Christians protest new statue in DC, but for the wrong reasons

From Wikipedia:

The name Baphomet first appeared in trial transcripts for the Inquisition of the Knights Templar in the early 14th century.[1] It first came into popular English usage in the 19th century during debate and speculation on the reasons for the suppression of the Templars.[2]

Since 1856, the name Baphomet has been associated with a “Sabbatic Goat” image drawn by Eliphas Levi[3] which contains binary elements representing the “sum total of the universe” (e.g. male and female, good and evil, on and off, etc.).[4] On one hand, Lévi’s intention was to symbolize his concept of “the equilibrium of the opposites” that was essential to his magnetistic notion of the Astral Light; on the other hand, the Baphomet represents a heretical tradition that should result in a perfect social order, a notion that can only be understood against Lévi’s socialist background.[5]


It is the socialist background that should alarm the Christians. If it was actually Satanism a case could be made that Christians should be pleased, as its the same pantheon of the Catholics. In other words, to worship Satan is in essence, to worship the Catholic god of evil, and therefore brings you into the Catholic orbit. So the debate can be had.

(Yes, Islam has a Satan as well, but like everything else in Islam its a reformatted version which bears a resemblance to its opposite more often than the name would bring to mind.)

It is the socialist aspect of Baphomet which is an attempt to relativize good and evil till there is a level field for all moral positions and actions which should concern these Christian protestors.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

12 Replies to “Christians protest new statue in DC, but for the wrong reasons”

    • I do have a habit of over condensing I know. Can you give me an idea of what you are after or what points need elaboration please?

      • Could you explain the heretical tradition and how it related to socialism in “Baphomet represents a heretical tradition that should result in a perfect social order, a notion that can only be understood against Lévi’s socialist background.”? Also how is Baphomet (as opposed to Satan) outside the Catholic pantheon or orbit? Thanks!!

  1. What on earth is this. “The Catholic god of evil”? There is no Catholic god of evil!
    There is only one God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who is also the Father of Jesus.
    Satan is not a god, but a fallen angel who rebelled against God through pride and was cast into hell.
    According to Catholic teaching it was satan who tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden, and caused the fall of man.
    No sorry, been a Catholic for 75 years and I can tell you we don’t want people worshipping satan, though I think many do unknowingly.
    They may not call him by name but they certainly follow in his footsteps: ie. the seven deadly sins.

    • Ok I WAY over-condensed that little stream of consciousness. As I wrote it the voice in my head suggested I would possibly be offending more people than once when I suggested people should rethink Cassius Clay as he was on record as a race separatist more than once.

      It is quite likely that postmodernism, which certainly appears to be a kind of extension of Marxism, is also an extension of an older Hegelian kind of thinking, called Hermeticism. There is a book on it called, Hegel, and the Hermetic Tradition, which I will not tell you is a fun read but it is made of words, sentences, and paragraphs.

      Hermeticism appears to be the base stuff of postmodernism. It has all the moral relativism, and anti-Socratic rhetoric that would create a matrix for the sort of contempt of reality that postmodernism is.

      The steam rolling over good and evil as concepts etc.

      Baphomet, appears to me at least, to be more a sort of Hermetic icon of that steamrolled morality or lack of morality than any Christian version of Satan, even though that version is quite varied.

      Satan in Christian littérature and scripture has a fairly diverse set of attributes but in nearly all of them, save some awful postmodern TV shows, is at its core, a representation of a sort of antithesis of what is good, self sacrificing and humble.

      Even some sophisticated representations of the devil has him as a servant of God, but doing the awful work that must be done for order’s sake.

      Baphomet is more an attempt to erase both God and the Devil by design. A unashamedly hedonistic figurehead that gives permission to indulge whatever a person may immediately want for whatever reason without consideration, or even belief, in any higher moral principle.

      Those who worship Satan, I posit, are still in the Christian, and primarily Catholic orbit as Satan, as represented by movies and literature, is typically a Catholic one. Probably stemming mostly from Dante’s Inferno as well as some Greek and Roman mythology mixed in.

      In demonic possession movies, they pretty much never call in a Rabbi, or a Buddhist monk. Its nearly always a Catholic priest and occasionally a Protestant cleric of one denomination or another. Although I suspect that demonic and Satanic possession is probably more common in Protestant traditions than in the Catholic one at this stage.

      DISCLAIMER: The above two paragraph in no way is meant to diminish the value or importance of any of these concepts or entities. Merely an attempt to examine them clinically before making any sort of judgement!

      One might say that God, as Christians understand him, is the essence of self sacrifice for greater good and greater overall happiness. It is the willingness to forego immediate gratification for long term goals. God, it could be said, is the key to a happy family, and a successful life lived in an honest fashion.

      DISCLAIMER: This is not the ONLY key to it, but for millions and millions it clearly is.

      Baphomet as described by Wikipedia appears to be an attempt to confuse good and evil:

      “Baphomet represents a heretical tradition that should result in a perfect social order, a notion that can only be understood against Lévi’s socialist background.[5]”

      The idea of a perfect social order in a socialist sense is what caught my attention.

      In the Christian tradition, free will is crucial. Because unless a person chooses a good action, or a self sacrificing one over an immediate satisfaction one, it means nothing at all. But the socialist idea is to remake man into a perfect thing based on someone’s notion of what man should really be, and by force.

      I agree this could be Satanic for all intents and purposes. It would be a rather clever trick to take people away from all concepts Judeo-Christian.

      But strictly speaking Baphomet is not Satan directly, but a socialist notion of moral relativism.

      Or, I could be wrong. It was a somewhat hasty stream of consciousness. Thinking out loud.

      • I think it was EB who sent this amazing video in but it actually seems to be speaking to the same points. Although I am only 33 minutes in, i have to recommend the hell out of this.

        https://youtu.be/6vVX4etuLEY

        Just after I finished my reply above, I went back to the video to hear the primary speaker say:

        “High culture can only exist with strict sexual morals”.

        I fully believe that.

        Islam, it seems to me, was Mohammad’s redirecting of teenaged Arab male’s sex drive to be used for his personal enrichment and accumulation of power. A more awful thing I cannot think of. Civilization, at least Christian, seems to be the creation of greater and greater structures and technologies and systems for the betterment of mankind through any rational metric very much in tandem with sexual morality.

        And it seems easy to chart the fall of nations and civilizations with the destruction of those root drives.

        Frankly I think the drivers of the current leftist revolution know this and are using this for that exact reason. They do not give one damn about gay rights or women’s rights etc. etc. LGBT and so on, as they are allied with islam and not liberals. They are simply weaponizing sexuality as one of the multiple vectors of attack against global civilizations.

        • THE 45 COMMUNIST GOALS AS READ INTO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, 1963
          Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/watchwomanonthewall/2011/04/the-45-communist-goals-as-read-into-the-congressional-record-1963.html#ku7bmG2Lz6X7uCcB.99

          17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

          19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

          20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

          21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

          22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”

          23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”

          24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

          25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

          26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

          27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.

  2. OK – this could get me into a lot of trouble with a lot of readers here, but please, do note that I approach this from an anthropological angle and not a theological one. And, I have NOT read most of the same books on theology that most people have as part of their education, but I have read on this very extensively. I guess I just like obscure books…

    What is missing from this discussion is Lucifer.

    Early Christian were quickly divided into major groups (at the time) based on very separate beliefs.

    Some believed that Jesus was a being of 100% spirit, and not a physical being at all.

    Others believed he was 100% human, and the ‘son of God’ bit was meant in exactly the same way as ‘we are all children of God’. Some of these traditions hold the belief that this mortal being (NOT born of a virgin, but of royal line on both maternal and paternal side) was married to Mary-Magdalene, also a royal, and some (but not all) of these traditions lead to the Grail family belief and that Jesus died in Masada.

    And then there were MANY beliefs in between.

    No, I will not address them all – but I do want to have in on the record just how varied early Christian beliefs truly were. After all, the vast majority of original Christian teachings were destroyed at the Council of Nicea. And we have early Biblical scholars who have documented that as late as 800 AD, whole passages of the Bible were excised because they the Catholic Church did not like the way other Christian sects were interpreting them.

    So, let’s get to the Templars and Baphomet.

    The Templars were in touch with nonCatholic Christians, like the Cathats (Abiongensian Heresy) and the Bogomils (Bulgaria) and appear to have tried to trace back some of the early Christian teachings.

    Note about the Cathars: their belief was that the Catholic God was actually the principle of evil. And the reason that they regarded it as evil was complex and I will be oversipmlifying to the point of error here but the whole denial of the feminine principle and of the fruit of the tree of knowledge had a lot to do with it, the whole thing of without knowledge you cannot have free will thingy.

    Lucifer, the bringer of light, was the one to open the humans to knowledge and freed them from enslavement in the Demiurge’s prison, but could not free them from the corporal prison until death released their pure spirit. OK – again, trying to shoehorn a lot of nuance into a few sentences.

    Note: some version of early Christianity refused to believe that Jesus died on the cross because they reject the theological concept of scapegoatism as deeply immoral. Which is where Baphomet’s goat head comes from.

    Now, I do not claim to know what the Templars thought or believed, I have only studied the alternate Christian beliefs that they appear to have been exposed to. And Cathars were definitely closely associated with the Templars at some points in time.

    Important note: why is apple the forbidden fruit?
    Because some forms of Christianity used apple wine/cider in their religious services – and in order to undermine these sects in sectarian competition for worshipers, the Catholic church (which used grape wine) successfully associated the apple with the original sin.

    This is really important because it demonstrates how easily archetypes can be perverted: in many European pagan traditions, the apple was a symbol of life (vitamin c in the winter) and fertility, so two birds with one stone…instead of life and fertility, the apple became a symbol of sinful sex and immorality.

    I know I am not explaining the nuances here properly, neither about the subtle subversion of archetypes to the actual beliefs, because I am oversimplifying. My apologies.

    What I would like to establish is that there are several concepts here.

    The principle of evil: some believe this is called Satan, others believe it is the Catholic God, each for their own reason. Both are complex, and both include the sacrifice on the Cross, but both view if from completely different point of view.

    Catholics (and latter Christian sects) believe the sacrifice on the Cross was the highest moral good, because Jesus suffered for things other people did.

    Some early sects believed that the sacrifice on the Cross was the worst moral evil, because Jesus suffered for things other people did.

    And others did not believe the sacrifice on the cross happened at all, because the only people crucified by the Romans at that time were terrorists. Or because Jesus was pure light and not corporeal. +++

    So for some, Jesus was the gentle sacrificial lamb. For others, he was unfairly scapegoated – and chose the anthropomorphised goat to represent him. We do know that some of the Templars rejected the cross and said this symbol was too new to be the path to salvation.

    Now come the Hermetical movement – Alchemy and secret knowledge (St. Sulspice is the saint of secrets and of secret knowledge – hence a lot of 19th century want-to-be mysticists studied there and fetishized it). They were fascinated by ‘secret’ Christian traditions, but not particularly nuanced about pulling bits and pieces here that suited them.

    And yes, these mysticists rejected morality and are definitely a source for post-modernist relativism. Alistair Crowley’s famous motto: “and do what thou willt shall be the full of the law” is much more complex than it appears on the surface, but it indeed leads to the same place in the end.

    The modern Satanists have cribbed the 19-th century mysticists image of the Baphomet – and that is the image that has been put up and is referred to in the post. It mixes symbols that are opposites of each other at worst, unrelated at best. (Baphomet represents the inverted pentagram, so to put an upright pentagram on his forehead is…words fail me.)

    And THAT is the reason that modern-day Christians should be upset: not because there are different sects of Christianity that hold mutually exclusive beliefs.

    But because the faith of one of their sects is being represented by an image that perverts the archetypes, mashes completely different concepts together without rhyme and reason. And post-modernists’ subversion of religious archetypes are unfortunately way too common.

    P.S. I know I have left out A LOT, and it is not nuanced, but this is already way too long and rambling…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*