Pope's Postulate

Ignoring red dots doesn't help locate their sources.

In reaction to the Balenciaga story, there’s been a lot of hullabaloo within our ranks about Satanism, and the potential of it being used as part of 5th-gen warfare. I’ve witnessed a similar reputational frag-fest playing out over Stew Peters’ documentary, “Died Suddenly,” though I’m holding fire on that subject until I’ve gathered more information (I will, however, plug Mathew Crawford’s RTE series here as food for thought).

As usual, some of the commentary serves only to divide our forces through confusion, suspicion and the flogging of tribal loyalties. I’d argue this is a dangerous road to go down, for believers and atheists alike.

I started to write two pieces about this danger. My intent is to help put us all back in proper alignment, with our tools and weapons faced back in the right direction (i.e. towards those lying, murderous, globalist bastards trying to conquer the world).

This first one deals with a specific instance of an error in investigative technique that I hope we can all avoid going forward.

(P.S. To el gato malo: don’t take any of this the wrong way. I love your stuff)

---

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

— excerpted from “A Little Learning” by Alexander Pope

Satanism!

Does it exist, in the sense of an organized religious insititution?

Well, yeah, of course it does. It even goes by that name sometimes, with tax exempt status, PR stunts, social media campaigns — the works. The question is whether we, as investigators of a world-spanning criminal cartel, should care about it.

That’s open to debate. But I think some of the kneejerk dismissiveness I’ve heard lately reflects a wider attitude within our more secular ranks, which I fear has the potential to shut down useful avenues of investigation.

Common arguments include:

1. It’s a PSYOP: And you’re part of it. Fuck off, f-d.

2. You’re crazy: The theory that Satanism is in widespread practice in this day and age is preposterous, suitable only for paranoid maniacs and religious kooks. Once again, fuck off.

3. I don’t care: Who gives a shit if some idiots are running around in goat masks and having orgies inside pentagrams or what-have-you? All religions are full of stupid crap, but I don’t give a rat’s ass what people do in the privacy of their own homes.

4. I care (marginally): Why should it matter if their rituals involve criminal acts? It’s the crimes I care about, not the motives. Show me proof of their crimes, and I’ll show them the inside of a cell (or worse).

5. I agree (but so what?): I accept that pedophilia networks, blackmail rings, drug traffickers, assassination markets and the like might have links to some form of underground, organized religion. But so what? How on earth could a religious motive possibly impact our investigation and prosecution of these crimes?

For people of our postmodern era, I think it can sometimes be difficult to imagine a religious motivation for any crime, let alone within a large criminal enterprise. The exception might be the standard neo-Marxist, who can imagine religious motives in a whole host of crimes (but typically only when he can attach them to a visibly Judeo-Christian institution or mindset).

If you’re in one of the first three groups, I’d like you to first open your mind to the possibility that covert religious networks not only exist, but might occupy a significant station within the technofascist’s operational infrastructure. If you’re in groups 4 or 5, I’d like you to consider how determining potential motives is a core function of all criminal investigations, and plays a key role in getting suspects to confess or snitch.

In any case, the assumption of a large, venerable and well organized religious structure is exactly what I‘m asking you to (however temporarily) adopt. Given this core assumption, one might also assume that highly placed, religiously motivated agents within a criminal regime might be seen as a powerful resource, given that they not only tolerate certain kinds of criminal acts, but sacralize them.

That such an intrinsically criminal religion may try to hide its existence conforms to logic. And while deception makes for an unusual religious precept, it’s certainly not one without precedent. For example, the Muslim concept of taqiyya demonstrates the defensive advantages of such concealment (and some might argue, offensive ones as well). The same might be said of Freemasonry and other gnostic cults, in which shielding oneself from view is simultaneously a religious duty and a pragmatic survival tactic.

But a postmodern Satanist’s form of taqiyya might also reflect the “fifth column offensive” aspects of other covert programs, such as can be found in secular strategies (e.g. Alinsky-style institutional capture, human trafficking, CIA black ops, etc). The result is a structure that operates on a principle similar to mafia codes of omertà: the spiritual and the material weapons are in more or less perfect tactical alignment.

All that said, I would like to present you with a thought experiment. For this experiment, we will take for granted the atheist’s view of reality as fundamentally correct. In turn, the atheist must only accept the following rather uncontroversial premise:

• Despite their delusional nature, religions and religious motives for action nevertheless continue to exist.

Sound fair?

But before we begin, let me introduce you to the problem as I see it, with regards to how a certain set of psychological warfare tactics may succeed in dividing our forces along the schism of belief and non-belief, if we don’t come to some sort of agreement.

---

In the spirit of cooperation, I will present my case in accordance with the premise above: all religions are evolutionary constructs of shared delusions about reality. I disagree, but that’s not to say I don’t think there are problems inherent in religion, and particularly in certain forms of religion and their practices. In fact, sometimes these problems are horrifying, and rise to the level of outright criminal conduct, as we have seen in scandals of more visibly dominant churches.

First, let me clue you in on what prompted me to write this piece in the first place.

miscalibration or misinformation?

I like and respect the writer who goes by the moniker “el gato malo.” At his best, his voice is like that of a master comedian on the mic, mocking the darkness with all his feline wit and fury. But this article contained a section which I found disturbing. It struck me as written by someone who was participating in exactly the kind of dissonant “miscalibration” he was (rightly) excoriating.

(emphasis mine):

and it’s important that we stay at this.

because this stuff is suddenly all over the place.

this apparently went out to a set of elementary school parents. or maybe it didn’t and is getting passed around as a hoax. people seem to be fighting about that. i have no idea who’s right.

but look what it links to “satanism.”

it’s basically taking the values of intellectual endeavor, independence, and the enlightenment and making them mephistophelean.

critical thinking = satanic values? really?

seems a deeply odd choice if it were in any way sincere.

and all manner of ideas like this are getting passed around and diverting attention from what seem to be some more legitimate issues.

and this is how whole movements get made to look non-credible.

(…)

this is a strong framing. everyone knows some ill informed “keyboard warrior” who argues interminably about some topic they only just heard of 6 minutes ago. we’ve all had the experience of dealing with it. it make pfizer look like the victim. unless you are really certain, it undermines your confidence. “wait, am i THAT guy?”

Let’s go though gato’s statements one-by-one.

1.

because this stuff is suddenly all over the place.

The problem with this is that it only appears to “suddenly” be all over the place because gato himself has never taken an interest in it. For a bit of background on the subject, guest author O’Brian over at Winston Smith’s Surviving Mass Psychosis has put together a fairly good summary of the past several centuries of occult religious development. Long story short, there’s nothing new about the existence of clandestine religions, and the fact that their postmodern interpretations have fused themselves to Marxism, intersectionality and other non-theistic religious expressions stands to reason when you examine their developmental path.

Essentially, gato is making a common mistake I see whenever a topic that has previously been ignored or obscured by legacy media explodes into the main, as it has with the (still developing) Balenciaga scandal. Debates regarding the corporate and governmental deployment of occult symbols have in actuality been going on for centuries.

In our present era of symbolic propaganda, for example, there has been much discussion about the increasingly pervasive appearance of rainbow imagery and the verbiage of “pride” as a signal of tribal belonging. This discussion is not limited to believers; a fair bit of writing has been done in our circles regarding the ways in which “wokeness” appears to have all the characteristics of a religious belief structure. In many cases, all that seems to be missing are public declarations of gnosis.

Given the massive spread of these slogans and symbols over the past two decades, and how closely they correlate with the timelines of other programs within the technofascist project, it’s only logical that investigations into a potential religious component to the broader criminal enterprise would be opened.

Now, gato may think such investigations constitute a silly waste of time, but there certainly isn’t anything “sudden” about them, nor of the evidence from which they stem.

Frankly, I’m a little surprised by his apparent ignorance on the matter; I thought cats were supposed to be curious.

2.

this apparently went out to a set of elementary school parents. or maybe it didn’t and is getting passed around as a hoax.

El gato could have very easily determined that this was not a hoax with minimal Google Fu. The author of the flyer is actually a well known religious organization, complete with PR, legal and lobbying arms that reach into mainstream media and policymaking. I will describe them in more detail in a sec. Suffice it to say that gato (accidentally) nailed it in the statement to follow…

3.

it’s basically taking the values of intellectual endeavor, independence, and the enlightenment and making them mephistophelean.

critical thinking = satanic values? really?

Yes, really.

The man in the video is Lucien Greaves, co-founder of The Satanic Temple which produced the controversial flyer that so perplexed and troubled el gato. You can read all about the Temple and its programs, but the short story is that it sells itself as a “nontheistic religion,” in order to insert its version of hyper-rational individualism into a variety of social activist movements and policy debates (and, I presume, also to grift on tax status).

The Temple is conceptually very similar to (and in my view, a ripoff of) the “Church of Satan” founded by Anton LaVey in 1966. Both LaVey and Greaves are of a Satanic sub-species I refer to as “Halloweenies.” Despite the fact that both guys look like they came straight from central casting, their publicly expressed sentiments sound very similar to the bog-standard slate of leftwing word salad and psychobabble.

Greaves is fairly new on the scene, and I won’t pretend to have a high-resolution image of him. He supposedly studied neuroscience at Harvard, and shares some of LaVey’s flair for self-promotion. While the organization endorses a broad spectrum of progressive social causes, I will say there seems to be a hint of something even darker at play here. As you can see from the flyer itself, his version of the program includes regular access to children as a part of its agenda (then again, so does the Walt Disney Company).

As for LaVey, I read quite a lot about him when I was a teenager, including his best-selling biography. I also owned copies of his most popular published works, “The Satanic Bible,” “The Satanic Rituals” and “The Devil’s Notebook.” There was a reason for my interest, but I’ll leave that for another article. Suffice it to say that, while I won’t present myself as an expert (fuck authority games), I do know some inside baseball when it comes to “this stuff.”

Much like Greaves, LaVey portrayed his church as a bunch of atheists cosplaying as devil worshippers for fun and profit. Unlike Greaves, the program was sold less as an intellectual and social justice movement, and more as an offshoot of gonzo, sex-and-drugs, seventies-style hedonism. In some ways, you can think of the CoS as the libertarian-right precursor to the ToS (although LaVey himself leaned towards fascism later in life). There was an added patina of “Look what I can get away with” rebelliousness to their church, and its theatrical Halloweenie rituals mostly came off as a kind of elaborate trolling of what they saw as the Judeo-Christian squares, prudes and scolds of mainstream culture.

Mostly.

Sometimes LaVey would let that secular joker’s mask slip, ever so slightly. For example, I recall at the very end of his biography, he heavily implied that the church had been involved in one or more murders, committed at his command. Whether this was merely another product of his circus-born showmanship is unknown.

The same holds true for all the Halloweenie members of both the Church and the Temple. As far as what they actually believe, and what they practice behind closed doors? I’d warrant that’s strictly unknowable unless one were to actually join up, and even then I’m sure there’d be quite a long and thorough vetting process before you’d be allowed to witness any criminal parts of the machinery (if those exist). Like Scientology and other religious rackets, there seems to be levels to their game.

Anyway, the point is that gato’s statement that “it’s basically taking the values of intellectual endeavor, independence, and the enlightenment and making them mephistophelean” is precisely the way these religious groups present themselves in public. Thus, by refusing to do even the bare minimum of work, our feline friend has managed own-goal himself.

Fur shame.

4.

and this is how whole movements get made to look non-credible.

Non-credible to whom? Primarily gato, it seems, who was too lazy to investigate even one (fairly trivial) fact.

But by extension, I think gato means non-credible to “rational thinkers” (i.e. secular atheists), who don’t have time to bother with such silliness. But it’s worse than that: he’s effectively smearing all other secular thinkers with the same intellectual laziness he just displayed.

He’s also smearing me in absentia, I guess, as being some kind of distraction or saboteur for noticing some fairly mundane things about reality.

Anyway, I find this statement to be the most spurious twaddle of the piece, unfit for a creature of his intellectual meow-liber.

5.

everyone knows some ill informed “keyboard warrior” who argues interminably about some topic they only just heard of 6 minutes ago.

When combined with statement #1, this smacks of some exotic blend of fallacies with a dash of Dunning-Kruger thrown in. Ironically, when it comes to the topic of Satanism as a theology and religious practice, gato appears to exemplify his own stereotype of the “keyboard warrior” who is suddenly an expert on a subject that, by his own admission, he’d only just begun to notice, let alone to investigate critically.

Bad kitty!

---

Now, at this point you might well be saying “Who cares about a stupid flyer? Even if everything you say is true, you also said that The Satanic Temple is just a bunch of secular SJW losers, cosplaying as devil worshippers.”

There’s a bit more to it than that, which I will delve into in my next essay. Namely it has to do with an offshoot of LaVey’s CoS called The Temple of Set and its founder Michael Angelo Aquino — a U.S. military intelligence officer deeply involved in those PSYOPS that everyone has apparently become an overnight expert in.

But let’s finish the dissection of our buddy’s bad cattitude first. I think el gato’s laziest error came directly afterward, with his inclusion of this image.

The provenance of this image is Google Translator, the reference being the Sumerian deity most closely associated with (and often considered analogous to) the biblical Satan. By all accounts, the cults of Ba’al were some extremely nasty customers, so it’s no wonder its sudden association with the fashion label would cause such a stir.

First, it’s worth noting the translation shown in the image is wrong. The sentence on the left translates to gibberish, not “Baal is the King.” Typical gaslighting of those Jesus-freaks, amirite?

Well, no. The story doesn’t quite end there.

(Get ready for some mindfuckery, kids. It’s gonna sound like I’m playing word games — and I am — but trust me that I’m going somewhere with this.)

The unified alphanumeric string in question is b-a-l-e-n-c-i-a-g-a. This string can be broken into several sets of Latin substrings which do translate into proper English sentences. In all cases, a repeated “a” is required to convert the first substring into the word “Baal,”

1. “ba(a)l enci aga” is the set that actually translates to “Baal is the King.”

2. “ba(a)l (l)enci aga” translates to “Baal’s sword” by adding a repeated “l.”

3. “ba(a)l (l)en ci aga“ translates to “Be gentle with Baal,” by a repeated “l” with different word breaks

4. “ba(a)l (i)en ci aga” translates to “Baal is doing this,” by adding an “i”

5. “ba(a)l (i)enci aga” translates to “Baal was killed” by adding an “i” with different breakage.

6. “bal (l)enci aga,” translates to “play the ball game,” by repeating “l” but dropping the repeat “a.”

Note to both religious conspiracy theorists and deboonkers everywhere:

This is how it’s done, son.

Silly word games? To us, absolutely.

You know who doesn’t find them silly? Occultists, that’s who.

Their liturgical languages are replete with palindromes, homonyms, anagrams and other oddball syntactic structures (I may describe the reason for this in a separate article, but for now, I hope I’ve earned some degree of your trust in the matter).

The conventional response at this point would be:

“That’s an interesting coincidence, Mark. But the company was named after its founder, Cristóbal Balenciaga. So, you know. Shut up.”

That’s true. To be more accurate, the gentleman’s name was Cristóbal Balenciaga Eizaguirre. Owing to Spanish naming conventions, the implication here is that Cristóbal’s father’s first surname was Balenciaga and his mother’s Eizaguirre (in his case José Balenciaga Basurto and Martina Eizaguirre Embil). It seems to be a somewhat rare name of Basque origin, and a search for definitive meaning so far hasn’t turned up much more than speculation (One British anon suggested “God is King,” probably basing it on Latin translation #1, but leaving out the part about which god).

Now, is this name evidence of anything sinister about the man himself? No. A guy can’t choose what he was named (Though, perhaps he could’ve chose some of his friends better, in the forms of Francisco Franco and Adolph Hitler. Or at least he could’ve resisted the temptation to become the former’s personal couturier).

Again, the founder’s past associations with evil dictators doesn’t prove anything about the company itself. But it could provide much needed context to the brand’s recent PR meltdown, including one angle of the story which — like seemingly all stories told in the district of the map labeled “Epstein” — has so far gone curiously missing from most news coverage. In fact, it may shine a light into certain dark corners of the fashion industry as a whole.

More on that in a bit. First, let’s take a brief look at Balenciaga’s modern corporate history since its founder’s surprise retirement in 1968.

Some highlights:

• The Balenciaga brand lay dormant for almost twenty years, until the trademark was purchased by Jacques Konckier in 1986..

• In surprise move, the company hired 25-year-old designer Nicolas Ghesquière in 1997 to be its new creative director. Apart from some controversy regarding plagiarism in 2002, Ghesquière’s run was considered a success, marked by his respect for Cristóbal Balenciaga's legacy and design ethic.

• In 2001, the company was acquired by the Gucci Group (and by extension, its own luxury brand leviathan of a parent company, Kering; a nigh-ancient firm with many fingers in many progressive pots).

• Ghesquière left the company in 2012, handing off the creative keys to designer Alexander Wang. Wang’s short three-year term would begin somewhat ignominiously, amid allegations he was running a sweatshop in downtown Manhattan. In his post-Balenciaga years, his reputation was further tarnished by accusations of drugging and raping numerous male (and “transgender”) models, in a case that is still moving forward.

• In 2014, Balenciaga sued former director Ghesquière for nearly $10 miliion USD, in regards to negative comments he made regarding the company in an interview. You can read a rundown of his statements here, but they were all variations on the theme that the brand had become too heavily corporatized.

• Also in 2014, under the new leadership of Marco Bizzari, parent brand Gucci Group began to insinuate itself into the still nascent cultural phenomenon of the so-called “transgender movement.” In a move towards what Gucci described as “postgender geek-chic,” designer Alessandro Michele introduced clothing lines that heavily featured “feminized menswear and a strong feminist stance.” Quite the Bizzari coincidence if you ask me.

• In 2015, Balenciaga’s creative vision was handed over to it’s current director, a Georgian designer by the name of Demna Gvasalia (or simply “Demna,” in the style of “Cher” or “Madonna”). A refugee from the 1992 Russo-Georgian War, he eventually landed at the Belgian Royal Academy of Fine Arts, where he graduated with a Master's degree in Fashion Design in 2006. By 2014, Demna and his brother Guram gained notoriety for selling their designs in Parisian gay sex clubs, and had started their own fashion label. As a celebrated fashionista, Demna has led the way on the house’s brand identity ever since, including into its current slime pit of allegations regarding child pornography, sexual abuse, financial exploitation and — yes — ad campaigns featuring a shitload of Satanic imagery (see below).

In case you couldn’t tell, this police scene crime tape appears to spell out the company’s name as “Baalenciaga,” which I’m sure is just a typo

I’m not going to rehash all of the allegations here (considering the rate of new revelations, they might be obsolete come publishing time anyway). For those who wonder about the potential name connection though, I’ll put this out there: If my company were named “Jesus Loves U and Everyone Else LLC,” what kind of employees and investors do you think I’d be most likely to attract, given a long enough time scale?

As for Demna, I have my theories. But I will keep these to myself until I’ve done more research. Meanwhile, let’s stick with what we know.

While much of the attention so far has been on the Instagram account of perverted Halloweenie stylist, Lotta Volkova (there’s a villainous Bond Girl name for ya!), a more interesting player in the form of Rachel Chandler has emerged (or reemerged, some might say). I encourage you to investigate her illustrious career as a photog, modeling agent and recruiter for numerous major players in the fashion game, including Balenciaga. If you want a summary of her life and work (and the sordid controversies therein), this piece by Jessica Reed Kraus might be a good place to start.

Just the fact that Chandler appears to have been one of Epstein’s frequent fliers should be enough to raise a few hackles. But there are other aspects of Chandler’s story that point to membership in an even more exclusive club (or at least a particular VP room within it). For instance, her friendship with Marina Abramović — an infamous Serbian occultist with personal and business connections to everyone from The Clinton Foundation to Microsoft to the Rothchilds — helps to sketch the outlines of a potential religious layer to the enterprise, with Epstein’s operation as one of the likely conduits.

What was that temple on Epstein Island, anyway? What went on there, apart from the usual blackmail and statutory rape? Are these worthless avenues of investigation?

I don’t think so, and I intend to explain why. In the meantime, I’d prefer they didn’t get so casually dismissed with the wave of the paw. There may be threads to tug on there, in this vile ba(a)l(l) of yarn.

In deference to el gato malo, some of his errors are purrfectly understandable. Talk of “Satanism” from religious communities is often overly credulous and unintelligibly shrill (“YOUR BOX OF FROOT LOOPS CONTAINS SATANIC SYMBOLISM AND TUCAN SAM IS A VOODOO LOA AND YOU’RE GUNNA FRY IN HELL!”).

Regardless, I think he and others have broken Pope’s postulate as of late, and in doing so are threatening to cut off an entire avenue of potentially useful investigation. And by publicly dismissing or disparaging those who present such evidence for examination and debate, we’re playing the game exactly as our enemies want us to.

Divide et impera.

To which I say:

Noli ludere pila ludum.

---

P.S. If you found any of this valuable (and can spare any change), consider dropping a tip in the cup for ya boy. I’ll try to figure out something I can give you back. Thanks in advance.