Satanic Inversions

If you are new to the Band, occult imagery posts are shorter looks at the background and patterns in occult images. For more posts on occult symbolism, click here. For an introduction to the Band and the Dismantling Postmodernism series, click the featured post to the right or check out the archive.

Other links: The Band on Gab; The Band on Oneway

Occult posts focus on patterns of deception or wrongness - inadequate explanations, strange attitudes to animals, fake metaphysics - because occultists are unreliable even when they are trying to be honest. Misleading talk is cheap, but a track record is inescapable if you know what to look for. The Band is empirical by nature, because observation and logical analysis are the only way to build verifiable knowledge without venturing into questions of faith. One central pattern has come up so often in the occult and globalism that it deserves its own breakdown. This is the Satanic Inversion, or behaving/ speaking/believing as if reality or the truth were its opposite to achieve personal desires.

Human body circumscribed by a pentagram from Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa's Libri tres de occulta philosophia (Three Books of Occult Philosophy),  Ch. 27, Book 2, 15th century 

Reversals are common in occult symbolism because evil can't create, it can only pervert and distort. Some occult leaders are clever but their followers are by necessity cognitively limited, meaning simple twists on common symbols are most likely to be understood. 

The pentagram was a symbol for the metaphysical nature of the human body, with the mind or spirit at the top? The Satanists invert it. 

The upside-down cross speaks for itself, unless it's the "Cross of St. Peter". Only one of these two wizards heads the Catholic church.

The theology of replacing the symbol of the Redeemer with a human office is iffy, to put it mildly, and papal choices in seating have a bit of a track record. On the other hand, it is for the "youth".

The name Satanic Inversion can be confusing because it carries a rhetorical charge. An inversion is the reversal or opposite of a thing, like the yin to the yang. The adjective Satanic is not a claim that all occultists and globalists actively worship the Christian concept of the Devil. Many do, but that's beside the point. We are referring to a pattern of behavior that has many faces but the same root: a deceitful inversion of reality with no regard for the consequences for some personal gain.

James Northcote, Romeo and Juliet, Act 5, Scene 3, 1790, oil on canvas, Folger Shakespeare Library

Romeo and Juliet get caught up in a web of deception with tragic consequences. They didn't intend to deceive each other, but wound up dead all the same.

It is essential to remain aware of the difference between specific surface appearance and the structure of the larger pattern. In this case, deceitful does not necessarily mean an intent to deceive, although it can (specific case), but only an objectively false claim or set of claims (general pattern). Whether someone is deliberately lying has no relevance as to whether their fake reality is based on things that aren't true. 

Not all "gain" is the sadistic domination that comes to mind when the word Satanic is used. Falsely reclassifying the restlessness of boys as a disease created windfall for big pharma and other parasitic industries behind the mask of "objective" Science! There is no tyrant in the spotlight here. But swapping pathology for normalcy - harmfully inverts reality for profit.

The word Satanic is a metaphor because it uses the story of Satan's rebellion as a comparison for a whole universe of self-willed sociopathy. But there is more to this than just a resemblance between two things. As the Band has shown on several occasions (click for Satanic postmodernism or an occult take), Satan is the archetype or primordial example of rejecting reality for self-deluded desire.

It is easy to get caught up in the image of Satan, but this has been changing for centuries. Consider the following images from an earlier post:

Clockwise from top left:

Illustration of the devil in the Codex Gigas,  f 290 r, 13th century, from the Benedictine monastery of Podlažice, National 

Library of Sweden

Master L. Cz., The Temptation of Christ (detail), circa 1500, engraving, 22.6 x 16.9 cm

Thomas Lawrence,  Satan Summoning his Legions (detail), 1797, oil on canvas, 432 x 274 cm, Royal Academy Collection, London

Franz Stuck, Lucifer,1890, oil on canvas, 161 cm × 152.5 cm, National Gallery for Foreign Art, Sofia

George Frederic Watts, Satan, 1847, oil on canvas, 198.1 x 132.1 cm, Watts Gallery, Guildford

Modern Satanists even claim to be atheist and deny the existence of immaterial beings! But these are all just representations - ways to express a concept in ways that are comprehensible to the target audience. 

What is the concept?

Satan "rebels" against God, but God isn't a guy like a cruel overseer or corrupt ruler that can be overthrown. God is ultimate reality, the alpha and the omega, the substructure of all that can be or not be. The Satanic misconception is that their feelings define or can redefine what really is - like chalk words transmuting the substance of a blackboard. Its this elevation of raw emotional desire above reality that makes today's globalist culture Satanic, not the specific percentage of elites that actively worship demonic forces. 

Hindenburg begins to fall seconds after catching fire, May 6, 1937 

Feelings have little currency when reality bites. 

To a materialist, God and Satan are just more metaphor, but even an atheist who is intellectually honest can perceive that there is a natural order to observable reality. If your computer fails to turn on, you seek the identifiable cause. You don't assume that actions are random and you're just lucky that it worked all those other times. Mathematics and other branches of logic consistently account for object relations. Morality appears more subjective, but even this has a social reality that is bigger than the individual. 

Left uncoerced, different groups of people coalesce into different social patterns with different outcomes or mores. If organic social organization benefits the population, there is a "moral" duty to defend it from dyscivic, gain-seeking solipsists. We're seeing the alternative.

The core pattern is an inversion where the personal/subjective is elevated above the real/objective.   This is logically backwards - inverted - from the fact that we as finite beings are subsets of ultimate reality (however defined), and are therefore by necessity subordinate to it. It precedes us. Wherever we go, reality is already there. 

Josephine Wall, The Enchanted Flute
Hendrick Goltzius, Phaeton, 1588


Let's stay materialist. If it is natural for humans to procreate and self-actualize - if "rights" are inalienable - then the domination of others is a willful inversion of human nature for individual gain. Facing this, we have two options: an all-out fight for the Ring of Power where Trotsky winds up on the wrong end of an ice pick, or a collective morality that provides social checks on the dyscivic effects of Satanic ambition. 

Low trust or high trust. You can't have both for long, though Satanic types can benefit from psychopathic manipulation while hiding in plain sight in an otherwise high-trust society.

A sophisticated high-trust society needs a functioning morality. This should be obvious. Without common behavioral expectations, even the most minute activity needs to be regulated and policed. This is one reason why globalists love diversity - without the common bonds of social understanding, central control is necessary. Think how many new government entities have been willed into existence with fat budgets to deal with "immigration". It's a sub-empire.

Mary Jane Haley, Winter Morning In West Virginia, 2014

And what is public morality but generally accepted principles and attitudes? 













Religion shifts the question of authority to metaphysics and faith. This creates an "external" counterweight to the desire to bathe in dopamine hits from carnal pleasure and material profit. Secular morality pretends the same outcome can be wished into existence with something called human rights, though this has failed empirically as a path to social cohesion. The point is, putting internal desire above external reality works in the natural as well as the supernatural worlds.

The supernatural is where the inversion becomes occult. 

This pattern is easy to miss because the individual cases can be so different in their intensity. Sacrificing to Moloch or ritually binding spirits are obvious examples of trying to bend reality to your will. On the other hand, so is

There is no religious justification of this, nor is there a scientific one. 

So what are the forces at work here?

The underlying pattern is that the individual speaks reality into existence. It's magic or Magick or whatever. Returning to our pattern, God's creative act is referred to in the Bible as the Logos or Word. 

Jan Sadeler I after Crispijn van den Broeck, Creation! Separation of Light and Darkness, 1585, for de Jode’s Thesaurus sacrarum historiarum Veterus et Novi Testamenti 

Speaking reality is literally putting oneself in the place of God. This creative power has always been the explicit goal of occultists from at least the time of the Renaissance magus. This is itself a Biblical term for this sort of sinister power, though occultists like to reverse this as well. So the fellow travelers are Simon Magus and fallen Lucifer. Satanic inversions.

We can see the same pattern in the purely material world as well. 

If telling the truth is the most accurate possible account of reality, falsehood is the willful inversion. Other than a small number of clinically mentally ill, people lie to benefit themselves in some way - reputation, avoidance, social benefit, etc. The point of the lie is to get people to act as if the false reality was real - literally to speak reality into existence in terms of outcome. Lets look at it graphically.

Eric Armusik, The Temptation Of Christ, 2011

It is an ironic truth that Father of Lies is a title he comes by honestly.




















Once you become aware of the pattern, it's everywhere. Postmodernism - that words have no meaning, that reality is subjective, and that personal experience is relevant to factual accuracy - is the "philosophical" expression of this fundamental deceit.  Consider how globalists seek to obliterate objective difference, suppress free inquiry, and oppose any form of organic community or traditional morality. And what do they offer instead? Rigid hierarchies that regiment every aspect of life with murderous force that are built around centralized nodes of control. There is no better system for the Satanic inverter who wishes to put their will to dominate over all constraint. Totalitarian heirarchies are catnip for power-seeking psychopaths, and the bigger the system, the more psychopathic the winner. 

Rewarding feelings over reason? Immediate gratification over healthy communities? Squandering other people's money over skin in the game?

Reality can be cruel, and in the end, we all "lose" the battle in this world. But whether your priorities are focused on a different place or you see this world as all we have, the fundamental choice for civilization remains the same. Do you proceed from physical reality and human nature, or do you seek to manipulate reality to exploit others for personal gain? What's the goal?

The Serpent in the Garden: Why is the Pope Sitting on a Satanic Throne!?!?

This is a short interruption from the usual Band posts. A regular post continuing our architectural investigation into the English Enlightenment and roots of globalism will be up tomorrow. But symbolism and the dark impulses of human vanity are not limited to the past, and occasionally something can come up that demands attention. In general, this blog is limited to lengthy  posts on large historical and philosophical subjects. The Band shares memes, items of interest, and shorter thoughts on two social media platforms that are linked here if you are interested in checking them out: (The Band on Gab; The Band on Oneway). The problem here is that this subject is too big for a social media post, but too small and off topic for a regular blog post. The blog does have the multi-media flexibility, so a special one-off short post seems the best way to share.

Edit: For a more recent look at the satanic throne in particular, click here

Pier Luigi Nervi, Paul VI Audience Hall, completed 1971, Vatican City

Does anything strike you as off about this papal audience hall?



















Over the last few months, the Band has grown increasingly aware of the Q anon phenomenon and, more importantly, the information that is being assembled as a result. The Band has no official position on the identity of Q itself, but finds the things that internet researchers are uncovering disturbing. The possibility of a massive Satanic conspiracy seems impossibly far fetched, but if anything should be apparent by now, the Band is relentlessly empirical and follows evidence and logic wherever it points. Enough has been revealed to give this nightmare serious consideration rather than waving it off unexamined. 

If you are interested in this rabbit hole, Neon Revolt is the best site for presenting the information and breaking it down clearly. But fair warning: it is a load to handle.
















Since the Band is already involved in constructing empirical histories with images, these revelations prompted a look at some of the symbolism around the modern papacy. The Church has been embroiled in endless pedophilia scandals with obvious complicity from the hierarchy, and we know that the abuse and trafficking of children is a major connective thread in cabal activity. The smell of brimstone was strong around the Vatican before looking at the pictures. Afterwards? You be the judge.

Andreas Adamek, Hell, 2007, photoshop


First, the background. Vatican II (1962-65) is a watershed in modern Church history. It was at this Council that the Church abandoned both its founding theology and a weight of tradition that had purportedly been guided by the Holy Spirit since the Incarnation in favor of tepid, post-Christian cultural Marxism. That is weird enough, but it  always just seemed part of the way in which the West hollowed out its institutions during that period.

There is a strong argument to be made that Vatican II was literally heretical. Here are some theological errors. If true, there is no current legitimate pope.





The timing is odd though. 1962 is too early to be responding to public counterculture pressure. Vatican II PREDATES the social degradation associated with “the ‘60’s”. Lets look at some architecture:

The Paul VI Audience Hall in the Vatican was completed by Modernist Pier Luigi Nervi in 1971, and is disturbing. It is vaguely snake-like on the outside… 

…but the reptilian appearance of the interior is unmistakable. 

And the pope’s-eye view.



They could have chosen anything. Why this?






Before answering, remember that the Church have been absolute masters of visual rhetoric for centuries, and have the means to bring off any design they want. This is a papal audience hall – where the pope sits in his official capacity. Where is the Christian iconography? What isn’t there is as significant as what is. Now:

They could have chosen anything. Why this?

Vatican II ended in 1965. The hall was finished in 1971. Who was Paul VI (1963-78) other than the pope that presided over the dissolution of the magisterium of the Church? 

Uh oh, this isn't good. It looks like he might have been a pedophile enabler! Hewas alerted to the clerical abuse of boys in a letter by Rev. Gerald M.C. Fitzgerald (right) in August 1963 and did nothing. Fitzgerald’s records are a valuable source of information of the history of institutional abuse and pedophilia.  

So the man who built a serpent throne room after “liberalizing” the Church sat silently as countless children were fed to an institutional culture of depravity and predation.

And where was he sitting?

The 20 m bronze sculpture called “The Resurrection” backs the papal throne. It was completed by artist Pericle Fazzini in 1977, but this is deceiving, since the actual execution took a long time. The date that it was commissioned is interesting: 1965, the year Vatican II wrapped. 

The symbolism is impossible to interpret from a Christian perspective. It is unsettling to visitors who are ignorant of the symbolism, but to someone who can read religious iconography, it is actually difficult to look at.

The artist supposedly said: "Christ rises from this crater torn open by a nuclear bomb; an atrocious explosion, a vortex of violence and energy." This is the Vatican line as well – a few non-sequiturs about the anguish of century mankind living under the threat of nuclear war and Jesus rising from a nuclear crater in Gethsemane, without further explanation. 

But this is theological and devotional nonsense.

The iconography of the Resurrection of Christ is one of the most established –sometimes joyous, sometimes serious, but always triumphant, not a hellish explosion of monstrous forms.

How does nuclear Armageddon relate to Jesus’ sacrifice? What kind of devotion does this inspire? Remember that the Church have been absolute masters of visual rhetoric for centuries. They could have chosen anything. Why this?

The sculpture is not actually called the “Resurrection of Christ”, just “The Resurrection”. Look at the pictures above one more time, then look at this imagery. What is actually being resurrected?

Look at this monstrosity from the sides, and in the correct light. 

Pay close attention the the head of "Christ" and you can see what is born from nuclear fire.

Why does the “Christ” have a serpent head?!?!?!?! 

😳 

This is the same symbolism that we the throne room itself.

What could be born out of nuclear mass extinction? Or, more specifically to this throne,  from a Satanic head?

Look at it! It is right there! Any wonder that the Vatican doesn't call attention to this "iconography"?

Serpent iconography is not obscure in the history of the Church.

In pagan antiquity the snake symbolized different things. With Asclepius, God of Healing, it was a sign of wisdom. On a Roman altar or lararium, it was a minor diety known as a genius loci or spirit of a place. 

Taken together, earthly wisdom is not that different from the Christian interpretation, since that is what the snake peddles in Eden. 

That same idolatrous image turns up again when the Israelites turn away from God. 

And is crushed by the coming of Christ. 

Where is the Christian message?

Why does the Vatican offer NO explanation?

WHAT IS THE POPE SITTING ON?

The statue was commissioned Count Enrico Galeazzi aka. Galeazzi-Lisi a layman, architect, and close confidant of the pope. 

He is not an easy guy to find a quick biographical sketch of, despite being so well connected as a layperson he was known as the “laypope” (surprise surprise). No wikipedia page. 

The bits and pieces that are public record are telling. Along his involvement in Vatican building, he was a major figure in the Knights of Columbus, with a particular interest in children.

That isn’t at all troubling, given what we know now about institutionalized pedophilia...

He was well connected politically as well (From: The Kennedys: America's Emerald Kings)

But this is where it gets really interesting:

Vatican owned General Immobiliare was of the “world’s largest construction companies which dealt in land speculation, built motorways and the Pan Am offices… and also controlled a major part of the Watergate complex in Washington. It was thereby enabled to build, and own, the series of luxury buildings on the banks of the River Potomac that became the headquarters of the Democratic electoral campaign in 1972... The management of the Generale Immobiliare was in the hands of Count Enrico Galeazzi”

One more thing. The Count’s half-brother was  Riccardo Galeazzi-Lisi, the physician to Pope Pius XII who was embroiled in scandal around that Pope’s death.

There is a symbolic throne of St. Peter in St. Peter’s. Light pours in from outside, illuminating the symbols of the Church and the faithful. 

The difference from the abomination on the right is breathtaking. Literally a symbolic inversion.

What does this all mean? The answer depends on the symbolism of the papal throne. Remember, the Church are age-old masters of visual rhetoric. They produce and explain images of incredible power and theological complexity. Why is there no explanation for the papal throne? 

What is the pope sitting on?!?!