interesting ideas in my head. I’m sure you remember Peterson best as the professor who stood at the center of a crowd of social justice warrior type protesters who were attacking a free speech rally at the University of Toronto where he was protesting Bill C-16, a Canadian law which would add the subjectively defined notions of gender identity and gender expression to a list of prohibited grounds of discrimination and criminalize “hate propaganda” based on gender identity – which, in practice, seems to amount to the ability to punish someone for refusing to call someone “ze”. But enough about that, let’s talk about his concept of the Divine Individual.

The Divine Individual is a concept that Jordan Peterson uses to illustrate as a principle that societies, in need of social cohesion, can use to unite under a banner and organize in order to overcome fragmentation whilst avoiding both nihilism and totalitarianism. Let’s go through an excerpt of his New Year’s Message on his YouTube channel where he outlines the premise. We’ll explore this bit by bit, exploring pertinent points made by Peterson.

One alternative to fragmentation is, of course, union under a banner. A collective ideal, cause or purpose. The problem with uniting under a banner, as the postmodernists who push identity politics rightly point out, is that to value something means simultaneously to devalue other things. Thus to value is an exclusionary process. But the alternative is valuelessness, which is equivalent to nihilism, and nihilism does not produce freedom from exclusion; it just makes everyone excluded. And that’s an intolerable state: directionless, uncertain, chaotic and angst-ridden. When such uncertainty reaches a critical level, the counter-response appears. First the unconscious, and then the collectively expressed demand for a leader possessed by totalitarian certainty, who promises, above all, to restore order. Thus a society without an underlying principle oscillates unmoored between nihilism and totalitarianism. Human beings have been wrestling with this problem since the beginning of civilization. When our capacity to form large groups, for all its advantages, also started to pose a new threat: that of the hyper-domination of the state or collective purpose. But without the state there’s just fragmentation into smaller groups.

I just want to raise this point because it sounds like this is how he understands the dichotomy of order and chaos. For Peterson, chaos is the state of society characterized by valuelessnees, uncertainty and nihilism, one that eventually gives way to order, but at an extreme level, which he identifies as totalitarian certainty. I find it interesting how this can be interpreted in the political/cultural context of current society: the modern left has embraced postmodernism and valuelessness, only to give rise to totalitarian certainty. An uneasy example of this is found in the social justice warriors, which openly embrace totalitarianism in order to prop up postmodern ideology. Of course that’s probably a more liberal perspective. A more conservative perspective might be that the SJWs, and leftists in general, embraced valuelessness and postmodernism, creating conditions that will allow totalitarianism to take hold: whether by the hand of big government, communism or radical Islam (and make no mistake: Islam and communism are, in practice, among the ultimate embodiments of what Peterson would call totalitarian certainty). The other reason I find this very fascinating is because the whole tension presented by Peterson it reminds me of quite a few discussions I had on the subject with other people, and it also reminds me of the theme of Law and Chaos in the Shin Megami Tensei series, as well as one of my favorite passages in the history of the written word: the opening passage of Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been.” – Luo Guanzhong, Romance of the Three Kingdoms

It illustrates Guanzhong’s cyclical worldview regarding empire, or more specifically the Chinese empire, which seems to be characterized by a history of fragmentation and civil war, followed by unity under the banner of a new emperor and dynasty, followed by fragmentation and civil war after the decline of the dynasty, and so repeats (presumably until the advent of the modern republic of China, but that’s as far as my knowledge of Chinese history goes I’m afraid). It also kind of evokes the kind of cyclical worldview found in Taoism, one of the main religions historically practiced in China and still practiced to this day. Speaking of Taoism, it seems to me like Peterson has a very yin and yang view of order and chaos, and the dangers of their extremes, much like I do. I suppose that’s why I like him, coupled with the way he elucidates this understanding. Anyways, enough of the massive tangent, let’s get back to the next important point.

In the West, starting in the Middle East thousands of years ago, a new idea began to emerge – evolve is not too strong a word – in the collective imagination. You might, following [Richard] Dawkins, consider this a meme, although this is far too weak a word. This idea, whose development can be traced back through Egypt to Mesopotamia, before disappearing into unwritten history, is that of the divine individual.  The eons-old work of the imagination is a dramatic presentation of an emergent idea, which is the solution to how to organize social being without falling prey to nihilistic divisiveness or deceitful totalitarian certainty. The group must unite, but under the banner of the individual. The individual is the source of the new wisdom that updates the antiquated, nihilistic or totalitarian detritus and glory of the past.”

This is where we, finally, come to the main point – the concept of the Divine Individual. In a way it actually reminds me of characters who might fulfill the narrative of the “monomyth”, or the Hero’s Journey, courtesy of Joseph Campbell, which funny enough we had to talk about during the second year of my game design course. You know, that structure that has influenced the development of many films, such as the Star Wars films, and details the archetypal hero’s quest for glory, or for greater knowledge and wisdom. I see the Divine Individual as possibly a person (or, in mythical terms, a deity) who has undertaken that journey and accrued a powerful new wisdom which he brings back to the world at large, in that sense becoming the source of the new wisdom.

Also, there definitely are examples of characters that might fit the idea of the Divine Individual in various cultures in the regions Peterson mentions. In Mesopotamia we have the story of Gilgamesh, who travels to find the secret of immortality only to realize that humans cannot achieve immortality. There’s also Utnapishtim (aka Atra-Hasis or Ziusudra), the man who built a great boat and survived a flood before Noah did it and was blessed by the gods afterwards. I could also make the argument for the Babylonian deity Marduk possibly being an example – by challenging and slaying Tiamat, the draconic embodiment of the primordial chaos, Marduk overthrows the rule of an older group of primordial deities and creates the cosmos out of the spoils of battle, creates mankind out of the blood of one of her monster allies, Kingu, mankind is created. In Egypt I find this is more difficult to find, but I believe the best example is the sun god himself, Ra, who every day undergoes a journey to the underworld, and with the help of his guardians (or sometimes on his own in the form of a cat) he defeats the serpent Apep and the forces of evil, who would otherwise destroy the cosmos, and ensures that the light of the sun continues to shine on Egypt. Why stop there?

For better or worse, that idea reaches its apogee in Christianity. The divine individual is masculine because the feminine is not individual. The divine feminine is instead mother and child. However, it is a hallmark of Christian supposition that the redemption of both men and women comes from the masculine, and that’s because the masculine is the individual. The central realization, expressed dramatically and symbolically, is that the subordination of the group to the ideal of the divine individual is the answer to the paradox of nihilism and totalitarianism. The divine individual is the man that every man admires, and the man who all women want their men to be. The divine individual is the ideal from which deviations are punished by the group with contempt and disgrace, and fidelity to which is rewarded with attention and honor.

And here’s where we come to the part where Peterson ascribes the role of the divine individual to Jesus. I can’t help but disagree with a few things here, but we’ll start with the role of Jesus. I’ll grant that the conventionally understood form of Jesus can indeed fit the role of the divine individual – besides being the offspring of a deity (which I don’t think was mandatory for the role), he studied Jewish law and went on to spread, supposedly, a new form of Jewish teaching that spoke of the end times coming, God coming to overthrow the corruption of Rome and telling people to love they neighbor. He is, however, not much of a reformer. In fact, Jesus is quoted in the Bible as saying that he favors the old Jewish law.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” – Matthew 5:17-18

And this apparently even includes the stuff about loving thy neighbour. That famous New Testament verse was actually from the Book of Leviticus, the same text that condemns lying with another man as with a woman. I suspect Jesus was only considered a reformer in the sense that he came after the Pharisees because he viewed them as hypocrites, possibly because they advocated following the spirit rather than the letter of Jewish law and maybe because they put less control of the Jewish teachings in the hands of just the priests. He would have been a conservative who wanted to preserve the dogma of Jewish lore, rather than the reformist source of a new wisdom that would have updated the dogma. In fact, one of the things he criticized the Pharisees for was that they didn’t kill disobedient children, which was sanctioned by Jewish law in the Old Testament, the very same law that Jesus was sent to uphold. Jesus was also the kind of guy who talked about fearing God, condemned entire cities for not believing him, reserved eternal hellfire for those he damned and ordered people to chop off hands and feet to cleanse themselves of sin. Sounds like he’s a figure of totalitarianism to me, and that’s not all there is to it (I will address that in a separate post). The other embodiment of totalitarian certainty is, of course, his father, Jehovah/YHVH – the deity who demands blind faith and complete obedience according to the Bible or you will be destroyed or condemned to eternal damnation. So the main problem I have is that Jesus is quite easy to deconstruct based on what is actually written in the Bible.

Interestingly enough, however, since there is a figure of totalitarian certainty in the Christian religion, what represents the opposite – that of valuelessness and nihilism? I would argue that, for the Christians, that doesn’t mean Satan, as one might suspect, but rather Hell itself. In the popular Christian conception of Hell, Hell is either the lake of fire where in the soul is tormented by demons, or a place of darkness where the soul is completely and utterly separated from God, either way it is the source of horror, weeping and the gnashing of teeth. But typically, it is the place where the soul no longer knows the love or the presence of God, and instead knows torment and anguish. There are verse of the Bible which seem to imply both

Other than that, there are other points to make. It is generally true that the heroic figures of many mythologies are male, and many goddesses embody a maternal role. But I can think of one female mythological figure who doesn’t necessarily fit this role – the Babylonian goddess Ishtar. She journeys into the underworld, the land of the dead and of death, without fear, to try and fight Ereshkigal, the ruling goddess of the underworld, only to wind up imprisoned, striken with disease and killed by one of her minions, and then resurrected by a eunuch of the gods and returning to the surface to – all to revive her lover, Tammuz (deity of vegetation), after he died. And the idea of the man that every man wants to be and every woman wants their men to be I find is easily exemplified in, say, Greek mythology, where we can find such heroic figures – like Hercules, Achilles, Perseus, Odysseus, Jason or Theseus – men who in the modern world are still lionized in popular culture. Or hell, not even just mythology: did someone forget about Leonidas I, or Alexander the Great if his ruler cult is anything to go by? Those people became immortalized, in a manner of speaking, both in ancient religion (as is the case in Alexander the Great) and modern fiction (Leonidas I).

The divine individual is the builder, maintainer and expander of the state, he who boldly goes where no man has gone before, and someone who watches eternally over the widows and the children. His power of direct and honest communication is that which identifies, discusses and then resolves the continually emerging problems of human existence. 

I guess that’s one reason for him to think of Jesus as fitting the role, considering Jesus is sometimes depicted in a regal fashion, and is often referred to by Christians as their “king”. But I think this applies to Marduk as well. As the creator of the cosmos, king of the gods and patron deity of the city of Babylon, I think the role of the builder, maintainer and expander of the state suits a ruler figure such as Marduk. Or how about Ziusudra or Gilgamesh, who were both kings?  Or how about the rulers who were deified in classical Greece? Indeed I see this applying outside the Christian context pretty much categorically.

However, I’m willing to put forward because of its long-standing presence in human culture, and the clearly positive values attributed to it, I think the idea of the divine individual is worth pursuing. I think Peterson’s concept should be influential to me at least, as it seems like an effective way of expressing the idea that . In a way, pursuing the ideal of the individual is an idea I suspect some Left Hand Path systems, if not many, actively pursue. In fact, I see this in Luciferianism, and the way we Luciferians view the example of Lucifer – a mythological being that has evolved for so long in the collective imagination, from possibly being a Canaanite/Ugaritic deity associated with the morning star to being the figure of the Enlightenment. For us I think he’s more like the Enlightenment type figure, though more influenced by the John Milton characterization of Satan (which, if we’re being honest, sort of comes from the Christian characterization of both Satan and Lucifer). On this basis, I think the concept of the Divine Individual is worthy of appraisal and analysis.

Lucifer

Lucifer

 


If you want to see all of the posts that Jordan Peterson discussed, click here. I highly recommend it, because his perspective is nonetheless a fascinating one.

Also, I think he kind of deserves a little appreciation. At least because, as you’ll see in the video, he seems deeply troubled, if not pained, by some of the maladies he sees in the modern world, and I think he’s really trying to set things right in his own way by speaking his mind.