Feminism, Transgenderism, and the Devil

The present battle between feminazis and trannies is a red-on-red conflict, as both evil ideologies spring from precisely the same source:

Conceptually, people think of the Devil as masculine. He is the ultimate “bad guy”, double emphasis on the “bad” and the “guy”. Traditionally theologians have largely conceptualized the Devil as a man, or manlike figure, and denoted him with the masculine pronoun, ‘he’.[6] However, as Faxneld notes, not all have agreed with this summation. As the Devil is an angel, this means he does not conform to the gender norms that men and women are formed in. Christian theological tradition does not require that the Devil conforms to a particular sex, indeed it was recognized that demons could take the forms of any gender as they chose.

Anyone who has read the ancient Greek tales will be familiar with the way that the Greek deities could change gender at will, often using this to trick their victims and even at times the heroes of the tale. Minerva in Homer’s Odyssey is one example, but Odin was known to do the same thing, and many others. In fact, it was a consistent theme throughout the pagan pantheons to have gods transgressing all boundaries, including gender boundaries.

From a Christian perspective these beings were neither fake, nor gods. They were a combination of legends and people’s encounters with demonic beings. It is easy to understand why the early Church, and many in the Medieval Church, viewed Satan neither as male nor female, but as a boundary transgressing being, who took on the form that was useful in the moment.

In many medieval and early modern representations of the Devil he is shown to be an “hermaphrodite monster”. Demons were viewed as ontologically unstable creatures that crossed gender and species boundaries. “Gender-bending would then be another sign of the liminal and blasphemously category-defying nature of Lucifer and his demons (figures 2.2 and 2.3).” Faxneld shares with us some abominable examples of how the early modern artists visualized the Devil in figures 1 and 2.

As you can see, it was common for the Devil, and demons, to be visualized as inherently unstable beings that conformed not only to no gender boundaries, but no natural boundaries either. The devil is the ultimate boundary breaking entity, which is really a good description of evil itself. Evil intent consists in the desire and intention to transgress the boundaries laid out by God himself. Indeed, one of the words for sin in the Bible is transgression, which literally means to transgress the boundaries of what the Lord says is good. Evil inherently transgresses all of God’s good boundaries.

But not only was the Devil represented by such boundary transgressing beings, he was also conceptualized or represented as a woman, or a serpent-woman. For instance, in one Christian work “Livre pour l’enseignement de ses filles (‘Book for the Education of his Daughters’, 1371–1372), the author,

“…Geoffrey attempts to instil in his daughters the lesson that women should defer to fathers and husbands in anything but domestic matters and makes his point by retelling how Eve broke this rule when she conversed with the serpent, ‘whiche as the Hystorye sayth hadde a face ryght fayre lyke the face of a woman’.”

It may be strange for us to conceptualize a feminine Satan, because it is more common to view him as masculine, but this was a consistent image throughout Church history.

“…A more straightforwardly female Satan can be seen in the actually very common depictions of the snake in the Garden of Eden with a woman’s head on its serpentine body and sometimes also the breasts of a woman…Exactly when the notion of a female snake was established is difficult to say, but the earliest translation of the Bible into Latin rendered the word as serpens—feminine gender.”

Indeed, according to J. B. Trapp “it was the most frequent way of representing the Edenic serpent from the late twelfth century until the late sixteenth century, when the human features of the creature disappear and it becomes, once more, only reptilian.” This is interesting that the devil would be represented by feminine imagery, but again, note, the Devil is not a man nor a woman, Satan is a fallen spiritual being. The Devil is inherently in a different category. Even if you want to argue the Scriptures lean towards presenting him as male figure, note, the view that he transgressed all boundaries is inherent in his rebellion against God’s good boundaries and in his role as ‘The Evil One’.

The most famous image representing the Devil’s transgender nature is the Baphomet. Baphomet is a hermaphrodite figure, and one of the most recognized symbols of Satan in the last century or so. Baphomet was first visually conceptualized by French occultist Éliphas Lévi “in his book Dogme et rituel de la haute magie (‘Dogma and Ritual of the High Magic’, 1855) and elsewhere.”

Note, we are not seeking here to establish precisely how Scripture describes the gender of the Devil. The point is to establish that a lot of historical Christian theology viewed the Devil as a being that transgresses all boundaries, and early feminists were inspired by this and took this idea and ran with it. They turned this transgender being into a liberator of women.

Notice how evil always inverts. “The Light of the World” became “the Dark Ages”. The revival of satanic darkness became “the Enlightenment”. And the enslavement of women to sin and self-destruction became “Women’s Liberation”.

If you want to discern if something has satanic roots, look for the inversion. Once you spot it, you’ll scent the sulfur soon enough.

DISCUSS ON SG


The End of Globalization

The economic insanity of the post-Cold War era is rapidly coming to an end, as the global economy is dividing again into three parts, Clown World (USA-UK-EU-Israel), Sovereign World (China-Russia-Iran), and the unaligned countries.

Moscow expects increased economic cooperation with China as the West takes a more dictatorial stance, in global affairs, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned on Monday. Russia intends to build relations with independent countries and will decide how to deal with the West if and when it comes to its senses, he added.

“Now that the West is taking the position of a dictator, our economic ties with China will grow even faster,” Lavrov told students at the Primakov School… If and when the West comes to its senses and wants to offer something in terms of resuming relations, Russia will “seriously consider whether we will need it or not,” the foreign minister told the high-schoolers.

Moscow isn’t just implementing a strategy of import substitution in response to anti-Russian sanctions, but “must stop in any way being dependent on the supply of anything from the West” and rely on its own capabilities and those countries that have “proven their reliability” and act independently, Lavrov explained.

The difference is that whereas the First World previously had the advantage because the Second World was subject to a dysfunctional economic ideology, it’s now Clown World that is subject to an insane ideology that permeates and weakens every single aspect of its societies. This means that the odds of success are heavily in favor of Sovereign World, a situation that is compounded by the pressure that Clown World is presently putting on the unaligned countries to support its insanity.

Those who think that the lessons of history support the probability of Clown World success are looking superficially at the nominal labels of the parties involved rather than the substance of the various parties and their relative capabilities. Consider this: whereas the populations and the industrial capacities was heavily stacked in favor of the Triple Alliance in WWI and the Allies in WWII, they are even more heavily stacked in favor of Sovereign World now.

And whereas Britain was once powerful enough to force Chinese submission in the First Opium War of 1839-1842 by itself, it no longer has the ability to meaningfully oppose Iran, let alone Russia or China. Not only are the states of Clown World no longer what they were, unlike the nations of Sovereign World, they are no longer even proper nations anymore.

DISCUSS ON SG


A Failure of Deterrence

Dominick Cummings explains

When Pearl Harbor happened, Washington was in shock. Unprovoked attack!

What had really happened?

America had tightened economic warfare against Japan including shutting down oil. Then it suddenly confiscated Japanese assets held in America. Japan won’t do anything, said the high status Washington insiders, because rationally they know attacking America will be fatal.

But in Japan they reasoned differently: America has clearly decided to destroy our regime so we should attack and try to change the balance of forces.

Washington’s ‘insanity’/‘irrationality’ was Tokyo’s rational calculation.

Why is this relevant?

America has many virtues but its ruling class does not have a long culture of imperial success and it has not developed a ruling class that generates leaders good at judgements about other regimes. Britain had people like Lord Cromer ruling the Egyptians — a very smart, cold, calculating cynical aristocrat with empire in his blood, a sort much better suited to imperial politics than the output of American graduate schools who dominate Washington and repeatedly, naively misjudge other countries. We’ll bring democracy to Afghanistan… We’ll stop corruption in Afghanistan… We’ll bring LGBTQ+++ to Afghanistan… Argh we gotta flee Afghanistan…

Even very smart and able Americans such as Dean Acheson were not good at assessing other regimes. Imperial politics is not the same as democratic politics. Also notice that when Tyler Cowen interviewed Brennan, a former CIA director, and asked about the Tetlock project, by now known in outline to many in politics, Brennan didn’t even know what it was — a very telling detail. If the CIA director doesn’t know about the most interesting project to counter intelligence failures, what else doesn’t he know?!

In the Cold War we saw Washington make repeated errors. The Vietcong are about to fold, they said, year after year. Turned out the Vietcong defined their priorities and rationality differently. America had to retreat.

Just last year we could see how bad the trillion dollar network of DoD and intelligence agencies were on Afghanistan and the Taliban. America had to retreat.

And now Washington’s high status insiders are confidently declaring what it would be ‘rational’ and ‘crazy’ for Putin to do.

Given their complete inability to correctly anticipate what Putin – or pretty much any of their other enemies – was going to do previously, what are the odds that they have gotten it right this time? More importantly, most of the people making decisions about the use of US military force have no loyalty to nor concern for the American people or their national interests, so they’re much more willing to take risks than actual Americans would.

DISCUSS ON SG


The Idiocy of Expansion

Even neutral parties grasp that joining NATO is a foolish action by Finland and Sweden:

NATO membership won’t make Finland and Sweden more secure, but would likely see them fighting somebody else’s wars and hosting American bases, Dr. Jan Oberg, director of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, has told RT.

“It’s a disastrous decision,” Oberg said on Sunday, following an official declaration by the Finnish government that it is planning to join the US-led military bloc. Hours later, a similar announcement was made by the ruling party in Sweden. The two Nordic nations stayed out of NATO during the Cold War, but their governments said Russia’s military operation in Ukraine has become a game-changer.

Finland and Sweden have failed to carry out “long-term consequence analysis,” he added. “Nobody seems to ask whether NATO is the right thing to join. After all these years since 1945, NATO has proven that it’s not able to deliver what taxpayers are paying for, namely stability, peace and security… and then Finland and Sweden say: ‘We’ll join this failed organization,’” he remarked.

One has to be almost completely ignorant of military history to conclude that joining a military alliance makes war LESS likely. The history of war is literally the history of military alliances, from the Delian League and the Latin League to the League of Cambrai and the Triple Entente. Only neutral nations such as Spain, Switzerland, and Ireland managed to stay out of WWII, which is why it is absolutely counterproductive for formerly neutral nations such as Switzerland to impose sanctions on Russia and totally insane for formerly neutral nations such as Finland and Sweden to voluntarily sign up as co-belligerents to engage in a war against both Russia and China.

Because that’s what they’re signing up for, even if they don’t realize it yet.

UPDATE: Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Russia appears to have started moving nuclear-capable missiles to Finland’s border just a day after the country announced it will bid to join NATO. Video posted on Russian social media today shows trucks carrying Iskander ballistic missiles – which can be tipped with nuclear warheads – moving through the country, reportedly on a highway to Vyborg, on the Finnish border. ‘As soon as the president of Finland said they were joining NATO, a whole division of Iskanders, seven of them… is moving towards Vyborg,’ the video’s narrator says.

UPDATE: Sweden boards the geopolitical short bus.

Sweden has said it will join Finland in bidding for membership of NATO, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine prompted an ‘historic’ shift away from decades of neutrality. Magdalena Andersson, the Swedish prime minister, announced the move on Monday – just a day after Finnish counterpart Sanna Marin tabled her own bid. Andersson said the move was being made in conjunction with Helsinki and marks ‘a historic change in our country’s security policy’ which has relied on a pledge of neutrality to deter attacks since the Napoleonic era.

DISCUSS ON SG


Quelle Surprise

It’s not exactly shocking to have The New York Times confirm, only 44 years late, that three-time New York City Mayor Ed Koch was a homosexual.

Edward I. Koch looked like the busiest septuagenarian in New York.

Glad-handing well-wishers at his favorite restaurants, gesticulating through television interviews long after his three terms as mayor, Mr. Koch could seem as though he was scrambling to fill every hour with bustle. He dragged friends to the movies, pursuing a side career in film criticism. He urged new acquaintances to call him “judge,” a joking reference to his time presiding over “The People’s Court.”

But as his 70s ticked by, Mr. Koch described to a few friends a feeling he could not shake: a deep loneliness. He wanted to meet someone, he said. Did they know anyone who might be “partner material?” Someone “a little younger than me?” Someone to make up for lost time?

“I want a boyfriend,” he said to one friend, Charles Kaiser.

It was an aching admission, shared with only a few, from a politician whose brash ubiquity and relentless New York evangelism helped define the modern mayoralty, even as he strained to conceal an essential fact of his biography: Mr. Koch was gay.

The Secrets Ed Koch Carried, The New York Times, 7 May 2022

So a Jewish politician pretending to be an American was also pretending to be straight? Lawsy, will the totally shocking surprises never cease? Just think, sometime around the year 2052, The New York Times – or rather, the single media amalgamation that has swallowed The New York Times – will report that Barack Obama was a homosexual and “Michelle” Obama’s real name was “Michael”. And we will all pretend to be surprised.

The so-called conspiracy theorists aren’t always right, but they are far more often correct than the media that claims to “debunk” them.

I’m old enough to remember when people would say things like, “Ed Koch can’t possibly be gay, for crying out loud, he dated Miss America!”

DISCUSS ON SG


You Don’t Say

The former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO says the quiet part out loud.

“I think we are in a proxy war with Russia. We are using the Ukrainians as our proxy forces.”

Philip Breedlove, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO

Meanwhile, the Russian Foreign Minister let a little something slip out too.

“So what if Zelenskyy is Jewish? The fact does not negate the Nazi elements in Ukraine. I believe that Hitler also had Jewish blood. It means absolutely nothing. The wise Jewish people said that the most ardent antisemites are usually Jews.”

Wait, what?

Oh, that’s right. Of course Hitler is Jewish. After all, we’re all one race, the human race.

DISCUSS ON SG


This Could Not Be Verified

Not only is it impossible to verify Ukraine’s claims of Russian losses in the Special Military Operation, it is impossible to take them seriously on a statistical basis.

The scale of Russian troop losses in Ukraine has tipped 21,000 as Putin’s war rumbles into its third month today.

The latest statistics, published by the Ukrainian Land Forces this morning, suggest 21,800 Russian fighters have been killed amid bitter resistance from Ukraine’s armed forces and territorial defence units – though this figure could not be verified.

Meanwhile, the land forces claim to have dealt massive damage to Russia’s military equipment and machinery.

A total of 873 tanks are said to have been destroyed, along with 2238 armoured vehicles, 179 planes, 154 helicopters and 408 artillery systems.

According to the same article, “On February 24, Russia’s land army consisted of 280,000 full-time active soldiers compared with Ukraine’s 125,600.”

Now, the number of casualties in war is always a multiple of the number of fatalities. For example, the USA lost 407,316 KIA during WWII and 671,846 WIA out of 16.4 million troops, for a Cas/Fat ratio of 1.65. As medical science improved, this ratio increased over time, to 2.6 for Vietnam, 7.2 for Iraq, and 8.6 for Afghanistan.

So, if the most recent US war is a reasonable comparative, the Ukrainian claims would indicate an additional 180,600 wounded Russians for a total of 201,600 Russian casualties, which would mean that the Russian casualty rate of 72 percent exceeds that of the German, Japanese, and Soviet militaries during the entirety of World War II. And at 7.5 percent, the fatality rate is three times the US WWII fatality rate of 2.5 percent in just two months.

In other words, we can state with certainty that these reports are highly improbable, and logically conclude that they are false.


You Have to Wonder

AC raises a pertinent question for even the most devoutly secular historian:

You have to wonder why so many disparate civilizations all over the globe and throughout time, all came to the conclusion that if they brutally tortured/murdered children/babies, as a “sacrifice” to some unseen other, the unseen other would look kindly on their gesture of fealty, and bestow great things upon them, almost magically.

You do indeed. And then ask yourself what religion happens to posit a fallen world ruled by a wicked immortal spiritual creature, and how the present rulers of this world happen to regard that religion. I found the subsequent excerpt from an 1805 inquiry into the fall of nations, which compares the historical accounts of Rome and of Carthage, to be somewhat suggestive in that context:

All the historians that give us the character of the two nations were Romans and of the victorious party; yet most of them are more equitable than the historians of modern times, for they had not seen their own country in its last state of degradation and misery. Those who now make the comparison have proper materials; and it is the business of the writers of history to free it from the errors into which contemporary authors fall, whether from prejudice, or from want of knowing those events which happened after their days.

In the case of the Roman historians, the error arose from a combination of three different causes. In the first place, they compared Rome in its healthy days and its vigour, to Carthage in its decline. They were, next to that, led into an error, by not knowing that all countries that have been long rich are liable to the same evils as Carthage. And, last of all, they wrote with a spirit of party, and a predilection in favour of Rome. These three causes are certain; and, perhaps, there was another. It is possible they did not dare to speak the truth, if they did know it.

One wonders what that truth, which historians know but of which they dare not speak, could possibly have been?

DISCUSS ON SG


The Five Fronts of Imperial Collapse

A fascinating interview with Sergey Glazyev, who points out that events of the sort we are witnessing “only happen once a century”.

Among the Russian elite there are many opponents of an alliance with China. At least, before the special operation in Ukraine, it seemed to these people that American and Western culture is more understandable and closer to us than hieroglyphic Chinese wisdom, and that we will always find a common language with our “Western partners”.

– You know, back in 2015 I wrote the book The Last World War. The USA is Starting and Losing, which you mentioned at the beginning of the conversation – everything was thought out and justified there. The United States embarked on a worldwide hybrid war – started with the Orange Revolutions to disrupt regions of the world it did not control – in order to strengthen its position and weaken the position of geopolitical rivals. After the famous Munich speech of President Putin in February 2007, they realized that they had lost control over Yeltsin’s Russia, and this seriously worried them. In 2008, the financial crisis broke out and it became clear that the transition to a new technological order was beginning, and the old world economic order and the previous management system no longer ensured sustainable economic development. China was now leading the way. Well, then afterwards the logic of deploying of a world war happens, only not in the forms that existed 100 years ago, but on three conditional fronts – monetary-financial (where the United States still dominates the world), trade-economic (where they have already lost superiority to China) and information-cognitive (where the Americans also have technologies that are superior to ours). They use all three of these fronts in an attempt to keep the initiative and maintain the hegemony of their corporations.

Well and finally, the fourth front is the biological one, which opened with the advent of the coronavirus from the US-Chinese laboratory in Wuhan. Today we see that a whole network of biological laboratories existed in Ukraine. So the United States has long been preparing to open the biological front of the world war.

The fifth, and most obvious, front is, in fact, the front of combat fighting – as the last tool for forcing the states that they control into unquestioning obedience. Today, the situation on this front is also escalating. That is, active operations are underway on all five fronts of the world hybrid war, and the result can be predicted. The Americans will not be able to win, just as the British did not succeed in their time. Although Britain formally won World War II, they lost politically and economically. The British lost their entire empire, losing more than 90 percent of the territory and 95 percent of the population. Two years after World War II, where they were the winners, their empire collapsed like a house of cards, because the other two winners – the USSR and the USA – did not need this empire and viewed it as an anachronism. Also, the world will not need American transnational corporations, the American dollar, American monetary and financial technologies and financial pyramids. All this will be a thing of the past in the near future. Southeast Asia will become the obvious leader in world economic development, and a new world economic order will be formed before our very eyes.

God blessed America, and Americans threw away that blessing in favor of hedonism, sin, tolerance, and world domination. Now Americans are ruled by women and foreigners, and the world is passing it by, just as it has always forgotten the past hosts of The Empire That Never Ended.

DISCUSS ON SG


A Eulogy for Boomers

A lot of Boomers think I’m too harsh on them. They have absolutely no idea how history is going to regard them. Or how many members of the succeeding generations consider me to be a squishy moderate on the subject. But this summation by Ivan Throne should give them a clue.

It seems the sole and total purpose of Boomers was to groom the entire Western world into solipsistic death with its ankles in the air on a mattress stained with bloody andrenochrome and the flopsweat of Klaus Schwab.

What a filthy generation.

It shat on a thousand years of heritage and damned its descendants to slavery under the most grotesque, befouled, and hideous collapse imaginable.

Is it fair? Not entirely. But since when was recorded history ever fair? And no generational description can ever address the behavior of a single individual. Nevertheless, if one is concerned about one’s legacy, then perhaps one should live with an eye to how those who will be judging it are likely to regard it.

After all, there is no spin coming from the grave.

DISCUSS ON SG