#Anarcho-Satanism | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

cavegirlpoems · 9 days ago

Text

They Think Empathy Is A Sin Because They Worship Satan, Literally, Not Metaphorically: an esay.

OK so. I am going to do something inadvisable and make a lengthy post about something other than game design, because I can and I want to.

It's a long one. Like, extremely long. So, to avoid "Do you like the colour of the sky [gone quaker, gone tolstoy, christian anarchist edition]", here's a convenient break so you can scroll past if lengthy religious diatribes aren't your thing.

To begin with, some baselines. I am writing from a Christian perspective. More specifically, I would describe myself as a Liberal Quaker. To me, at least, this involves Christianity as a communal mystical practice, with unprogrammed worship (IE no clergy) and an entirely flat religious heirarchy. Values associated with this branch of religion include honesty, charity, humility and peace.

I adopted Quakerism as a religious framework because it was the one that worked for me. I was raised in, and still live in, a culturally Christian society; as such, Christianity provided a religious framework of symbols and meanings that I was culturally fluent with, whereas other faiths would have required a steeper learning curve since I lack that baseline familiarity. That said, I try to study and understand other religions: I would say that what I've learned of Islam and Budhism - while I'm far from an expert - have been valuable to me.

Politically, I lean hard to the left and hard towards anarchy/libertarianism. I would describe my politics as antifascist first, and then largely anarcho-communist after that, but I'm a pretty big-tent progressive. I'm also a british trans woman who keeps ending up voting Lib Dem for lack of better options, if that gives you any context.

Now, let's define some terms as I understand them and intend to use them. These are all metaphors or symbols, that we can use poetically to better articulate certain ideas. I use Christian imagery here, because that's what I'm fluent with; if I was instead fluent with Jewish or Daoist or some other religious culture, I'd be expressing my ideas with those symbols instead. So.

God: A manifestation/personification/symbol of absolute perfect goodness. God is Love. That is God is absolute unconditional love for all of creation.

Jesus/Christ: Jesus is a representation of God's love for us humans taking tangible effect. Jesus is a sacrifice God made on our behalf to rescue us from Sin. Jesus is inspired by the historical figure Yeshua of Nazareth, a 1st-century Jewish religious thinker who was quite popular and then executed by the Roman occupation.

Sin/Original Sin: Sin is simple, it's when we do bad things that hurt people. Since God loves all of us and doesn't want us hurt, God doesn't want us to Sin. Original sin is part of us; the fact that we are capable of Sinning simply because we're human.

Satan/The Devil: Satan is the force that urges us to Sin.

Heaven/Paradise: A state of goodness, where - since we have escaped sin and embraced God's wishes for us, we do not suffer.

Hell/Damnation: The state of rejecting God and personally embracing Sin, and therefore suffering.

When I talk about these things, I do not mean them in the literaly sense that a fundamentalist might. I do not believe that there is an actual literal guy called Satan who is red with stylish little horns and a goattee who spends all day tempting people and poking dead souls with a pitchfork.

Rather, these are social constructs. By way of analogy, gender and money are social constructs; they're concepts that have no inherent existence in a world that's ultimately just atoms and energy in a vacuum, but because we believe in them and lend them social weight, they gain power in our lives. In the same way the concepts of God, Satan, Sin, etc clearly effect the world. Saying 'Sin' isn't real is like saying your bank account isn't real; it has a tangible effect on the world, so it's useful to discuss it.

Does this mean that I think God, Sin, etc are just made up arbitrary symbols? No. I happen to believe in them. I happen to actively choose to believe in them, because I want to invest them with meaning in my life. This is why it's called 'faith' and not 'rational observation'. But even if they were purely arbitrary ideas, then I think that - like other purely arbitrary ideas such as 'human rights' and 'love' - they're worth believing in anyway.

Lastly, the Bible. I like the bible. It's an old historical text with some incredibly beautiful writing in it, that conveys some potent and meaningful messages. It is very obviously not an account of literal fact, but interpreted through a lens of metaphor or poetry it has a lot to teach. Not everything in it is perfect - it's a historical text that has been translated and retranslated repeatedly - but IMHO you can get a lot out of it, and its writers were, as a general rule, onto something.

You will notice that these ideas are wildly counter to the culturally conservative evangelical christian mainstream. They are, however, entirely unremarkable within the framework of liberal theology.

OK. These should be our base assumptions going in. Perhaps you disagree with them; if so, that's nice for you, but here I'm describing my worldview, not prescribing what yours should be.

It is perhaps notable that I've got this far in and only just finished defining my terms.

SO.

I have observed in the past that there are - effectively - two different, largely incompatible, religions both called Christianity. On the one hand, we have what I believe in, a belief structure that champions such virtues as mercy, forgiveness, peace and humility. On the other hand, we have the mainstream conservative evangelical christian right; this version of christianity values things like obedience, authority and (most of all) punishment.

These are fundamentally incompatible belief structures. As a stark illustration of this, consider what these two christianities want for wrongdoers. One branch wants them to repent, atone and be forgiven. The other wants them to be punished and suffer for their transgressions.

I am going to differentiate between these two beliefs. Because it's my essay and I'm on my side, I will call my beliefs Christianity, and the other side Christian Fascism.

I would argue that my values are more fundamental to the underlying message of Christianity (as derived from the teachings of that guy Yeshua I mentioned) than the other approach. In no particular order:

we have the parable of the prodigal son. Here, Yeshua teaches his followers that when somebody fucks up and then changes their mind, this is to be celebrated and they are to be welcomed back. The message of reconciliation and forgiveness is obvious.

we have the parable of the good samaritan. Again, the message is clear: we must seek to do right by even our enemies.

there are many other stories and teachings attributed to Yeshua with similar messages. Forgiveness and redemption are constant themes in his teachings. He praises the humble and the downtrodden consistently.

However, most importantly, we have the central facet of Christianity itself; the crucifixion. What happens here, and why?

God comes to earth as Jesus, and - after spreading his message described above - is publicly tortured to death in one of the most horrific execution methods available at the time. This sacrifice is made, knowingly, to absolve humanity of Sin. All of humanity. No exceptions. God loves us, He wants us to be forgiven when we sin, so he suffers and dies for us to offer us a way out.

It's right there. John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." God loves the entire world so much that He made this sacrifice, so that whoever wants it can be saved. No exceptions. Whoever you are, God loves you, and sent Jesus so you can be saved if you want it.

This is the single central pillar on which the entire rest of Christianity is built.

So, yes. The 'no true scotsman' argument gets used in discussions around Christianity, but in this instance I firmly believe that it is, in fact, possible to say that somebody is doing Christianity wrong, because the central message of Christianity stands for something (mercy, redemption, charity, etc) and when somebody acts in opposition to that, then whatever they are doing is not christian.

(an analogy: suppose somebody called themselves a communist, but in practice they voted for right-wing parties, assisted the owning-class over the class interests of the workers, espoused anti-communist rhetoric, and never did anything communist. They could claim all they want: the truth remains that they are failing to be a communist through their actual behaviour. likewise any other set of principles).

So. Christianity is not Christian Fascism. Christian Fascism is, instead, fascism wearing christianity as a disguise. They are not, meaningfully, christian, they just want you to think they are. They might believe it themselves, even.

Another example: terfs. Terfs are transphobic bigots who appropriate the name of feminism to advance their transphobic agendas. They want you to believe they're feminists. They might believe they're feminists themselves. But the things they say, and do, and seem to believe are profoundly unfeminist, and feminism as a movement has a duty to reject them. That terfs wear the mask of feminism doesn't discredit the actual feminist movement.

It's idealogical parasitism. Hollowing out one ideology and wearing its skin to advance the agenda of a different, opposing ideology.

Fascists do this a lot because the actual things they want are straightforwardly evil, and being evil on purpose tends not to be popular until you're, like, super indoctrinated, so they use appropriate the language of other movements as a trojan horse.

To my mind, there is a fairly simple litmus test for these things. There are two groups in the Bible that we are repeatedly, consistently, unequivocably told to treat well. One is Widows. The other is Refugees. These two groups were hilighted by the writers for a reason; they're vulnerable demographics with fewer social connections to support themselves, who can easily be neglected or actively victimised by a society that doesn't make an active choice to support them. When Yeshua says "Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me", they are 'the least of these'.

Luckily, widows are not in the modern day at the centre of a huge culture war. Refugees, however?

So. A good litmus test. How somebody believes we should treat refugees, and immigrants more broadly. The message of the Bible is consistently to help foreigners who come to your country, to provide for them and help them settle. Jesus doesn't make any exceptions about visas or 'legal immigration' or contributing to the economy. He tells you in no uncertain terms that you must help refugees, always, every time. If you disagree with that... you're not a Christian, you're a Fascist appropriating Christianity.

(There is a massive discussion that could go here about the bible's position on sexuality, queerness, divorce, etc etc. I cannot be bothered with all that. The christian-fascist reading of these verses tends to get the most visibility, because the translations of the bible with the most visibility leaned into these interpretations. there are other interpretations and other translations that don't have these problems. I could go into more detail, but I have better things to discuss. Two key points:

the bible was written in societies where the family was incredibly reliant - socially and economically - on the husband's support. If the husband casts aside his wife and family, or stops giving a shit about them, they're totally fucked. This is the same society where 'do not let widowed women starve if they no longer have a husband to support them' is reiterated constantly. So, many admonishments against adultery etc should be read in this light: your family rely on you, do not abandon them. Many other passages - eg sodom & gomorrough - are likewise condemnation of things like sexual abuse.

more importantly, remember, the central message of christianity is one of absolute universal love so powerful that Jesus personally sacrificed himself to save us. All of us. 'The world' that God loved includes the gays and the divorcees etc. That central message takes precedent over any edge-case reading you might find that suggests that God's love has exceptions.)

There is an asymetry in public discussions of christianity (and, I think, religion more broadly).

If you have a set of beliefs that value everybody's intrinsic worth, that values considers charity and mercy good, that tells you to embrace foreigners and outgroups more generally, you will tend to the left. You will tend to adopt other left-wing ideas alongside it. Among these are ideas like cultural sensitivity, inclusivity, etc. If you believe Jesus commands you to embrace foreigners, then you will do your best not to reject them or their practices, even if they practice a different religion to you. This is doubled when christianity is a culturally hegemonic force, and you wish to do right by the meek and the humble who are being oppressed (often by that hegemonic force of christianity).

What this means is that on the left - where those following the message of Christianity properly should end up - there is an understanding that making explicitely Christian arguments is alienating and disrespectful to those you should have solidarity with. So, as a result of following (Christian) moral principles, the leftist Christian will generally not express their principles in explicitely religious terms, even when they could do so.

Not so on the right. The right doesn't have a problem with making the outgroup feel alienated or disrespecting them. Often, it quite likes this. So, they will use christian language to express their ideas.

So, even if both sides are balanced in numbers - heck, even if the christian fascists are significantly in the minority - the majority of people being vocally christian will be the christian fascists. And this presentation will reinforce the issue.

If this pattern continues within christian circles as well as in public forums - and it does in my experience - then this likewise gives the christian fascists a dispropportionate influence over what christianity becomes. So, it becomes important that in internal discussions, christian fascism be vocally opposed, and opposed in explicitely religious terms.

The fascists are not doing christianity. They do not speak for christianity, and they are not representative of the entirety of christianity. Their hollowing-out-and-puppetting of christianity to promote evil is itself an act of evil; people like this are why we have the word blasphemy.

Seeing somebody spewing hatred that results in actual, material harm to actual, real vulnerable people, and claiming that this is done in the name of Christ, is a profoundly horrific and perverse thing. It makes me feel ill to witness it.

(A further thought: traditionally, Christianity has held that Salvation is through both belief and works. That you must not only want salvation, you must act on it - which is to say, be a good person. If you claim to be saved but continue to willfully sin, that isn't good enough. So, christianity is what you do, not just how you label yourself. There is a correlation between discarding the belief in salvation by works, and christian fascism. John Calvin's spanner remains in the works to this day).

A thought on Idolatory. What is idolatory? In my view, the treatement of a man-made, worldly thing with the same reverence as holy things. If there is an object or symbol that represents a worldly, human thing that you insist must be treated with reverence and ceremony - as if it was holy - then you have made an idol of that thing.

You know, when I first learned about the way americans treat their flag, I was horrified. Because that flag is an idol. It is so obviously and clearly an idol, and yet. And yet.

Patriotism and nationalism - the revering of the state - is idolatory.

The way we fetishise cops and the military is idolatory.

Even discounting that these symbols are things that do horrific evil as their stated goals, you have taken a human thing - a political body - and treated it like its sacred.

When we consider that an Idol can be a concept or a structure, and not just a literal graven image, we start to see idolatory everywhere on the political right. This is, after all, the entire concept of 'civil religion'. The american founding fathers are not saints, the american constitution is not a holy text, and the american flag is not a holy relic, and the treatment of these things like they are is obvious and flagrant idolatory.

Read up on Tolstoy's thoughts on christian anarchism, as a logical end point of these ideas.

A little diversion on the Antichrist. I dont think Revelations is a literal predictive prophecy, I think it's a warning. It describes - through poetic and symbolic language - pitfalls the faithful might encounter, and encourages them to stand firm against them, and promises that however dire things get, good will triumph over evil in the end. It says 'things will get bad, here are some specific ways they might get bad, but you should hold onto hope'.

Who is the Antichrist in this text? It describes a type of person. Somebody wealthy and politically powerful, who achieves a position of global power and unifies disparate nations under his banner. He isn't christian, but he makes a pretence at piety and convinces the masses to treat him as a religious figure, even as he perverts and distorts religion towards his own hateful ends. He's supported by powerful cultural entities, and combined with his charisma this makes his ascent to power seem inevitable. He is utterly, utterly evil, but he also has really powerful branding that people willingly adopt. He will rise to power in a time of turmoil, sickness and widespread disasters.

Remind you of anybody?

His mark goes on the forehead and the right hand. The red maga hat, and the roman salute. I know I'm doing a paradoelia here, but surely I'm not the only one seeing this shape in the inkblots?

In times like these, I keep coming back to Revelations, and its message that even though things will get really bad, there is always hope, and God's love wins out in the end.

So. The christian fascists are not doing Christianity. They are not following Christ's agenda, which is one of universal love, mercy, and redemption. So, what are they doing, and whose agenda are they serving?

I think you see where this argument is going.

I have not discussed Satan much yet, because while I'm cogniscent of Satan's influence, my faith focusses on Christ; on mercy and redemption and fundamentally goodness rather than evil. But discussing satan becomes pertinent.

Satan is not simply a red guy with a goatee scheming to take over the world like Bible-Skeletor. Indeed, satan is not really a 'guy' at all; it's a tendency. It's the urge to sin, the temptation to not be your best self, or to be your worst self. Every time somebody pisses you off and you have that little spiteful urge to fuck them over? That idea is satan. Every time you want to take something for yourself when somebody else needs it more? Satan.

It is, I think, useful to have a concept of satan that you can personify, so you can (internally) argue against those urges.

Anyway. God loves us universally and absolutely, and wants us to flourish and prosper and do right by each other. Not doing that is Sin. So, here are some things that are sins:

the pursuit of material wealth and power at others expense (see; camels and needles, the meek and their inheritence, etc).

the defining of outgroups against whom cruelty is acceptably or encouraged.

the belief that some people are lesser; less deserving of God's grace and mercy, and so your own kindness too.

raising worldly human powers - states, laws, militaries, flags - into idols.

the - as established - blasphemous perversion of God's will towards evil ends.

These are pretty central patterns we see over and over again among the christian fascists.

They see the outgroup (queers, sluts, immigrants, muslims, people who get abortions, jews, leftists, and so on and so on) as lesser, as deserving of punishment, and they embrace the thought that God will punish them with eternal hell. (See that time pope franky said he hoped Hell was empty, and a lot of these people were furiously angry at the thought.)

They think 'prosperity gospel' isn't a blasphemous oxymoron.

They treat human authorities - cops, armies, nations - with reverence. They fucking love flags, they get extremely patriotic.

They take their hunger for power and their hatred, and they wrap it in the bible - they take God's name in vain - and sully holy things with their evil.

Plus, if we scroll back up to my tangent about the antichrist, there's a pretty good contender for the role currently, and they've embraced him whole-heartedly.

So, their worldview promotes sin.

And they are obsessed with the Devil.

But they don't see it as something they must struggle with; after all, they tend to reject the idea of salvation through works, and claim their saved because they're saved. According to them, rather than doing Christ's work making them christian, because they claim to be christian whatever they do - no matter how evil - retroactively becomes Christ's work. The things they do are good because it's them doing them, and the exact same things done by their enemies would be evil.

So they ignore that little satan-urge in their head, and displace it. They see Satan in everything else, in the outside world, in everything that isn't christian fascism. And then they do Satan's work, by seeking to punish the people they project this satan onto.

What does Satan want? He wants you to hate, he wants you to hurt others, and to profit at their expense. And their religion teaches them to hate and punish others and profit.

They serve satan. And they do it in the name of faith. They are clearly worshipping. So, who do they worship? They worship the one their actions serve.

That is to arrive at the thesis statement of this whole essay, and something I sincerely and wholeheartedly believe, in a literal sense:

the right-wing evangelical Christian mainstream worships and serves Satan.

And then what? I will confess, I am as fallible as any other human. These people - due to their hatred - hurt me and people I love. I am angry at them. I am incandescently angry at the things they do. There is a slippery slope leading from righteous indignation to hatred, and I am struggling emotionally to stay at the top of the slope, and not become actively hateful.

But rationally, how I want to feel? What my better self feels? I feel pity. Hell isn't a place with lots of bats and fire, it's seperation from God's love, and - even if they don't realise it - they turn away from God, and they suffer, and their spread their suffering. They are profoundly spiritually sick, and I want them to get better. I want them to fucking stop. I want them to step out of the dark place they've gone to and return to God's side, and to repent, atone for their actions, and find the same Mercy I want for everybody.

It's fucking hard to look at somebody who viscerally hates me for existing, and want them to recieve salvation, but I try.

I don't know how to fix them or save them. They don't want to be saved. They think our attempts to reach out to them are corruption. They think mercy is weakness and pity tempts you.

They warn each other not to give in to the sin of empathy. It's fucking heartbreaking.

#christianity #christian faith #the sin of empathy #christian fascism #jesus #tolstoy #quaker #theology #liberal theology #liberal christianity #please play nice in the notes #i am aware that i am opening pandoras box here #faith

86 notes · View notes

maepersonal · 10 months ago

Text

What up, I'm Mae, I'm 19, and I never fucking learned how to read

main blog: @lockyle-and-skull

*all likes and follows will appear to come from there, even if we interact here*

about me: name: Mae or Ames age: 19 pronouns: ae/aer, it/its, she/her queer?: aroace + agender :3 why am I like this™?: autism, ocpd, bpd, ocd, adhd, anxiety, depression, alexithymia, aphantasia, dyspraxia, sometimes nonverbal & semiverbal, pots, tic disorder, sometimes agere (9-13ish) MBTI: ISTP :) aesthetic: here! :D element: water (duh) hogwarts house: slytherin ;) (I actually hate hp but I'm proud of my house) favorite colors: blue, green, purple nationality: american (canadian + german parents) shit I like: kpop: Lunarsolar, Xdinary Heroes, Ateez, Yena, Bibi, others more casually music: hardcore punk, punk, hard rock, symphonic metal, alt rock, nu metal, power metal, glam rock, hyperpop, Elliot Lee, Andrew Polec, Meat Loaf, Sick Puppies, In This Moment, Black Market Kidney Surgeons, Anti Flag (fuck justin sane), Iggy Pop, Car Seat Headrest musicals: Sweeney Todd (1982), Newsies, Ride the Cyclone, Bat Out of Hell, The Lightning Thief, Bonnie & Clyde, everything Starkid (but especially Starship, Black Friday, and Trail to Oregon) movies: The Human Centipede II: Full Sequence, Velvet Goldmine, Star Wars prequels, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Narnia, Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets tv shows: Lockwood and Co, Julie and the Phantoms, Haikyuu, The 100 games: Palworld, The Enchanted Cave 2, BATIM, YTTD, Children of Silentown, The Mortuary Assistant, Little Witch in the Woods, Until Dawn, The Quarry, SCP Foundation, Project Kat, definitely more stuff I'm forgetting other stuff: wet specimen taxidermy, punk diy, collecting weird shit, tornadoes, alchemy, statistics, photography, The Council <3, insects, being a non-theistic satanist (inspired by LaVeyan satanism), being punk, being an anarcho-communist tech support: op tag: #oh mae oh my pfp: Bronté Barbé as Katherine in Newsies UK header: MUU (ex-LUNARSOLAR) - Shooting Star MV not safe for littles tag: #nsfl - BLOCK IF NEEDED

let me know if you want anything tagged differently!!

FAQ:

why are u reblogging/interacting with therian/DID content? because I am very close with a system that has therians and non-human alters :)

what do you use this blog for? this blog is mostly for irl, kpop, bpd, other mental disorders, anarchy, aroace, agere, vents, and anything else I feel like doesn't fit on my main :)

no DNI, just don't be a dick.

#accidentally deleted it so here it is again ig #oh mae oh my

16 notes · View notes

colorful-cryptid · 8 months ago

Text

Our government is intentionally, unapologetically, and systematically an agent of evil (harm done to others for selfish gain). It is doing Satan’s work in the world and using the banner we thought united us as a people to mask itself. Christ’s calling is for us to abandon (transcend) nationalism for a True union in Him. When God lifts us out of our nationalism, we find the state that exploits it to be entirely antithetical to our greatest Love.

A system that does evil and forces or coerces your participation in it must be peacefully resisted by Christians. We must overcome evil by good. To the extent that we are to operate according to ideology, we should be at the forefront of culture waving a radically anarcho-pacifist sentiment.

#christian anarchism #christianity #politics #anti politics #anarchism #im taking about the USAmerican government by the way #but i think anti-statist values still apply even if your govt is less evil

12 notes · View notes

queersatanic · 2 months ago

Note

Hello! What is the purpose of this blog and what are you advocating for? Is there a way to be a satanist without being problematic?

Well, for the longest time the purpose of the blog was to let people know that we were being sued by an abusive religious organization, to inform people about more specifics of that org, and to share good ideas that are usually not associated with modern Satanism due to its historical roots in cryptofascist and white nationalist ideas.

(Anton LaVey was worse than you think, and The Satanic Temple is its own miserable rabbit hole of reactionary ideas and histories.)

But now TST has finally stopped trying to sue us, so we're trying to figure out how to orient our priorities. Being targeted with online harassment and financial ruin for 4.5 years will definitely push something up on your priorities list, but also, nobody else seems willing/interested/capable of holding this subculture accountable. Given everything else going on, maybe it's not worth the energy for us, either — and without being sued, nothing ties the four of us together.

So at present, we're hibernating, backing up old social media posts on the website, and trying to help spread work other esoteric antifascists are doing, such as Capital Area Satanists.

youtube

[full ritual text]

Also check out S8N NOT H8N, the Global Order of Satan project about identifying good anti-bigotry metal bands.

As you probably have noticed, we tend to steer people away from Satanism because it's mostly a dead-end and populated with all sorts of vile, cringe, and otherwise off-putting people who fancy themselves better than they are.

But there's also some utility for lots of people processing specifically Christian religious trauma with ritual and intention, and you can find other people who share that orientation and interest. You just have to put in a lot of work to be proactively anti-racist and antifascist given the actual history of LaVeyan Satanism and its successors.

#ask me anything #satanism #Queer Satanic #anarcho-satanism #Church of Satan #The Satanic Temple #Capital Area Satanists #Global Order of Satan #S8N NOT H8N

40 notes · View notes

satanicallypanicky · 2 years ago

Text

intro post, like if read

The Basics:

this is a side blog of @theonewhocounts

I'm 33 years old, white, transmasc genderqueer (they/he pronouns), and autistic.

this blog is for my spirituality. theistic Satanism, Anglo-Saxon heathenry, and eclectic paganism mostly, but I'm going to reblog all sorts of religious stuff that strikes my fancy or educates me about other faiths.

I am an anarcho-syndicalist and hold no frith with fascists. Radical inclusion or bust.

I do divination with tarot and oracle cards, dice, runes, and obsidian mirrors. Open for requests.

if you're interested in joining a small diverse discord server for theistic satanists of all sorts, hit me up for the invite link.

i tag answered asks with #ask

DNI, I guess?

Nazis, TERFs, antisemites, folkists, and any other such motherfuckers can fuck directly off into the sun.

Proselytizers of any stripe, including Christians who would like to convince me to "return to the Lord" or whathaveyou. No thanks.

I block porn blogs and fetish Satanists. Not because I don't like porn (I assure you, that's not the case) but because I don't want my devil-worshipping to be sexualized. Follow me from your non-porn accounts or don't follow me.

I block Lilith worshippers. I respect Judaism and Jewish culture as closed. Lilith is Not For Us. For full reasoning, see this ask.

The Somewhat Less Basics:

I'm white. My ancestry is predominately from Germanic and "British Isles", but I was raised entirely "privileged American WASP". Despite being exiled from that family and experiencing poverty and homeless as a teen and adult, my background shapes my worldview.

Given my settler-colonialist heritage, I make a conscious attempt to stay out of closed practices and appropriately honor the land upon which I live.

I was raised Anglican/Episcopalian, Lutheran, and Catholic (it's complicated).

I am an eclectic pagan and polytheist. I got started in paganism through genealogical research and an ancestral connection to Englisc/Anglo-Saxon heathenry (folkists GTFO) so most of my worship is conducted through that framework of practice.

I think most/all gods are real and powerful, but I am somewhat choosy about the ones I choose to honor and worship for myself. I suppose that makes me henotheist.

I am a theistic Satanist- I worship Satan as a god of rebellion and opposition, rejection of authoritarianism, justice, and forbidden knowledge (amongst other things). I worship several other gods and/or demons as aspects or very close counterparts of Satan. Further information can be found in this ask.

I venerate my ancestors and honor the spirits and wights of the land and the home.

I have no ill will towards Christians as individuals. Satan is the Adversary of the Christian god, however, and so there are things upon which Christians and myself will fundamentally disagree. And that's okay.

I hold some Buddhist practices & philosophy very close to my heart.

The Gods I Honor

Satanic “Pantheon”

Satan

Asmodeus

Azazel

Belial

Leviathan

Lucifer

Fyrnsidu (Englisc/Anglo-Saxon Heathen) Pantheon

Wōden

Frīg/Fréo

Ing

Thunor

Tīw

Sunne

Mōna

Herthe

Wada

Wuldor

Sceadu

I am more than happy to answer questions about my spirituality and what sorts of weird religious shit I get up to. Hit me up.

“Around us, life bursts with miracles--a glass of water, a ray of sunshine, a leaf, a caterpillar, a flower, laughter, raindrops. If you live in awareness, it is easy to see miracles everywhere. Each human being is a multiplicity of miracles. Eyes that see thousands of colors, shapes, and forms; ears that hear a bee flying or a thunderclap; a brain that ponders a speck of dust as easily as the entire cosmos; a heart that beats in rhythm with the heartbeat of all beings. When we are tired and feel discouraged by life's daily struggles, we may not notice these miracles, but they are always there.” -Thích Nhất Hạnh

#theistic satanism #anglo-saxon paganism #heathenry #satanic paganism #the gods #introduction #intro post #satanic worship #paganism #polytheism #satanism #diabolism #satanblr #dark aesthetic #my writing #OC

122 notes · View notes

spann-stann · 11 months ago

Text

Setting Blurb: Hoppe City

Nestled snugly in the Hanami Planum, Hoppe City is the largest human settlement on the dwarf planet Ceres, and the de facto capital of free market civilization. Everywhere you go, after stepping off the Rags to Riches interplanetary spaceport (and casino resort) the planet's rich mineral wealth rewards those that were the first to claim it. From the many facilities for mining and refining what lies below Ceres' crust to the luxury estates and skyscrapers of those that made it big (never mind the slums in Refoogietown), Hoppe City and Ceres as a whole would reward those that would work for it.

As the inner solar system was being colonized by the three human powers in the late 2300s, ambitious eyes turned towards the asteroid belt and saw only opportunity. It was only a matter of time before the many construction projects in the inner system created a demand for resources that only the Belt could supply. The first ones to seize the Belt would reap the rewards. CorpEmp and the W.C.O.F. would dispatch a few expeditions to the Belt, and a swarm of independent miners would stake their claim in the untapped riches floating between Mars and Jupiter. The largest contributor to the Belt Rush would be the United Markets, and the largest of the U.M. settlers came from the Hoppean subculture.

The U.M. back on Earth was growing too corpocratic and libertine for the more socially conservative Hoppeans, and what available real estate there was was either too crowded for their tastes or would become so at an uncomfortable taste. Several thousand Hoppeans began to pool resources and capital together in the 2350s to settle, mine, and develop a plot of the Cerean surface, with the first families given stewardship over plots purchased by a secondary wave of Hoppeans staying behind to continue financing the colony back on Earth. Each family would be responsible for either mining their plot, providing a service for the other settlers, or develop for future use. Everyone also had to pitch in to buy military equipment for security. No freeloaders, no market failures, and definitely no Imps or Commies. Reserves could join the settlement proper, or pay triple to hitch a ride and disappear into the icy crevices to stead all their lonesome. C.P.C. gangsters were shot on sight.

The 2,500 families of the first and second waves (also known as the First Steaders) ratified the Covenant Charter on September 2nd 2355 in a rented Las Vegas convention center, affirming all families' adherence to the Non-Aggression Principle and describing in great detail what is and isn't Aggression. To help retain a united sense of identity, the founding families would model their colony's culture and memetics after the New England Puritans and the Scottish Covenanters of the 16th and 17th centuries, mixed with the stylings of their own brand of anarcho-capitalism. Three years later the first transport craft would land on the site of what would become Hoppe City.

For the next 500 years, the denizens of Hoppe City laid low mining and developing their part of Ceres and keeping an eye on newcomers to their neck of the Belt. The Hoppeans' large volunteer militia kept their colony and the rest of Ceres out of the Belt Wars in the 2600s. Likeminded groups from the U.M. would arrive and establish communities of their own, eventually adopting the Covenanter model of anarchist society. The rest of the U.M.'s subfactions would arrive to stake their own claims of the dwarf planet, with the Hoppeans giving them a wide berth, and wildly divergent Marketeers (NEVER bring up the incident with the Church of Randian Satanism) were treated like they didn't exist. Most individual miners would try their luck in the mines of Hoppe City, tripling the population just in time for the Human-Crystalline War (2801-2885).

As the Crystalline Aliens had a nasty habit of attacking any significant human presence, Ceres' population evacuated to the many underground mining complexes and rode out the war. Hoppe City's private militias remained on-planet in the event of an attack, but a few volunteered to join the rest of U.M. security forces to drive the aliens out of the Solar System. The aliens never touched Ceres, and because of that refugees would flock to the dwarf planet, tripling the population yet again. Most of the refugee population would be moved to the aforementioned mining complexes, they could either wait until it was safe to be relocated (especially CorpEmp and W.C.O.F. populations, and especially after fighting between the two groups), or try their hand at joining the planet's population. This refugee problem, and the threat of alien invasion, would lead to the expansion of the private security industry on Ceres. Many famous firms today had their beginnings in many volunteers that fought the Human-Crystalline War (against alien or refugee gang). The one group the Hoppeans were really wary of were the execs of the megacorps (MicroBucks, Morgan Industries, etc.) from the U.M. core.

Although they were sequestered in their own territories on Ceres, the Hoppeans didn't want the megacorps to start thinking they could run the dwarf planet like the rest of their assets. The descendants of the Founding Steaders (and a few Founding Steaders themselves who used life extension technologies) met with the megacorp execs, and stated that on no certain terms would Ceres be run like the old FVMEs on Earth. Pre-emptive strikes against acts of aggression were perfectly legal according to Covenant Charter, and it would be a shame if the execs did anything that would be considered aggressive. A few execs got the memo and drank the Hoppean kool-aid, or quickly relocated. Sympathetic megacorp employees would also subvert their employers' memetics with that of the Covenanters, bringing them more in line ideologically with the Hoppeans. By the beginning of the 2900s, Ceres and especially Hoppe City, would become the industrial and economic capital of the United Markets.

With the alien threat removed and their competition suborned, the Hoppeans and Ceres did what they did best: minding their own business and mining. As human settlement expanded into the outer solar system, a few expert miners from Hoppe City went to try their hand at establishing daughter colonies in the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn. An even smaller few went out to stake their claims in the Extrasolar Territories. The Transhuman Wars were the only conflicts of the 31st century that the Hoppeans would get involved due to --DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BRING UP THE TRANSHUMAN WARS OR THE ACTIONS OF HOPPE HEDONICS IN HOPPE CITY - NEVER BRING UP THE TRANSHUMAN WARS - THERE WERE NO CATGIRLS - HOPPE HEDONICS NEVER PRODUCED CATGIRLS - UNDER THE REVISED COVENANT CHARTER OF 3106 ANY MENTION OF CATGIRLS CONSTITUTES AN ACT OF AGGRESSION-- in what would become know as Refoogie Town in the first layer of exhausted mining complexes below the city proper.

By the rise of CorpEmp's 5th ruling Dynasty, Hoppe City is an icy jewel that seems to only shine brighter. Most of Ceres by this point is "governed" (a dirty word in the U.M.) in covenants similar to Hoppe City, and Hoppean Scots has become the lingua franca of the myriad communites in the Asteroid Belt. Ceres has also emerged as the Mecca for developments in brine mining technology. Thousands of fortunes are made, lost, and won back daily in Hoppe City. In spite of all their history and achievements, however, there is one thing. One little frustrating thing that comes to most non-Cereans' minds first when asked to think about Hoppe City...

#my setting #setting #worldbuilding #United Markets #Hoppe City

7 notes · View notes

alephskoteinos · 9 months ago

Text

I've been made aware that one of my blog posts from about five years was cited in a book by Spencer Sunshine, "Neo-Nazi Terrorism and Countercultural Fascism", which was published in Routledge of all places. To be honest this catches me by surprise, and admittedly with a sense of trepidation, if not embarassment, but that's only because it's still a blog post. I definitely remember having a disclaimer regarding academic citations (although tbf that was pretty much just to stop university students from putting it in their dissertations or essays; I suppose it doesn't matter that much in this context).

If you're wondering, that post was a review of Carl Abrahamsson's documentary "Into the Devil's Den", which, to be fair, was a thoroughly obsequious tribute to the life of Anton LaVey. I think the basic throughline of what I said at the time holds up and I would defend the premise that Abrahamsson did not adequately investigate the legacy of the Church of Satan, and could not because he is a CoS member and clearly an avowed fan of LaVey himself. But that said I remember that 2019 was still in what I now call a "baby leftist" leftist era, and I came at it from that standpoint, a lot of which I would probably tear apart now (including the misadventures with Marxism that would come) because of the way I've come full circle to a kind of insurrectionary individualist anarchism/anarcho-nihilism in the years since. However, it was in this time also that I was certainly re-examining groups like the Church of Satan, and I owe that to anti-fascist researchers like Trident Antifascists, from whom I learned about the endemic Nazism of groups like the Church of Satan years ago. I don't know if they're around and I've tried to find their receipts again years later (I think some have disappeared), but if they're around I'd like to use this opportunity to say thank you to the Trident Antifascists.

#satanism #anti fascism #nazi satanists fuck off

3 notes · View notes

lockyle-and-skull · 10 months ago

Text

What up, I'm Mae, I'm 19, and I never fucking learned how to read

personal/kpop blog: @maepersonal

*all likes and follows will come from this account, even if we interact there*

about me: name: Mae or Ames age: 19 pronouns: ae/aer, it/its, she/her queer?: aroace + agender :3 why am I like this™?: autism, ocpd, bpd, ocd, bipolar disorder, adhd, anxiety, depression, alexithymia, aphantasia, dyspraxia, occasionally nonverbal & semiverbal, pots, tic disorder, sometimes agere (9-13ish) MBTI: ISTP :) aesthetic: here! :D element: water (duh) hogwarts house: slytherin ;) favorite colors: blue, green, purple nationality: american (canadian + german parents) shit I like: tv shows: Lockwood and Co, Julie and the Phantoms, Haikyuu, The 100 games: Palworld, The Enchanted Cave 2, BATIM, YTTD, Children of Silentown, The Mortuary Assistant, Little Witch in the Woods, Until Dawn, The Quarry, H:SR, Genshin, definitely more stuff I'm forgetting movies: Star Wars prequels, The Human Centipede II: Full Sequence, Velvet Goldmine, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Narnia, Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets musicals: Sweeney Todd (1982), Newsies, Ride the Cyclone, Six, Bat out of Hell, everything Starkid (but especially Starship, Black Friday, and Trail to Oregon) music: hardcore punk, punk, hard rock, symphonic metal, alt rock, nu metal, power metal, glam rock, hyperpop, Elliot Lee, Andrew Polec, Meat Loaf, Sick Puppies, In This Moment, Black Market Kidney Surgeons, Anti Flag (fuck justin sane), Iggy Pop, Car Seat Headrest kpop: Lunarsolar, Xdinary Heroes, Ateez, Yena, Bibi, others more casually other stuff: wet specimen taxidermy, punk diy, collecting weird shit, tornadoes, alchemy, statistics, photography, The Council <3, insects, being a non-theistic satanist (inspired by LaVeyan satanism), being punk, being an anarcho-communist tech support: op tag: #lockyle and skull op pfp: by @boyteal (used to be kkatsudon) header: by Philipp Grote not safe for littles tag: #nsfl - BLOCK IF NEEDED

no DNI, just don't be a dick

*all agere, bpd, bipolar, irl, and kpop content is on my other blog!!*

#lockyle and skull op

6 notes · View notes

sossupummit · 2 months ago

Link

From Aleph's Heretical Domain by Aleph Skoteinos Satanism and anarchism have a long history together, despite the relatively recent history or rightoid or fascist Satanist movements beginning with the Church of Satan, and anarchist Satanism remains a strong and relevant current, perhaps now more than ever. So it is always important to explore the possibilities of anarchist Satanism, and in this regard I would like to bring attention to a talk was given by an anarchist Satanist (or “anarcho-Satanist”) named Gabriel at a conference on anarchist theory called the BASTARD Conference in 2017, whose contents were published in a book called Evil, The BASTARD Chronicles 2017 by Ardent Press. I had only recently heard of its existence, and had only seen the conference in the last weekend. I’ve been told that I can’t get that book anywhere anymore, but the conference is still available in the form of podcasts on the Immediatism website. Given the importance of anarchist Satanism, I believe it is worth examining Gabriel’s concept of Anarcho-Satanism. To begin with, though, we might as well start from the end of Gabriel’s lecture, because that’s where he addresses the definition of his Anarcho-Satanism. For Gabriel, Anarcho-Satanism is essentially a reinterpretation of satanic mythology through the lens of anarchist political thought in order to a create a vehicle through which the cultural values of anarchism might be communicated. These form him include anti-authoritarianism, voluntary association, mutual aid, solidarity, autonomy, and direct action. It is also framed as the pursuit of a positive social movement away from injustice and oppression (which basically means that he sees anarchism as a form of the Positive Political Project), which is effected by undermining religious apologetics for injustice and oppression. Gabriel also defines Anarcho-Satanism pretty rigidly as atheistic and anti-theistic opposed to “elite mysticism” and any belief in the supernatural (Reddit). Of course, it also critiques the state and corporate hierarchies as being basically based on the hierarchy of the church, which all rely on the cultural preconceptions of a celestial hierarchy. And of course, Gabriel treats Satan as an archetype, a symbol of anarchism, because Satan opposes the hierarchies of God. Gabriel imagines a Satan organising angelic labourers against the boss that is God and struggling for equality as either a political prisoner in Hell, an escaped fugitive, an illegal immigrant, or a refugee, making an unauthorised crossing into Eden (mind you, he never intended on making Eden his home). I suppose I can’t help but think, bold of him to assume the whole third of the heavenly host were workers, as though there were ever workers among angels. Anarcho-Satanism is seen as something that utilises the allegory of Satan in both scripture and romantic literature to highlight the imbuement of religious narrative in popular culture. Satan is the most recognisable and almost universally accepted symbol of rebellion against divine hierarchical authority. Gabriel argues that myths connect the conscious and unconscious desires of individuals and cultures through symbolic association, and further extolls Anarcho-Satanism as using “reason and logic” to see beyond hierarchy and find ways to deconstruct hierarchical institutions, but also imagine beyond its scope, and the reimagining of the dominant cultural framework is taken as the logical starting point for it. Already, then, one can see that Gabriel’s project operates in rigid conformity to the presumptions of the Enlightenment, and is destined to encounter the problems that plague the dogma of rationalism. Reason in abstract remains the central value determinant by which to organise the social body. There are two initial questions in that begin his lecture. The first question is, “is God evil?”. The second question is, “is Satan good?”. The operative point is that to simply ask these questions is to enter the territory of blasphemy, an offense to God that is still restricted or criminalised in at least half the world, and is even still punishable by death in some theocracies. Even the government of the United States, which is at least in theory supposed to be a secular government, leans heavily upon the authority of God (what Gabriel calls “the Abrahamic deity”) for all formal displays of political power and legitimacy as well as the historical bases thereof: oaths to office, Presidential speeches, flag pledges, predictive currency, the swearing in of witnesses in courts of law, Manifest Destiny expansionism, the christening of warships, all invoke the Christian God as a matter of course. For Gabriel, these are deliberate evocations, meant to forge a spiritual link between the worldly hierarchy of the state and the hierarchical authority of God. Human states borrow from God’s authority to legitimise their existence and their actions, and in so doing they attempt to borrow the implications of God’s authority, such as God’s alleged attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and eternity, and this is at least partially in order to protect the conditions and effects of hierarchy from being dissolved or even just reformed. As I see it, the significance of this understanding of the state is that it presents the state or social hierarchy as a kind of magical activity, or at least based at root upon a particular kind of magical activity. The central purpose of this activity is consolidate power and authority by identifiying it with the authority of God, the One God Universe, or perhaps something functionally equivalent. Since the God of Christian monotheism and similar religious systems is supposed to be situated beyond the judgement of his creation, so powerful as to be literally invincible, and so benevolent as to be utterly beyond reproach, it makes sense for human states to attempt to borrow from God’s authority by invocation in order to legitimise both their existence and their actions, in the hopes of also borrowing God’s alleged attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and eternity, thus allowing them to perpetuate their power and authority indefinitely. But all of this also entails the replication of God’s hierarchical cosmos on Earth by humans, populating the world with the will and authority of God. Gabriel is in this sense describing the arcanum of the Right Hand Path within “Western Occutlism”; that is, the “Great Arcanum” described by the occultist Eliphas Levi, in which the goal of magic is seen as gaining authority, power, or rulership over the whole universe by identifying yourself with the Godhead (which usually still just means the Christian God). The conception of the state as being linked to God’s authority also means that to defy the authority of the state would also be to go against God himself. In the Biblical or at least Christian narrative, such defiance is obviously represented by Satan, the chief antagonist of God. One of Gabriel’s most importants points is the reversal of the moral position of Satan within this very narrative. To that end Gabriel establishes that Satan is assumed to be malicious because Satan always resists and conspires to destroy God’s divine authority, and that this assumption rests on no one ever comparing the actions of God and Satan together. Gabriel then of course makes exactly this comparison, but in so doing we also revisist the nature of the Christian God and thereby the ontological authoritarianism of the One God Universe. Gabriel illustrates astutely that one of God’s first creative acts, besides the alleged creation of the universe, was to establish fundamental inequality in Heaven by creating a stratified hierarchy with himself at the top and a division of classes consisting of progressively less powerful beings under himself, who in turn exist only to glorify and perpetuate his will. Those beings are what we refer to as the angels and archangels. Then God creates humans, who, despite being supposedly the most beloved of God’s creatures, being made “in his image”, are nonetheless the lowest order of the spiritual hierarchy, being below the angels and far below God himself. As Gabriel pointed out earlier in his lecture, within God’s hierarchy, angels are God’s lieutenants, humans are God’s subjects, and demons are God’s enemies. Gabriel argues that, despite the cultural Christian assumption to the contrary, the existence of such a hierarchy surely impacted on Satan’s desire to rebel against God. It seems sensible to follow from this, though, that angels must have some desires of their own despite their purpose being to glorify and execute the will of God. After all, Satan wanted to contest the authority of God, and a third of the heavenly host wanted to join him. But while Satan is accused of envious motives, but God openly proclaims himself to be a jealous god in his transmission of the Ten Commandments. And that’s the least of God’s issues, if you remember God’s coveting, his penchant for mass murder, him being responsible for literally everything that happens in Exodus, his refusal to share knowledge with humans, him procreating with at least one human girl without her consent (and this is after he condemns some of his angels for having sex with human women), and, of course, his consistent failure and/or refusal to prevent countless tragedies and atrocities suffered by the humans that he claims to love so much. One of the really interesting things about Gabriel’s project here is the parallel that he draw between the character of Satan and the historical anarchist projects. In the Christian myth, Satan rebels against God and is initially (at least apparently) defeated, but then goes on to tempt Adam and Eve to disobey God in the form of the serpent by convincing them to eat the apple of the tree of knowledge. Gabriel argues that this parallels with the historical experience of anarchist projects represented in the Spanish Civil War, the Free Territory of Ukraine, and other anarchist defeats in various wars and conflicts, on the grounds that anarchists know that even defeat does not end the ongoing struggle for liberty against oppression. With this comparison, the parallel in play is that both Satan and anarchism can be seen to embody Non Serviam (“I will not serve”) by itself for itself. Even if Satan and the anarchists may be defeated, they don’t care that they are defeated, because simply being defeated is not the end of their struggle. They fight anyway, they fight without end, because resistance goes on and the struggle is life. Non Serviam is the creed of Satanists, Luciferians (insofar as there is a difference), and, in many ways, anarchists as well, in that both Satan and anarchy speak at least one truth: resistance, or rather rebellion. In this regard I see fit to interject on the subject of the LaVeyan Satanism, and similarly rightoid or outright fascistic versions of Satanism, who all position their Satanism as the ideology of Social Darwinism, by which is meant the idea that humans should be organised in social hierarchies where “the strong” have the right to oppress “the weak” (which they seem to view as the antithesis of Christianity, no doubt based on their subgraduate readings of Friedrich Nietzsche). These kinds of Satanist are clearly silly. If LaVey had even one point it’s that stupidity should be painful, if only so that LaVey himself should have suffered quite a violent seizure before ever getting around to writing his “Pentagonal Revisionism”. It is truly stupid to think that Satan ever believed that “the strongest” deserves to rule. If he did, then, if we were to follow the standard narrative of the Fall, Satan would surely not have tempted Adam and Eve in Eden, let alone sent temptations to the rest of humankind, because such actions would be inconsistent with that belief. If Satan was defeated by God and his angels, exercising their self-professed right to rule Heaven by force of arms, and if Satan believed that the strongest have the natural right to rule, then to consistently observe that ideology would mean acquiesing to God as the rightful ruler/dictator of the universe, on the grounds that defeating him grants him the right to dominate the universe, whereas repeatedly contesting God’s rule through temptation implies a denial of God’s professed right to dominate the universe and the power that supports this right. But, of course, there is still the question, was Satan defeated? As we will see, the answer is not so simple, even for Christianity. Another operative point for Gabriel is that demonisation through mythology plays a role in social marginalisation. Those who identify with the good characters of myth frequently weaponise the notion of evil against marginalised groups by associating them with evil characters, which in turn creates a kind of social leverage for oppressors. Switching the position of good and evil, by recasting Satan as good and God as evil, is meant to disrupt the moral weaponisation of mythology and question how the mythological positioning of good and evil are constructed. This may be how anarchists have often used the myth of Satan’s fall to express anarchist principles. It’s hear, though, that we see a clear extension of the Romantic Satanist tradition, given the reference to the Miltonian Satan and the legacy of “satanic” poetry afterwards. It is clearly still a relevant tradition, but I think it does not quite go far enough. To go further still would be to flip the script on good and evil itself, and not just by association with the characters of God and Satan. Instead I would say that we could pursue another direction: not simply the idea that God is evil and Satan is good, but rather to associate all the violence, terror, and horror of God’s rule with the effect of the principle of his “good” and his “order”. But in this, Satan does still figure as a mythological personification of resistance against authority. Another interesting parallel yet again focused on God more than Satan concerns a comparison between the coercive threats of divine law and those of human law. In this, Gabriel refers to a comparison attributed to George Byron (better known as “Lord” Byron). In this argument, God’s threat to punish people by eternally damning them to Hell is a reflection of worldly threats to punish people by incarcerating them in prisons. The punished subject is in both cases disembodied, whether supernaturally or in the sense of being cut off from the body politic. Both God and the state label people as demons or devils, whether that means sinners or simply criminals (and a criminal is just someone who happens to have broken the law, and that means any law), in order to disempower those individuals by cutting them off from the order of human life as linked to the order of God. Gabriel argues that Byron’s embrace of Romantic Satanism in his poetry serves to demonstrate how this process of demonisation can be internalised in such a way that allows it to be reclaimed as a source of personal empowerment instead of social disempowerment. Very basically, this is the concept of reclamation, or, alternatively, detournment, in effect. In the same Gabriel presents another relatively simple connection between this Satan and later anarchists, who face the violence of the agents of the state (or the collective violence of capitalist nations/societies) with the fulsome support of the Right. Another very important aspect of Gabriel’s critique of Christianity is that God’s association with authoritarianism and state power was not necessarily the product of Romantic Satanist poetry or the Enlightenment, but instead (perhaps necessarily) goes back far beyond that era. Gabriel locates an early link between God and the state in the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine I during the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. According to Christian sources at least, in the year 312, Constantine looked up at the sun in the sky and saw the sign of the cross hanging above it, along with Greek words saying, “in this sign, you will conquer”, and then he ordered his soldiers to place that sign upon their shields. After this battle, Constantine assumed leadership of the Roman Empire, and less than a century later, with the Edict of Thessalonica in the year 380, Christianity became the official and sole state religion of Rome. This meant renouncing the former pre-Christian Roman polytheism, which along with all belief systems apart from Christianity was thus criminalised. When the Roman Empire collapsed, the Vatican hierarchy became the official centre of Christian religious authority of Europe (though, by the time the Roman Empire collapsed, the Catholic Church had already become more central to Christian spiritual life than the Roman emperor). The Catholic Church sought to convert as much of the world to its brand of Christianity as possible and authorised violent persecutions of polytheists and sometimes even other Christians in order to achieve this aim. The Catholic Church also sought to conquer the so-called “Holy Land” of Judea and opposed the growing influence of Islam in the Middle East, and thus issued a series of religious wars of conquest known as The Crusades to achieve its aims of capturing Jerusalem and asserting dominance over Muslims. Of course, the majority of these Crusades were failures, and the entire campaign finally ended in defeat for the Christian armies. That much and more is the effective history of Christian power: a religion whose mission to “save” the whole human species through conversion, married to an institution whose function is to expand its authority and influence wherever possible. It really is a match made in Heaven, isn’t it? One other aspect of Gabriel’s argument that I think truly extends his Anarcho-Satanist critique concerns the image of the Baphomet as presented by Eliphas Levi. This discussion is preceded by the mention of the Roman god Faunus during the discussion of Roman Christianity. Faunus was one of the oldest of the pre-Christian Roman deities who was also indigenous to Roman culture, but he was also equated with the Greek god Pan over time. Faunus was a god of forests, plains, and fields who was also associated with sexuality and fertility, and he was apparently still worshipped in Rome during the decline of polytheism, even despite the criminalisation of polytheism by Christian emperors. Worshippers of Faunus may have preferred polytheism and whatever values they may have associated with it over Christianity and its associated values, being more inclined to the inherent diversity of polytheism over the restrictive singularity of monotheism. Then, from there, after discussing the Catholic Church, Gabriel goes over the basic story of the Knights Templar being accused of worshipping Baphomet, and then moves on to the subject of Eliphas Levi, who derived from the pagan imagery of Faunus, Pan, and the Egyptian Goat of Mendes, depicted Baphomet as a goat-headed humanoid creature with wings. This led to Baphomet’s strong and enduring cultural association with Satanism and the demonic, and it’s here that we get to one of the really interesting parts of Gabriel’s argument. Gabriel argues that the image of Baphomet embodies several anarchistic characteristics by itself. Being a intersexed mixture of female and male body forms, the body of Baphomet defies the dominant socially constructed gender binary, and for this reason may make for an effective symbol of gender conformity in comparison to what is traditionally a strictly male, patriarchal, human Godhead. The meme that Jesus was trans just doesn’t work in that same way. Even the animal symbolism such as the goat head, the bird-like feathered wings, and the serpent can have a meaning beyond Eliphas Levi’s intended symbolism about the unity of opposites within the metaphysical binary of Western Occultism. Their mingling with the human form may also entail a disruption of the hierarchy between humans and animals, showing a plurality of species together, in addition to the traditional unity of opposites. This would position Baphomet as a symbol of natural biodiversity, against the anthropocentric worldview of Christianity and similar religions which is at the centre of the current ecological crisis. But then you get to “solve et coagula” and Gabriel’s argument starts getting clunky. The Latin words “solve” and “coagula” that appear on Baphomet’s arms, translated respectively as “solvent” and “coagulant”, were intended by Levi to refer to some of the principles of alchemy, but they can also be interpreted as a reference to the dichotomy between individualist and collectivist a

#anarchy #anarchism #social war #revolution #anarchie #anarchisme #anarquia #anarquismo #updates

0 notes