Fantastic essay! Regardless of whether we believe Satan or other sinister spiritual powers exist, if occultists believe that he does and act on that belief, we better take note.
I suspect a large element of the incredulity with which occult left hand path mafias are greeted in normie discourse is simply the horror one must confront if the implications are thoroughly considered and the world subsequently examined with that possibility in mind. They intuit what they might find and they just don't want to go there. Which is a huge advantage for any such organizations that do operate. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled and such.
Our feline friend, from what I've seen, considers reality from a rationalist, libertarian perspective. My guess is he's a scientific professional of some sort, so that ideological perspective is exactly what you'd expect. Given the background it isn't at all surprising that he'd react in that fashion. On such topics he's the normiest of normies. We've all got our blind spots though so I don't begrudge him that.
"I suspect a large element of the incredulity with which occult left hand path mafias are greeted in normie discourse is simply the horror one must confront if the implications are thoroughly considered and the world subsequently examined with that possibility in mind."
Me too. I guess the same could be said for any discovery that deranges an otherwise stable worldview. Our limited sensory perspectives require that we imagine 99.99999999% of the universe's structure and contents (though my math may be slightly off there). We want this imaginary reality to be a strong ship, staffed by steady hands, which is why so many maintain ludicrous delusions about the competence and morality of their governments and/or party factions.
And thanks to Hollywood (with a few notable exceptions), the imagined reality about Satanism tends to be a Halloweenie cartoon, when the real deal is much more graspable on both an intellectual and spiritual leve (and in many ways, is scarier and more obscene for its relative "mundanity" -- as I said, I have some inside baseball that I might someday share).
Not to be coarse-minded, but the reality of cultic evil makes a great deal of sense within the context of organised crime. Like the atrocities of the Nazis (who compromised people by getting them 'tied by blood') sacrifice can be used to bond people together as well as to demonstrate the power of leaders. My understanding is that quite a few cults have been involved in drugs and other criminal activities and that for the leadership the money is the thing.
There was a great article on this by Rod Dreher recently that may interest you.
Most people seem to think the most evil, crazy, inhuman shit out there couldn't possibly be happening, because they could never see themselves or anybody they know doing it.
...And that's exactly why it continues to happen (although that might be starting to finally shift).
I've been working on this same issue from the atheist side for some time. I'm starting to think it might be appropriate to use religious terminology to describe this emergent phenomena. We're all connected to one another mechanistically by the mirror-motor system. The preponderance of our cognitive capability is centered on social relationships, religion being a major part. There will always be some vast unknowable component of the universe, perhaps filling the gaps with religious language is the most appropriate since we do need a common language to address and defeat this enemy. A feel somewhat divinely inspired to fight on the side of righteousness in this occult war to preserve humanity. I've felt that calling the source of this inspiration God is disingenuous given that I'm not traditionally religious, but a lot of people say they believe in God and upon close inspection they're really just defining the majesty of natural processes as God. Is that allowed? Given the deep human psychological need for narrative, I think I prefer to just say God unites us against the forces of evil. Why not call the servants of evil demons, or describe them as being possessed by such? At the end of the day, I think it will come down to personal preference, but efforts to translate these different languages so that we may unify and better resist the enemy's attempts to divide and conquer will be fruitful. Thanks for the thought provoking article!
I think you should use whichever language model suits you best, Grant. As I've mentioned before, you are a fantastic communicator, both in your writing and in podcast format. That's quite a powerful combination, IMO.
"There will always be some vast unknowable component of the universe, perhaps filling the gaps with religious language is the most appropriate since we do need a common language to address and defeat this enemy."
I agree, which is why the most I hope for in conversations with atheists (or with anyone, frankly) is for them to say "maybe." It's the publicly expressed certainty about important topics that often drives the truck into the ditch, if not right off the cliff. I include *religious* certainty in this equation (Lord knows there many trucks in that particular ditch). That is why I prefer to use word like "belief," "faith" and "suspect" in my language. It's not just out of humility, but awe for all that I do not (and probably cannot, in this lifetime) know.
"At the end of the day, I think it will come down to personal preference, but efforts to translate these different languages so that we may unify and better resist the enemy's attempts to divide and conquer will be fruitful."
Agreed. I guess the most important thing is that we don't ridicule or demean each other, when we are presenting evidence or exchanging ideas. That way lies the Dark Side. I think el gato's great comedic instincts served him poorly here, for instance. Worst of all, it wasn't even funny. I could've punched it up for him, if given the chance.
Grant - like you, I come at this from a non-religious perspective (I go with agnostic seeking gnosis versus atheist) and share your reticence to take all of the things we don’t understand about the universe and call them ‘God’. But it’s interesting to consider whether it’s possible to believe that sinister spiritual powers exist if you don’t believe benevolent spiritual powers exist, or to conceive of what ‘good’ is without a duality that provides a countervailing reference point of ‘bad’ or ‘evil’.
Mark - on the note of gnosis… since you linked Winston Smith’s piece as a ‘fairly good summary of the past several centuries of occult religious development’ I’m curious whether you agree with his takes on gnosticism (i.e. that its origins are unclear, that it is based a flawed conceptualization of the divine based on misinterpreting the character of God in the Old Testament, and that it has essentially survived by making incursions on other religions?)
I wasn't really opining on the subject of Gnosticism. I was just trying to introduce the notion of secret religious practices to those readers who we're starting from zero on the subject. I thought it was fairly uncontroversial to say that a good number of gnostics practiced their faith in secret at various times throughout history, even if only as a taqiyya-style survival strategy (though please correct me if I'm wrong about that).
As for the rest, if you have a better summary that serves my goal with a more neutral analysis, please post a link. I could definitely update the piece to include both links, if that would satisfy all parties.
I didn’t say you got it wrong, I asked Mark if he agreed with your take since he linked it as a fairly good summary.
If you had been presenting Gnosticism objectively, I would think you’d mention that the origin is disputed but potentially the original sect from which the early church diverged, or mention the existence of texts like the nag hammadi given that they purport to have additional gospels and direct teachings of Christ.
With respect to how the belief is based on flawed interpretation of the god of the Old Testament, I think it’s on you to explain how
the ‘narcissistic, jumped up volcano demon worshipped by the Israelites’ (cribbed from John Carter) is just misunderstood as opposed to describing a fundamentally different entity from the loving, forgiving creator god of the New Testament.
‘While on the topic, it is also worth a few words to highlight how Gnostic and Hermetic ideas influenced religion as well as philosophy. As far as one can see, it does indeed seem that all major religions have had incursions by Gnostic (which morphed and then returned) and Hermetic ideas over the centuries. Christianity has seen such groups as the Cathars, who became a self destructive set of socialist agrarian communes and went on violent crusades across Germany and Italy.’ This bit about repeated incursions doesn’t come with examples, but does gloss over how gnostics, hermeticists and cathars were all pursued for eradication by the church in the crusades and why that might’ve been.
I guess one of the difficulties is that we present summaries and not detailed analysis - partly due to the nature of Substack and the attention span of the general reader, and partly due to the fact that time is limited and I don’t want to spend too much time teasing out the history of heretical groups (it just doesn’t interest me that much). In my summary of The Socialist Phenomenon I could have detailed many examples of say the Cathar sects, their various origins, specific campaigns against the Catholic Church, their influence on later philosophy (although I will be doing that as we continue in the series).
So I agree there are many details left out, I probably could have done a better job of being complete yet remain concise. I’m always open to reading those who have devoted much more time and effort to understand such things.
This is the beauty of a Substack community - we can help each other fill in the gaps! 😊
I appreciate the perspective, as the things I've read have focused much more on these sects being persecuted by the Church as opposed to acting as antagonists of the Church and other religions. This is indeed the beauty of the Substack community, and I appreciate that many of you link and engage and expound on articles and ideas from other authors. Cheers.
Mark - I don't think it's imperative to update given that most people probably don't really care deeply about the history here. I wasn't trying to nitpick, just curious about your opinion since it's a topic that interests me. If you did want to include a 2nd link for an alternative perspective that still supports your taqiyya hypothesis, you might consider John Carter's The Gospel of Mark Antony part 3 at https://open.substack.com/pub/barsoom/p/the-gospel-of-mark-antony-3-jesus (section begins "The gnostic Christians, who seem to have been inspired by Paul ‘The Father of All Heresies’ of Tarsus, were bitterly opposed to the inclusion of the Old Testament in the Bible, on the grounds that it had nothing at all do with the story of Christ.")
I’ve been getting a bit of pushback from gnostics (that I don’t know enough to make commentary). So I’ll take up that challenge and do a historical survey of the movement… sigh.
Wow! Terrific piece! Thank you for writing this, because gato's response purr-turbed me as well; despite knowing his ideological bent in the first place, and understanding him thusly.
As for the constant tribal signalling, I find it tiresome and disheartening; it reveals how extraordinary difficult it is to organize human beings.
Anyhow, kudos to you. Really appreciate your remarks.
I think the label "Satanism" is part of the problem. The organizations founded by LaVey and Greaves are merely distractions (whatever criminal mischief they may actually entail). The problem with the word "Satanism" is that it places this drama firmly within a Christian religious context, but the powers and principalities are actually much older.
I think it might be helpful to consider that the real Old-Time religion -- in particular, the one favored by aristocrats of Europe and the Near East -- predates Christianity and remains a closely guarded secret since its methods include most of the technical tools of statecraft.
Whatever your feelings are about Christianity (love it or hate it) its paradigm is not a useful one for understanding statecraft. Neither is atheism. In order to truly understand, you need to step into the worldview of those who rule.
"The problem with the word "Satanism" is that it places this drama firmly within a Christian religious context, but the powers and principalities are actually much older."
I agree. But the problem is they have so many names! Molech, Enlil, Ishtar, Ba’al, Kali, Apollo, Ra, Obatala, Huitzilopochtli, Wotan, Tiamat... I could go on and on. Consolidating them into "Satan" I think draws more or less the right picture in most heads, considering that almost four billion people living right now were born into Abrahamic traditions.
As far as the intersection of Satanism with tools of modern statecraft goes, look into Michael Angelo Aquino.
"Old Time"...almost entirely confected very, very recently from academic and literary sources in the 19th c. The evidence suggests that private religions existed in abundance in pre-modern times, but they died out.
The powers and principalities are generated spontaneously by the human mind when it experiences aspects of the self as alien presences.
You are definitely onto something about statecraft. There is a very strong connection there because it is about sacralising power and motivating/licensing the crimes of the powerful.
Mostly by inference and intuition but picking up threads from antiquity. Start with Egypt, then Greece, then Rome, then all of Europe. It's useful to pay close attention to artwork.
Also: apply what we can observe in modern times, about how beliefs are used to manage populations, then project backwards in time. Psychological warfare is not a new thing.
I wish I could point you to specific sources, but most of this is learned by attention to aesthetic detail, sensitivity to semiotics, and uncompromising analysis of economic patterns. Even if I could point you to sources, most would dismiss as forgery or misinterpretation (much like what Mark's post is about).
This was another good one, Mark. I was unaware of the etymology of Balenciaga, though I am familiar with Baal worship due to some...interesting girlfriend choices I made back in the 90's. Thanks for putting a red dot (or green dot, I have both) on this subject for me.
Ever since I came to substack, I thought all my favorite writers here were basically atheists. Then it became clear that many of them are spiritual creatures, just not very loud about it.
Raised evangelical, now a quiet occultist, my mortal enemies are the so-called occultists you mention. Everything about these people I find repulsive, they are the opposite of what I believe about magic. But I am mostly quiet about what I believe and practice, because Christians and atheists alike are hostile to it, and would gladly associate me with the monsters you mention. I imagine there might be a bit of devil in that, associating all occultism with child sexual abuse.
I've sensed too in el gato malo, the same sort of dismissive, scientific materialist stance, about any talk of God or magic. Regardless, I am a fan.
I've been busy searching for employment (I found a job!) and wrapping up a novel, so I have been especially incognito. Glad to catch up on your work. The last three posts have me thinking. Good work.
Thanks, William. I try to take as generous a view of people as possible when it comes to this topic. I understand that not everyone is a Michael Aquino, Jack Parsons, Marina Abramović type of degenerate. I'm also not sure at all what you're into, so I can't judge even if I wanted to.
Congratulations on the job (and the novel! Be sure to let us know when it's available).
I read books, I practice a few simple rituals, I work with the tarot, I practice spiritual alchemy, so I can live the life I want to live and be creative. Mostly I just want to sing, play guitar, garden hike in the woods and write.
Mostly just calling out to certain deities in service, and the Circle of Protection. In the ways I practice, it is given that any black magic, cursing etc comes back at you three times. My magic is about empowering myself and others.
For reference I highly recommend Greer's, The King in Orange.
If you need proof of the Satanic origin of the plandemic and the Great Reset, observe that they have not broken their narrative stride *once* and have suffered *zero* public betrayals. This is not what happens in ordinary human plans and movements.
Yes, I have observed the same unusual pattern. Like all the devil's ploys, I suspect this apparent strength is also its greatest weakness. Here's a snippet from that companion article I've been working on:
"I’m guessing most of us have witnessed a so-called “religious conversion,” either in our own lives or indirectly through public figures. Some of these strike us as very opportunistic and fakey-fake. Others, however, appear not merely genuinely heartfelt, but radically transformative. Post-epiphany, the converted subject reorders the entire structure of their identity and priority system. They look upon the world with fresh eyes, including their own past crimes and sins. And if we play our cards right we can use this to our advantage."
The concept of the "zealous convert" when placed in this context would make for the most radical transformation of all, essentially a total inversion from Dark to Light. Such a convert could make for a *powerful* witness, exposing all kinds of heinous criminals and crimes (including those in which they had a direct hand, now that they understand spiritual redemption is possible).
Dec 11, 2022·edited Dec 11, 2022Liked by Mark Bisone
Or is it? I think your excellent piece shows just the opposite. There is no confusion in the field of the occult, only layers of hiding and teasing in alternative waves. The balenciaga fashion shoot is a perfect example. Put out hideous evil satanic paedophilic content and then say oops, sorry, we would never do that.
I get what you mean, Laura. I guess I just want to give people the benefit of the doubt in this situation. Gato doesn't seem to me like someone who would hurt kids. Quite the opposite, from some of what I've read of him. But I figure he's still the sort of person who might look down on me for my beliefs, That's fine in my book, as long as it doesn't hamper our fight against evil.
For sure, I enjoy his content also but always gives me pause that he calls himself Evil. I am of Portuguese background and the word malo is evocative. I would never associate myself with that word/world even jokingly
Certainly Satan has a number of plays like, "I don't exist", "I'm a joke", "I'm a cartoon", "I'm a silly figment of the imagination of deluded Christians", and similar ploys that have been tactics for a very long time.
As you say, "Who cares if some joker wants to play Satan Club?" - Well the joker who worships Satan cares. And why does this matter? Well, it could be that a supernatural evil entity can use a willing human worshiper to channel his authority into the social fabric and turn a bunch of Satan Club school kids (who's atheist parents think it's just good fun) into more human channels for his power and authority.
Ah, but don't worry about it. It's just a joke right? It's just superstitious nonsense - let the crazy right wing Christians jump up and down about it, they've lost all credibility anyway. There's no ancient supernatural dark lord trying to wield his power through willing human agents... right? That's for the cartoons and superhero movies! Besides this Satan thing just popped up 6 minutes ago. We live in a rational and scientific world now where Satan doesn't exist. All those religious folk for the past six thousand years or so just didn't have Science which has the power to make Satan go away - except for the left over psychic archetypes that haven't yet evolved out of our brains.
So we can all just laugh at stupid Lucien Greaves, Anton LaVey, and all those other nut jobs and sleep well tonight, knowing there is nothing supernatural to see here.
(and for those who read my satire as serious journalism... I'm being completely facetious here ;-) )
The term "Satanism" may be unhelpful when trying to convince normies that spiritual war is being waged. It elicits too much kneejerk dismissiveness. Satan is in back of it, but as explicated in Cahn's "Return of the Gods," other demons are attracting more overt worship at the moment, including Baal of course, and Ishtar (she's why there are rainbows everywhere). I think a useful line of argument / apologetics is to show normies the actual historical practices of these cults, which did predate Christianity and were suppressed by it. No one can fail to see how they mirror modern perversions with spooky exactitude. For instance, the priests of Cybele, another avatar for Ishtar / Artemis, would voluntarily castrate themselves and dress as women. Boston Children's Hospital wasn't around in those days! Parents in the Moloch cult would sacrifice a child to supposedly attract prosperity. They didn't have Planned Parenthood to take that child away and free up the mother for career success! Etc etc. These parallels go on and on, and prove without a doubt, to my mind, that many normies have been sucked into demon worship without ever even knowing the names of their "gods." As a wise man said, "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing fools he doesn't exist."
"The term "Satanism" may be unhelpful when trying to convince normies that spiritual war is being waged. It elicits too much kneejerk dismissiveness."
I agree in some respects with what you're saying here, Felix. But that wasn't what I was trying to do with this piece. I think I was trying to extend a bridge to our secularist allies, letting them know that they don't have to believe in the existence of Satan to observe the existence of "Satanists" (and other occultists), or to not dismiss out of hand the evidence that some appear to be highly placed within the Enemy's organizational level.
I agree with all of the specificity of the sacrificial circuitry at play here, with regards to the modern instantiations of the older cults of the Levant (among others). I am going to dive into those as well, but since el gato malo chose to plant his flag on Satanism specifically, I had to address his confusion directly in this piece.
I didn't mean to dismiss what you were doing in this piece, just jumping ahead I suppose, because I'm already convinced. I hope el gato malo reads it and considers your arguments! He's a classic libertarian and very, very bright. I have great admiration for his work, but the problem with people like that is they don't know what they don't know. I've caught him in the past making lazy analogies between The Science (TM) and the Inquisition--he heard somewhere that the Catholic Church used to burn people at the stake, and never bothered to look into the actual facts. This is very common among the highly educated. Gato is a Gen X Ivy League smartypants who rebelled against the ideological conformity and went out on his own. So am I, and if I hadn't converted to Catholicism, I'd never have learned the facts, either (history major!!). A person's heart needs to be open before their minds can open up to learning new things. But thinking about it, that's why raising the topic of Satanism might work more broadly, if the lurid realities were to be splashed around in public. It could grab people on an emotional level. That's what's needed. The consumerist hellscape has to be shown to be a Mardi Gras costume for ancient and disgusting forces that are having their way with the poor souls who buy in.
Great essay. I especially like the tone, which suggests a rarely encountered degree of sanity and good humour.
Modern organised Satanism appears to have its origins in the murky regions where the Deep State (MK Ultra etc) meets the occult. The popularity of Satanic/Luciferian currents owes a great deal to the regime's need for an antinomian solvent to weaken traditional or inherited forms of ethics and belief. In a sense, you could say that Satanism is on its way to becoming the State Shinto of the Deep State.
IMO Satanism functions as a kind of quasi-Tantric flypaper for people seeking a cultural/spritual license for extreme behaviour with a ritual flavour. The drama and ceremonial elements also offer a thrilling 'realism' for a generation bored by digital infotainment.
The intellectual significance of the occult is that it has traditionally been used to explore psychic extremes. Traditional beliefs or practices (trance experiences, possession, reincarnation) accrue particular relevance now that they can be interpreted through modern neuroscience and the dark arts of manipulation and mind control.
It is worth taking seriously, in that the people involved in it are real and are caught up in the power games of our sociopathic elites. But defence from this is straightforward: sincerity, respect for other people, goodwill etc.
"Modern organised Satanism appears to have its origins in the murky regions where the Deep State (MK Ultra etc) meets the occult."
Oh yes, it certainly does. I'm gonna do a deep dive on that swampy intersection, hopefully before Christmas. And agree about the "State Shinto of the Deep State." That's a great analogy.
"The drama and ceremonial elements also offer a thrilling 'realism' for a generation bored by digital infotainment."
And that's *particularly* the case in Hollywood. Gonna do a deep dive on that too. Man, I should really invest in some scuba gear.
"It is worth taking seriously, in that the people involved in it are real and are caught up in the power games of our sociopathic elites. But defence from this is straightforward: sincerity, respect for other people, goodwill etc."
Yes, and that was the main thrust of my writing here. If we're going to critique each other's evidence, we should at the very least not be lazy, sloppy and snarky about it.
Dec 14, 2022·edited Dec 14, 2022Liked by Mark Bisone
I admit to writing an article quite soon after viewing the "Died Suddenly" documentary. But in my defense, it's not like I'm a newbie to the fact that alphabet agencies and shadow agencies of both the government and ITS black magic masters are *constantly* persuading us to self-harm under the guise of self-help "for the good of all." So I will let my Ss post stand unedited until someone like a staunch adherent of Germ Theory and self-proclaimed insider to Rockefeller petrochemical "medicine" peddlers can *not only* write a lengthy take-down of said documentary (slow clap for Matthew Crawford), but show me verifiable electron microscope pictures of a truly organic virus (meaning "not laboratory made pathogens") along with replicated scientific evidence over at least two decades of *viruses being causative of disease and transmissible.*
Meanwhile, I've been writing a Ss article while also cooking *a lot* for my happy food clients, making videos for Ron's and my new podcast, teaching music lessons, and preparing to record with one of my students an arranged flute duet of Tchaikovsky's "March" as part of the Nutcracker Suite!
I love reading your writing, even if I need "un petite pause" to do breathing exercises between segments. Right now, my Persian cat is gorgeously sprawled out on my desk and overlapping the keyboard *just enough* so that she doesn't do any secret typing!😻
"I would like to have had a chance to edit this essay (which is excellent)"
Thank, hoss. As I said privately, I agree with all your criticisms here. I will investigate your advice (though, as mentioned, I'm pretty broke at the moment). As far as a book, I suppose it's possible with some of my longer series (I've recently realized that "The Harm Assistant," for instance -- and somewhat to my chagrin -- is going to wind up being quite long).
One may only sympathise with poor prone-to-being-broken Pope’s postulate 😳 Translates to writing just as well: such much to say, so lil’ space. The abandoned focus stilly snivels behind the wandering thought. When everything is a priority, nothing is.
Fantastic essay! Regardless of whether we believe Satan or other sinister spiritual powers exist, if occultists believe that he does and act on that belief, we better take note.
Alex Jones has been making this point at least since he snuck into Bohemian Grove.
It's a good point.
Correct!
I suspect a large element of the incredulity with which occult left hand path mafias are greeted in normie discourse is simply the horror one must confront if the implications are thoroughly considered and the world subsequently examined with that possibility in mind. They intuit what they might find and they just don't want to go there. Which is a huge advantage for any such organizations that do operate. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled and such.
Our feline friend, from what I've seen, considers reality from a rationalist, libertarian perspective. My guess is he's a scientific professional of some sort, so that ideological perspective is exactly what you'd expect. Given the background it isn't at all surprising that he'd react in that fashion. On such topics he's the normiest of normies. We've all got our blind spots though so I don't begrudge him that.
"I suspect a large element of the incredulity with which occult left hand path mafias are greeted in normie discourse is simply the horror one must confront if the implications are thoroughly considered and the world subsequently examined with that possibility in mind."
Me too. I guess the same could be said for any discovery that deranges an otherwise stable worldview. Our limited sensory perspectives require that we imagine 99.99999999% of the universe's structure and contents (though my math may be slightly off there). We want this imaginary reality to be a strong ship, staffed by steady hands, which is why so many maintain ludicrous delusions about the competence and morality of their governments and/or party factions.
And thanks to Hollywood (with a few notable exceptions), the imagined reality about Satanism tends to be a Halloweenie cartoon, when the real deal is much more graspable on both an intellectual and spiritual leve (and in many ways, is scarier and more obscene for its relative "mundanity" -- as I said, I have some inside baseball that I might someday share).
Not to be coarse-minded, but the reality of cultic evil makes a great deal of sense within the context of organised crime. Like the atrocities of the Nazis (who compromised people by getting them 'tied by blood') sacrifice can be used to bond people together as well as to demonstrate the power of leaders. My understanding is that quite a few cults have been involved in drugs and other criminal activities and that for the leadership the money is the thing.
There was a great article on this by Rod Dreher recently that may interest you.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/santa-muerte-the-spiritual-realities-of-the-drug-war/
Most people seem to think the most evil, crazy, inhuman shit out there couldn't possibly be happening, because they could never see themselves or anybody they know doing it.
...And that's exactly why it continues to happen (although that might be starting to finally shift).
People do not want to acknowledge it, because they wish to avoid taking responsibility for responding to it.
I've been working on this same issue from the atheist side for some time. I'm starting to think it might be appropriate to use religious terminology to describe this emergent phenomena. We're all connected to one another mechanistically by the mirror-motor system. The preponderance of our cognitive capability is centered on social relationships, religion being a major part. There will always be some vast unknowable component of the universe, perhaps filling the gaps with religious language is the most appropriate since we do need a common language to address and defeat this enemy. A feel somewhat divinely inspired to fight on the side of righteousness in this occult war to preserve humanity. I've felt that calling the source of this inspiration God is disingenuous given that I'm not traditionally religious, but a lot of people say they believe in God and upon close inspection they're really just defining the majesty of natural processes as God. Is that allowed? Given the deep human psychological need for narrative, I think I prefer to just say God unites us against the forces of evil. Why not call the servants of evil demons, or describe them as being possessed by such? At the end of the day, I think it will come down to personal preference, but efforts to translate these different languages so that we may unify and better resist the enemy's attempts to divide and conquer will be fruitful. Thanks for the thought provoking article!
I think you should use whichever language model suits you best, Grant. As I've mentioned before, you are a fantastic communicator, both in your writing and in podcast format. That's quite a powerful combination, IMO.
"There will always be some vast unknowable component of the universe, perhaps filling the gaps with religious language is the most appropriate since we do need a common language to address and defeat this enemy."
I agree, which is why the most I hope for in conversations with atheists (or with anyone, frankly) is for them to say "maybe." It's the publicly expressed certainty about important topics that often drives the truck into the ditch, if not right off the cliff. I include *religious* certainty in this equation (Lord knows there many trucks in that particular ditch). That is why I prefer to use word like "belief," "faith" and "suspect" in my language. It's not just out of humility, but awe for all that I do not (and probably cannot, in this lifetime) know.
"At the end of the day, I think it will come down to personal preference, but efforts to translate these different languages so that we may unify and better resist the enemy's attempts to divide and conquer will be fruitful."
Agreed. I guess the most important thing is that we don't ridicule or demean each other, when we are presenting evidence or exchanging ideas. That way lies the Dark Side. I think el gato's great comedic instincts served him poorly here, for instance. Worst of all, it wasn't even funny. I could've punched it up for him, if given the chance.
Grant - like you, I come at this from a non-religious perspective (I go with agnostic seeking gnosis versus atheist) and share your reticence to take all of the things we don’t understand about the universe and call them ‘God’. But it’s interesting to consider whether it’s possible to believe that sinister spiritual powers exist if you don’t believe benevolent spiritual powers exist, or to conceive of what ‘good’ is without a duality that provides a countervailing reference point of ‘bad’ or ‘evil’.
Mark - on the note of gnosis… since you linked Winston Smith’s piece as a ‘fairly good summary of the past several centuries of occult religious development’ I’m curious whether you agree with his takes on gnosticism (i.e. that its origins are unclear, that it is based a flawed conceptualization of the divine based on misinterpreting the character of God in the Old Testament, and that it has essentially survived by making incursions on other religions?)
I wasn't really opining on the subject of Gnosticism. I was just trying to introduce the notion of secret religious practices to those readers who we're starting from zero on the subject. I thought it was fairly uncontroversial to say that a good number of gnostics practiced their faith in secret at various times throughout history, even if only as a taqiyya-style survival strategy (though please correct me if I'm wrong about that).
As for the rest, if you have a better summary that serves my goal with a more neutral analysis, please post a link. I could definitely update the piece to include both links, if that would satisfy all parties.
Where do you suppose we got it wrong on the gnostic score?
I didn’t say you got it wrong, I asked Mark if he agreed with your take since he linked it as a fairly good summary.
If you had been presenting Gnosticism objectively, I would think you’d mention that the origin is disputed but potentially the original sect from which the early church diverged, or mention the existence of texts like the nag hammadi given that they purport to have additional gospels and direct teachings of Christ.
With respect to how the belief is based on flawed interpretation of the god of the Old Testament, I think it’s on you to explain how
the ‘narcissistic, jumped up volcano demon worshipped by the Israelites’ (cribbed from John Carter) is just misunderstood as opposed to describing a fundamentally different entity from the loving, forgiving creator god of the New Testament.
‘While on the topic, it is also worth a few words to highlight how Gnostic and Hermetic ideas influenced religion as well as philosophy. As far as one can see, it does indeed seem that all major religions have had incursions by Gnostic (which morphed and then returned) and Hermetic ideas over the centuries. Christianity has seen such groups as the Cathars, who became a self destructive set of socialist agrarian communes and went on violent crusades across Germany and Italy.’ This bit about repeated incursions doesn’t come with examples, but does gloss over how gnostics, hermeticists and cathars were all pursued for eradication by the church in the crusades and why that might’ve been.
I guess one of the difficulties is that we present summaries and not detailed analysis - partly due to the nature of Substack and the attention span of the general reader, and partly due to the fact that time is limited and I don’t want to spend too much time teasing out the history of heretical groups (it just doesn’t interest me that much). In my summary of The Socialist Phenomenon I could have detailed many examples of say the Cathar sects, their various origins, specific campaigns against the Catholic Church, their influence on later philosophy (although I will be doing that as we continue in the series).
So I agree there are many details left out, I probably could have done a better job of being complete yet remain concise. I’m always open to reading those who have devoted much more time and effort to understand such things.
This is the beauty of a Substack community - we can help each other fill in the gaps! 😊
I appreciate the perspective, as the things I've read have focused much more on these sects being persecuted by the Church as opposed to acting as antagonists of the Church and other religions. This is indeed the beauty of the Substack community, and I appreciate that many of you link and engage and expound on articles and ideas from other authors. Cheers.
Mark - I don't think it's imperative to update given that most people probably don't really care deeply about the history here. I wasn't trying to nitpick, just curious about your opinion since it's a topic that interests me. If you did want to include a 2nd link for an alternative perspective that still supports your taqiyya hypothesis, you might consider John Carter's The Gospel of Mark Antony part 3 at https://open.substack.com/pub/barsoom/p/the-gospel-of-mark-antony-3-jesus (section begins "The gnostic Christians, who seem to have been inspired by Paul ‘The Father of All Heresies’ of Tarsus, were bitterly opposed to the inclusion of the Old Testament in the Bible, on the grounds that it had nothing at all do with the story of Christ.")
I’ve been getting a bit of pushback from gnostics (that I don’t know enough to make commentary). So I’ll take up that challenge and do a historical survey of the movement… sigh.
(see my comment above)
Sounds like you are agnostic adjacent 😜
Wow! Terrific piece! Thank you for writing this, because gato's response purr-turbed me as well; despite knowing his ideological bent in the first place, and understanding him thusly.
As for the constant tribal signalling, I find it tiresome and disheartening; it reveals how extraordinary difficult it is to organize human beings.
Anyhow, kudos to you. Really appreciate your remarks.
Thanks! Yeah, I love the cat's stuff, but that piece of his was a little off the Mark (oh man did I just pun myself?)
Cheers.
I think the label "Satanism" is part of the problem. The organizations founded by LaVey and Greaves are merely distractions (whatever criminal mischief they may actually entail). The problem with the word "Satanism" is that it places this drama firmly within a Christian religious context, but the powers and principalities are actually much older.
I think it might be helpful to consider that the real Old-Time religion -- in particular, the one favored by aristocrats of Europe and the Near East -- predates Christianity and remains a closely guarded secret since its methods include most of the technical tools of statecraft.
Whatever your feelings are about Christianity (love it or hate it) its paradigm is not a useful one for understanding statecraft. Neither is atheism. In order to truly understand, you need to step into the worldview of those who rule.
"The problem with the word "Satanism" is that it places this drama firmly within a Christian religious context, but the powers and principalities are actually much older."
I agree. But the problem is they have so many names! Molech, Enlil, Ishtar, Ba’al, Kali, Apollo, Ra, Obatala, Huitzilopochtli, Wotan, Tiamat... I could go on and on. Consolidating them into "Satan" I think draws more or less the right picture in most heads, considering that almost four billion people living right now were born into Abrahamic traditions.
As far as the intersection of Satanism with tools of modern statecraft goes, look into Michael Angelo Aquino.
"Old Time"...almost entirely confected very, very recently from academic and literary sources in the 19th c. The evidence suggests that private religions existed in abundance in pre-modern times, but they died out.
The powers and principalities are generated spontaneously by the human mind when it experiences aspects of the self as alien presences.
You are definitely onto something about statecraft. There is a very strong connection there because it is about sacralising power and motivating/licensing the crimes of the powerful.
Can you tell us more about this ancient worldview? I am fascinated
Mostly by inference and intuition but picking up threads from antiquity. Start with Egypt, then Greece, then Rome, then all of Europe. It's useful to pay close attention to artwork.
Also: apply what we can observe in modern times, about how beliefs are used to manage populations, then project backwards in time. Psychological warfare is not a new thing.
I wish I could point you to specific sources, but most of this is learned by attention to aesthetic detail, sensitivity to semiotics, and uncompromising analysis of economic patterns. Even if I could point you to sources, most would dismiss as forgery or misinterpretation (much like what Mark's post is about).
This was another good one, Mark. I was unaware of the etymology of Balenciaga, though I am familiar with Baal worship due to some...interesting girlfriend choices I made back in the 90's. Thanks for putting a red dot (or green dot, I have both) on this subject for me.
No problem, man. The 90's were a muh'fuh when it came to that stuff, for sure.
Thanks for the comment. Us Marks gotta stick together.
Ever since I came to substack, I thought all my favorite writers here were basically atheists. Then it became clear that many of them are spiritual creatures, just not very loud about it.
Raised evangelical, now a quiet occultist, my mortal enemies are the so-called occultists you mention. Everything about these people I find repulsive, they are the opposite of what I believe about magic. But I am mostly quiet about what I believe and practice, because Christians and atheists alike are hostile to it, and would gladly associate me with the monsters you mention. I imagine there might be a bit of devil in that, associating all occultism with child sexual abuse.
I've sensed too in el gato malo, the same sort of dismissive, scientific materialist stance, about any talk of God or magic. Regardless, I am a fan.
I've been busy searching for employment (I found a job!) and wrapping up a novel, so I have been especially incognito. Glad to catch up on your work. The last three posts have me thinking. Good work.
Thanks, William. I try to take as generous a view of people as possible when it comes to this topic. I understand that not everyone is a Michael Aquino, Jack Parsons, Marina Abramović type of degenerate. I'm also not sure at all what you're into, so I can't judge even if I wanted to.
Congratulations on the job (and the novel! Be sure to let us know when it's available).
I read books, I practice a few simple rituals, I work with the tarot, I practice spiritual alchemy, so I can live the life I want to live and be creative. Mostly I just want to sing, play guitar, garden hike in the woods and write.
As long as those rituals don't involve rape and/or blood sacrifice, I'd say we'd have no problem working together. ;)
Mostly just calling out to certain deities in service, and the Circle of Protection. In the ways I practice, it is given that any black magic, cursing etc comes back at you three times. My magic is about empowering myself and others.
For reference I highly recommend Greer's, The King in Orange.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/55319084-the-king-in-orange
Okay, will do.
If you need proof of the Satanic origin of the plandemic and the Great Reset, observe that they have not broken their narrative stride *once* and have suffered *zero* public betrayals. This is not what happens in ordinary human plans and movements.
Yes, I have observed the same unusual pattern. Like all the devil's ploys, I suspect this apparent strength is also its greatest weakness. Here's a snippet from that companion article I've been working on:
"I’m guessing most of us have witnessed a so-called “religious conversion,” either in our own lives or indirectly through public figures. Some of these strike us as very opportunistic and fakey-fake. Others, however, appear not merely genuinely heartfelt, but radically transformative. Post-epiphany, the converted subject reorders the entire structure of their identity and priority system. They look upon the world with fresh eyes, including their own past crimes and sins. And if we play our cards right we can use this to our advantage."
The concept of the "zealous convert" when placed in this context would make for the most radical transformation of all, essentially a total inversion from Dark to Light. Such a convert could make for a *powerful* witness, exposing all kinds of heinous criminals and crimes (including those in which they had a direct hand, now that they understand spiritual redemption is possible).
Or is the Evil Cat obscuring his familiars from view??
Okay, I'm curious. Care to explain a bit for me?
I’m implying that gato malo(evil cat) is himself demonic and his witches/demons are the occultists whom he is protecting by obscuring them
I mean, I guess it's possible. But tend to think he's just confused when it comes to matters like this. Confusion seems to be the default these days.
Or is it? I think your excellent piece shows just the opposite. There is no confusion in the field of the occult, only layers of hiding and teasing in alternative waves. The balenciaga fashion shoot is a perfect example. Put out hideous evil satanic paedophilic content and then say oops, sorry, we would never do that.
I get what you mean, Laura. I guess I just want to give people the benefit of the doubt in this situation. Gato doesn't seem to me like someone who would hurt kids. Quite the opposite, from some of what I've read of him. But I figure he's still the sort of person who might look down on me for my beliefs, That's fine in my book, as long as it doesn't hamper our fight against evil.
For sure, I enjoy his content also but always gives me pause that he calls himself Evil. I am of Portuguese background and the word malo is evocative. I would never associate myself with that word/world even jokingly
Great article.
Certainly Satan has a number of plays like, "I don't exist", "I'm a joke", "I'm a cartoon", "I'm a silly figment of the imagination of deluded Christians", and similar ploys that have been tactics for a very long time.
As you say, "Who cares if some joker wants to play Satan Club?" - Well the joker who worships Satan cares. And why does this matter? Well, it could be that a supernatural evil entity can use a willing human worshiper to channel his authority into the social fabric and turn a bunch of Satan Club school kids (who's atheist parents think it's just good fun) into more human channels for his power and authority.
Ah, but don't worry about it. It's just a joke right? It's just superstitious nonsense - let the crazy right wing Christians jump up and down about it, they've lost all credibility anyway. There's no ancient supernatural dark lord trying to wield his power through willing human agents... right? That's for the cartoons and superhero movies! Besides this Satan thing just popped up 6 minutes ago. We live in a rational and scientific world now where Satan doesn't exist. All those religious folk for the past six thousand years or so just didn't have Science which has the power to make Satan go away - except for the left over psychic archetypes that haven't yet evolved out of our brains.
So we can all just laugh at stupid Lucien Greaves, Anton LaVey, and all those other nut jobs and sleep well tonight, knowing there is nothing supernatural to see here.
(and for those who read my satire as serious journalism... I'm being completely facetious here ;-) )
The term "Satanism" may be unhelpful when trying to convince normies that spiritual war is being waged. It elicits too much kneejerk dismissiveness. Satan is in back of it, but as explicated in Cahn's "Return of the Gods," other demons are attracting more overt worship at the moment, including Baal of course, and Ishtar (she's why there are rainbows everywhere). I think a useful line of argument / apologetics is to show normies the actual historical practices of these cults, which did predate Christianity and were suppressed by it. No one can fail to see how they mirror modern perversions with spooky exactitude. For instance, the priests of Cybele, another avatar for Ishtar / Artemis, would voluntarily castrate themselves and dress as women. Boston Children's Hospital wasn't around in those days! Parents in the Moloch cult would sacrifice a child to supposedly attract prosperity. They didn't have Planned Parenthood to take that child away and free up the mother for career success! Etc etc. These parallels go on and on, and prove without a doubt, to my mind, that many normies have been sucked into demon worship without ever even knowing the names of their "gods." As a wise man said, "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing fools he doesn't exist."
"The term "Satanism" may be unhelpful when trying to convince normies that spiritual war is being waged. It elicits too much kneejerk dismissiveness."
I agree in some respects with what you're saying here, Felix. But that wasn't what I was trying to do with this piece. I think I was trying to extend a bridge to our secularist allies, letting them know that they don't have to believe in the existence of Satan to observe the existence of "Satanists" (and other occultists), or to not dismiss out of hand the evidence that some appear to be highly placed within the Enemy's organizational level.
I agree with all of the specificity of the sacrificial circuitry at play here, with regards to the modern instantiations of the older cults of the Levant (among others). I am going to dive into those as well, but since el gato malo chose to plant his flag on Satanism specifically, I had to address his confusion directly in this piece.
I didn't mean to dismiss what you were doing in this piece, just jumping ahead I suppose, because I'm already convinced. I hope el gato malo reads it and considers your arguments! He's a classic libertarian and very, very bright. I have great admiration for his work, but the problem with people like that is they don't know what they don't know. I've caught him in the past making lazy analogies between The Science (TM) and the Inquisition--he heard somewhere that the Catholic Church used to burn people at the stake, and never bothered to look into the actual facts. This is very common among the highly educated. Gato is a Gen X Ivy League smartypants who rebelled against the ideological conformity and went out on his own. So am I, and if I hadn't converted to Catholicism, I'd never have learned the facts, either (history major!!). A person's heart needs to be open before their minds can open up to learning new things. But thinking about it, that's why raising the topic of Satanism might work more broadly, if the lurid realities were to be splashed around in public. It could grab people on an emotional level. That's what's needed. The consumerist hellscape has to be shown to be a Mardi Gras costume for ancient and disgusting forces that are having their way with the poor souls who buy in.
Great essay. I especially like the tone, which suggests a rarely encountered degree of sanity and good humour.
Modern organised Satanism appears to have its origins in the murky regions where the Deep State (MK Ultra etc) meets the occult. The popularity of Satanic/Luciferian currents owes a great deal to the regime's need for an antinomian solvent to weaken traditional or inherited forms of ethics and belief. In a sense, you could say that Satanism is on its way to becoming the State Shinto of the Deep State.
IMO Satanism functions as a kind of quasi-Tantric flypaper for people seeking a cultural/spritual license for extreme behaviour with a ritual flavour. The drama and ceremonial elements also offer a thrilling 'realism' for a generation bored by digital infotainment.
The intellectual significance of the occult is that it has traditionally been used to explore psychic extremes. Traditional beliefs or practices (trance experiences, possession, reincarnation) accrue particular relevance now that they can be interpreted through modern neuroscience and the dark arts of manipulation and mind control.
It is worth taking seriously, in that the people involved in it are real and are caught up in the power games of our sociopathic elites. But defence from this is straightforward: sincerity, respect for other people, goodwill etc.
Thanks, Philip!
"Modern organised Satanism appears to have its origins in the murky regions where the Deep State (MK Ultra etc) meets the occult."
Oh yes, it certainly does. I'm gonna do a deep dive on that swampy intersection, hopefully before Christmas. And agree about the "State Shinto of the Deep State." That's a great analogy.
"The drama and ceremonial elements also offer a thrilling 'realism' for a generation bored by digital infotainment."
And that's *particularly* the case in Hollywood. Gonna do a deep dive on that too. Man, I should really invest in some scuba gear.
"It is worth taking seriously, in that the people involved in it are real and are caught up in the power games of our sociopathic elites. But defence from this is straightforward: sincerity, respect for other people, goodwill etc."
Yes, and that was the main thrust of my writing here. If we're going to critique each other's evidence, we should at the very least not be lazy, sloppy and snarky about it.
Watch out! Criticize El Gato and he'll ban you from commenting on his posts!
I'm glad that you, too, have noticed some alarming "inconsistencies" in The Bad Cat's logic.
The post that got me banned from his Substack is linked elsewhere in this comment thread, in reply to Laura Noncomplier's salient remarks.
I admit to writing an article quite soon after viewing the "Died Suddenly" documentary. But in my defense, it's not like I'm a newbie to the fact that alphabet agencies and shadow agencies of both the government and ITS black magic masters are *constantly* persuading us to self-harm under the guise of self-help "for the good of all." So I will let my Ss post stand unedited until someone like a staunch adherent of Germ Theory and self-proclaimed insider to Rockefeller petrochemical "medicine" peddlers can *not only* write a lengthy take-down of said documentary (slow clap for Matthew Crawford), but show me verifiable electron microscope pictures of a truly organic virus (meaning "not laboratory made pathogens") along with replicated scientific evidence over at least two decades of *viruses being causative of disease and transmissible.*
Meanwhile, I've been writing a Ss article while also cooking *a lot* for my happy food clients, making videos for Ron's and my new podcast, teaching music lessons, and preparing to record with one of my students an arranged flute duet of Tchaikovsky's "March" as part of the Nutcracker Suite!
I love reading your writing, even if I need "un petite pause" to do breathing exercises between segments. Right now, my Persian cat is gorgeously sprawled out on my desk and overlapping the keyboard *just enough* so that she doesn't do any secret typing!😻
Fascinating and disturbing joining of the dots...
Thanks Gary. I still have a few more dots to connect, but hopefully this was a useful start.
"I would like to have had a chance to edit this essay (which is excellent)"
Thank, hoss. As I said privately, I agree with all your criticisms here. I will investigate your advice (though, as mentioned, I'm pretty broke at the moment). As far as a book, I suppose it's possible with some of my longer series (I've recently realized that "The Harm Assistant," for instance -- and somewhat to my chagrin -- is going to wind up being quite long).
One may only sympathise with poor prone-to-being-broken Pope’s postulate 😳 Translates to writing just as well: such much to say, so lil’ space. The abandoned focus stilly snivels behind the wandering thought. When everything is a priority, nothing is.