#these movements are explicitly openly linked to white supremacy and you as a white person think that being nice is what will dismantle them?

[jasmancer]

"be nicer to men" the men you are referring to think you're a misandrist if you ask them nicely to take their boot off your neck. the "I can fix him" mindset for cruel and violent men is quite literally a joke. an old one.

[madeupfact]

"the fundamental nature of a protest that has welcomed fascists. is. fascist. There was no condemnation of the fascist groups joining the protests" sounds nice until you read anything by leftists in the actual movement and find that the people pushing for US intervention are a tiny minority or realize that in a movement with hundreds of thousands of people it's impossible to vet each individual person in a protest while being teargassed and shot.

who are these “leftists” in the actual movement that “wrote” things? If you are referring to the anarchist graffiti in HK such as this or trending hashtags of #antiELAB or #PoliceBrutality, you are clearly mistaken. 

Not even beginning to address the content of these graffiti and social media posts, why would they all be in English when English is Hong Kong’s third language with only 46% of the population speaking it? Hmm… it couldn’t be because they are meant for Westerners to see, and not the police! If you’re not convinced by that, you should know that in the context of a movement such as this one (proudly funded by the NED, supported by regime change NGOs, its website explicitly calling for intervention, the existence of a law passed by the US Congress to support protesters, Harvard bribing people to participate, protesters being trained by Western imperialists long before the protests, etc. all in exchange for bringing down PRC in the US-China trade war¹), regardless of the political tendency of the graffiti artist (in this case, anarchist), their graffiti and social media posts are engineered toward a specific audience, one that can take action and… indeed, intervene.

Second, do you not see the reactionary aspect of referring to China as “Chinazi?” Combined with the fact that this graffiti is for a Western audience, it’s a pretty bold-faced cry of support for white supremacy and its associated goals. Though of course, that’s much in line with the consistently racist, classist HK protesters who regularly assault mainland Chinese and working-class elderly people, and display white nationalist symbols² –and don’t care that they are–as well as imperialist flags³. The celebration of Japanese imperialist invasion of China is pretty telling, too. 

But the proportion of protesters that are racists and pro-intervention is actually a tiny non-influential minority, you say? The facts of the larger geopolitical backdrop against which these protests take place say otherwise. If the protesters were majority leftists like you say, why would the leader of the protests, Joshua Wong, be meeting with US political leaders and supporting the passage of the aforementioned US congressional act? Why would there be hundreds of thinkpieces from Western media defending the HK protesters usage of Pepe or American/British flags? If it really were a tiny minority of people in the protests holding up American/British flags, you would think that HK protest leaders would try their best to limit media circulation of this or at least condemn the pro-intervention protesters and disavow the US publically. But instead we have the leaders of the protest openly calling for US intervention. 

So no, it’s really not a problem of individuals entering the protests and there not being a framework to vet them. It’s the nature of the movement, from the protesters themselves to the consequences of their actions. Why would there be any need to vet people entering the protests when all of them, no matter their ideology, right wing or left wing, are in service of imperialism?

Also, it’s pretty funny that you mention being teargassed and shot, when the violence of the HK protesters exceeds that of the police by far (example). Even the editor of the South China Morning Post–who is by no means pro-Beijing–feels that the extreme violence of the HK protesters has endangered HK as a whole. Meanwhile, the police have shot exactly one person in all these months while being attacked from all sides by violent protesters (video footage), and possibly another such shooting in similar circumstances this week, though I haven’t been able to find sources for it happening. The infamous girl with a bandage on her eye? She refuses to cooperate with an investigation or release her medical records–it’s very likely that she was hit by a slingshot steel ball such as this that was aimed at the police but missed its target; they’ve hit civilians before. I don’t know how to make you understand the level of violence that’s being perpetuated by the HK protesters and the extreme restraint being exercised by the police, but open the links I provided for starters. If this was any Western country, let’s say the US, France, or Australia, all of these rioters would be dead for the violence they’re utilizing against police. 

It’s the working class of Hong Kong that has to clean up all this mess, at the end of the day. The system of HK has a very weak social safety net due to One Country Two Systems (and no, it isn’t PRC’s fault that this basic law acts in such ways. It is in the interest of HK businesspeople and colonial bourgeoisie to have a free market and that’s who will fight to maintain it, even by seceding from PRC because the limits placed upon HK capitalism obstruct accumulation of further capital).

So I find it even more interesting that you say this:

While at the same time the protesters you love so much claim that PRC is authoritarian and that’s why they don’t want the extradition law. Which one is it–is it PRC making the police do bad things to the poor leftist protesters or is it the Brits who love HK capitalism (and who support the protests)? And I don’t understand on what grounds you claim it is a holdover other than the beginning of the Wikipedia article on HK police.

The destruction of HK is unjustifiable at this point, no matter your views on the protests, because the level of violence has made it impossible for anyone to function normally. Beating up random civilians and destroying public property is no political goal, it’s gratuitous violence for the sake of it.

Footnotes

¹ This is addressed in the link “proudly funded by the NED”

² The article linked about white nationalist symbols is from SCMP which defends the usage of Pepe by saying that the protesters don’t know that Pepe is an alt-right symbol, but then they go on to say that protesters have discussed the use of Pepe online and don’t care about it being an alt-right symbol. This goes to show the level of explicit hypocrisy in propaganda in support of protesters

³ This is also an article from SCMP which defends the protesters, but this time from being called pro-US or pro-UK for displaying US and UK flags. But of course, they reveal the protesters’ true intentions inadvertently by saying that they see the US and UK as symbols of freedom and liberty.

[ah17hh]

Baphomet: A critical Feminist Perspective via /r/satanism

Baphomet: A critical Feminist Perspective

Ok SATANISTS let me hear your opinion. This is still a rough draft, I have until Dec. 5th to finish this essay.

Baphomet: A critical feminist perspective

In Salem, Massachusetts, in the year 2015, a secular activist organization called the Temple of Satan unveiled a statue representation of the Baphomet (see figure 1), which is a symbol that has become associated with Satanism over time in Christian culture. The first mention of the word “Baphomet” was used in the records of the trials of the organization known as the Knights Templar around the year 1300 C.E.; the Knights Templar were being accused of worshipping a pagan deity called “Baphomet”. It wasn’t until the mid-19th century C.E. that the Baphomet came to be associated with the now famous Sabbatic Goat image. Eliphas Lévi, a 19th century artist, was almost certainly the originator of the image (see figure 2).

The Temple of Satan Baphomet statue, sculpted by Mark Porter, was commissioned by the Temple in order to contest the placement of a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capital. The two versions have some serious differences that I believe can merit some interesting speculation about both the intentional and unintentional aspects of said differences in the representations, the debate and controversy surrounding its establishment, and the culture at large. I will use a feminist and gender critical lens to examine the Baphomet statue.

Eliphas Lévi, in his seminal work on magic and the occult, Dogme et Rituel, lays out all of the intentional symbols of the Sabbatic Goat.

“The goat… carries the sign of the pentagram… a symbol of light… his two hands… one pointing up to the white moon of Chesed, the other pointing down to the black one of Geburah…. Harmony of mercy with justice. His one arm is female, the other male… the flame of intelligence shining between his horns is the magi light of the universal balance… soul elevated above matter… whilst being tied to mater… the beasts head expresses the horror of the sinner… has to bear the punishment exclusively… the rod… symbolizes eternal life… Humanity is represented by the two breasts and the androgyn arms…” (Lévi, 1854; as cited from https://www.learnreligions.com/eliphas-levis-baphomet-goat-of-mendes-95993)

As should be clear now, there is apparently nothing contained within the image of the Baphomet that is not intentional symbolism. The image is a strange blending of “opposites”, but rather it is the reconciliation of the whole, and a recognition that “good” and “evil”, “light and dark”, “male” and “female”, “beast” and “spirit”, are not, in fact, opposites; they are two sides of the same coin. The symbolism of Lévi is commonly summed up, among New Age folks and other spiritualists, as being the “left-hand path”: personal responsibility, individuality, the search for secret wisdom, and the carrying with one both the forces of dark and light – not the supremacy of one over the other; balance. As we will discuss later in this essay: from a Beauvoirian Feminist perspective, this version of the Baphomet might be problematic, due to the apparent contrast between the masculine and feminine – but first, there is another important manifestation of the Baphomet and the occult that should be examined.

Another interesting occult figure to reinterpret and describe this imagery is the head of the modern left-hand path himself, Anton Szandor LaVey – the founder of the Church of Satan. Anton LaVey is a controversial figure for having, in 1966 during the sexual revolution, founded the first official religion dedicated explicitly to Satan. If you read just a little bit into Satanism, you will discover that there are many arguments to be made that Satan is just a Christian interpretation of other Pagan deities that have existed from Enki in Samaria, to the Great God Pan in ancient Greece. So, whether LaVey started the first Church dedicated to this archetype, or not: you will not meet a Satanist who does not pay their respects to LaVey and his interpretations of shared Satanic symbols, such as the Baphomet. The image that LaVey works from is a design of his own, which gives another interesting historical twist on the image of Baphomet (see figure 3). From LaVey’s, the Satanic Bible:

“The symbol of Baphomet was used by the Knights Templar to represent Satan… In its ‘pure’ form – three points up, two pointing down �� symbolizing man’s spiritual nature. In Satanism the pentagram… represents the carnal instincts of man… horns… thrust upward in defiance; the other three points inverted, or the trinity denied.” (LaVey, 1969; as cited from https://vigilantcitizen.com/hidden-knowledge/whoisbaphomet/ )

Some immediate differences between LaVey’s and Lévi’s representations are: 1) the differences between the pentacle (right-side-up five-pointed star), and the pentagram (upside-down five-pointed star) as a difference in the focus on spirituality in Lévi, versus the focus on carnality in LaVey. Other important differences are the fact that LaVey chose to emit all traces of the masculine and the feminine, and just focus on the symbol of the goat, and the spelling of “Leviathan” in Hebraic letters corresponding to the five points of the Pentagram. As egalitarian as this might seem at first, LaVey uses the term “man” to describe the generic human being throughout his work, which may merit a feminist critique. Mulvey might point out also that LaVey’s use of a naked human female as an altar during his rituals and ceremonies participates in a sick kind of voyeuristic scopophilia. These two facts combined might make us look at this gender-neutral goat-image a little differently: is this image, and the whole LaVey’s Church, just a masculine phallic power-fantasy? That might be one possible critique, if you were grasping for straws. As we will learn later on, the feminine is often, in mythology, associated with chaos – what is the symbol of the goat? Unruliness. They can never be tamed. Is the unruly goat symbolically related to the feminine from that perspective?

📷

(figure 3: Anton LaVey’s Baphomet image, 1968. Inverted Pentagram with a goat’s likeness. Hebraic letters spelling “Leviathan”, a water-serpent associated with Satan-Lucifer.)

📷

(figure 1: Baphomet Statue, commissioned by the Temple of Satan in 2015. Two children staring up admiringly at the Sabbatic Goat.)

📷

(figure 2: Original mid-19th century Baphomet art by Eliphas Lévi.)

Before the main topic of this essay, a critical postmodern examination of the Baphomet, has been truly engaged, I think it is fair to give voice to other less known, modern-day critics and followers of the Baphomet. The first that I would like to share is a criticism of the Baphomet imagery – and also, seemingly unrelated: feminism – from a Christian perspective. I am going to leave the authors name out of writing here, but you can probably find it via the link, which I will paste in the in-text citation beneath the quote:

“… (W)ithin the elite… sodomy rituals are a common practice as are other ‘sex magic’ ritual where demonic entities are petitioned for power and possession… the elite seek to make clear cut gender roles obsolete. This is also at the root of feminism… to ‘liberate’ society from traditional gender roles… Rumors of Lady Gaga being a hermaphrodite…. It would give good reason for her constant references to Baphomet.” (https://midrashmonthly.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/homosexuality-gender-confusion-and-the-spirit-of-baphomet/)

This Christian fellow is concerned about a world-wide conspiracy, constructed by the elite class, to destroy the family unit, and erase traditional “God-given” gender roles. This, they believe, is the connection between the movement of feminism and the Baphomet symbolism. The Baphomet represents an androgynous sort of creature; the image itself seems to blow apart all binary traditional expectations. Not only because the inherent sex and carnality of it all, but because it blends the genders/sexes into one form – whereas from the Abrahamic perspective, man was created first, and woman was created from the rib of the man. Hence, she is the second sex, the other – her sexuality is taboo and must be controlled, it should not be displayed as being equal with the masculine; being a part of the masculine; or the masculine part of the feminine. There is so much to unpack in this excerpt, I could spend the rest of the essay doing that – but I won’t. Needless to say, this Christian is paranoid, and (who know?) perhaps rightly so: we have seen a societal movement over the last decade or two toward widespread acceptance of phenotypes of homo sapiens that in rather recent U.S. history, and Abrahamic history, have been denied rights, or acknowledgement that they even exist, or basic human respect. It is really not that far back that women, half of the human race, were included in this discrimination. Perhaps some traditions are so important that to undermine them would be to undermine the human species. That being said: I struggled to think of a single person that I have heard literally advocating for the abolition of the nuclear family and gender roles. I dismissed this Christian as creating phantoms where there were none; and then I found this:

“As a Satanic feminist, I openly challenge the nuclear family and gender roles that are enforced by religion… I embrace Baphomet, the androgynous goat human… I think it reflects how Satan, too, transcends the boundaries of gender… and cis-heteronormative oppression.”

(https://www.mookychick.co.uk/health/spirituality/why-i-am-a-satanic-feminist.php)

There is at LEAST one Satan-worshipping feminist who is knowingly and intelligently opposing gender roles and the nuclear family. This person is a Theistic Satanist, that is: they profess belief in a literal Satan. NOT the Christian Satan, mind you – Theistic Satanists believe that Satan is an actual God, not a fallen-angel. Theistic Satanists also tend to believe that Satan is somehow deeply involved in the process of the creation or evolution of humans. This particular Satanist came to their Satanism through feminism and the belief that it was the Abrahamic religious traditions that have forced these gender roles, and the widespread belief in the inherent value of the nuclear family, upon society.

This unnamed theistic Satanist suggest that the Baphomet is a symbol of genderfluidity and freedom from societal norms, and “cis-heteronormative oppression”. Looked at from this perspective: one wonders why more feminists and critics of patriarchy have not taken this symbol onto their altars of equality? Bad P.R., presumably. The Baphomet represents the equality and inextricable connection between the light and dark, masculine and feminine – or did I just insinuate that the male is the light, and the female is the dark? This is getting messy, but it’s probably a great time to hear from another feminist, who was not a Satanist, that might have an interesting counter to the Satanic insurgence into feminism; Simon De Beauvoir:

“A man is in the right in being a man; it is the woman who is in the wrong… He is the Subject, he is the Absolute – she is the Other. The category of the Other is as primordial as consciousness itself… the expression of a duality – that of the self and the Other…. Thus humanity is male and man defines woman not in herself but as relative to him… How is it… that this reciprocity has not been recognized between the sexes, that one of the contrasting terms is set up as the sole essential… defining… (women) as pure otherness? … ‘the eternal feminine corresponds to the ‘black soul’ and to the ‘Jewish character’” (De Beauvoir, 1953; as cited in Easthrope & McGowan, 51-54, 2004)

What Beauvoir is trying to point out here is that the very ascribing of light and dark with male and female symbolically is part of the Othering of the feminine. So, when Canadian Psychologist, Jordan Peterson, says things like,

“chaos… is the birthplace of things, that’s why often it’s represented as feminine. Because feminine things are the birthplace of things… You have order – father; You have Chaos – mother.” (Peterson, 2017; from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viGgB44rxdU)

It’s kind of hard not to take this recapitulating of an ancient motif as suggesting that the masculine is what holds things together, and the feminine seems valued only for its caregiving capacities and its uncertainty. To be fair to Peterson, that uncertainty could also mean variation and possibility. I think that Beauvoir would point out to Peterson that this is a very male-framed mythology. Masculine is not just order – it is also destruction and nihilism. Feminine is not just chaotic – it is also stability and tolerance. The anonymous theistic Satanist, coming back into the fray, would suggest that this is actually what the Baphomet represents! The Baphomet demonstrates that both the feminine and the masculine are actually part of the same enlightened, ugly, beautiful, gentle, stark, horrible beast. Again, Beauvoir might harken back that the association of the female arm of the Baphomet pointing down to the dark crescent moon, while the male arm points upwards at the light crescent moon is to relegate women to the Other, once again. The association of “light” with “good” and “dark” with “bad” exists in many cultures and controls the way we judge various phenomena to an unknown, but certainly important degree. Beauvoir might also suggest that the representing of humanity, in the image of the Baphomet, by the breasts, is too objectify women and see them purely as “sex” and “reproduction”. Perhaps this suggests that the only human part of women is there nurturing and reproductive capacity.

Submitted November 22, 2019 at 01:37PM by The_Academic_SatanX via reddit https://ift.tt/35tYe02