BRIGHTEST AND BEST

ARE THE SONS OF THE MORNING

[sonsofthemorning]

I really hope that everyone reblogging my Satanic Temple letter looks at the rest of the exchange.

I began the conversation very heatedly. Many of you don’t seem to see anything wrong with that, but I am not proud of myself. 

Fortunately, since then, the debate has evolved and become a bit more civil, if not exactly perfectly civil. I don’t think The Satanic Temple and I are ever going to see eye-to-eye, but I think we are probably more on the same side than not. 

Where I left things, I had just offered to help if The Satanic Temple decides to begin any projects or actions geared more specifically towards support of trans people. 

[sonsofthemorning]

I just sent this to The Satanic Temple.

Dear Satanic Temple:

I was overall thrilled to read about the unveiling of Baphomet. The statue is very beautiful.

However, I notice that this Baphomet seems to be lacking something. Breasts.

Apparently this was a conscious decision on your part. From the article on the symbolism of Baphomet that was linked in your most recent newsletter:

Levi’s Baphomet was a hermaphrodite, with breasts, “but we took the breasts off,” says Greaves. The Temple did not want to get embroiled in a debate about gender which might distract from what it believes are the more important messages of the Baphomet.

I’m ashamed of you. Ashamed and disappointed.

You pretend to be iconoclasts, and yet you can’t unveil a traditional, hermaphroditic statue of Baphomet even at a time when transgender issues have more attention and relevance in the mainstream media than ever?

This transgender Luciferian is not impressed.

By removing Baphomet’s female attributes, not only have you made it safer and more cis/hetero friendly while selling out queer, transgender, and non-binary people, you have also turned Baphomet into yet another unambiguously male idol, to be literally looked up to. In short, you’ve also sold out women.

Baphomet’s multigendered nature previously made this entity a powerful symbol that expressed provocative and powerful truths about gender. By removing Baphomet’s breasts, you’ve made it essentially irrelevant. You’ve neutered your own message, nearly literally. Good job.

[sonsofthemorning]

OK, this is picking up notes pretty quick. Which I am glad about, but I’m not really in the mood for all the B.S. that comes with a viral post on tumblr usually. 

I am just saying what I think, which is my right. Just as The Satanic Temple has the right to portray Baphomet however the heck they want.

In some ways it’s not what they did that bothers me so much as their stated reasons why. A very dear, queer, grumpy old Occultist friend of mine pointed out to me that if they had given Baphomet breasts they never would have been able to display it publicly in Oaklahoma. Which sucks, but if they had just owned up to that as a reason, I would have shrugged, maybe rolled my eyes a bit, and gone about my day.

However, they said they were trying to avoid a debate about gender, and I think that is cowardly. I think it’s cowardly especially because The Satanic Temple has taken a strong stance in favor of bodily autonomy when it comes to abortion (which is great!), and I think they should have the gonads to extend that to trans people, which would only be logical. 

And personally, I would like to see them catch a little bit of flack for that. 

So if you really like this post… here’s their email address. Feel free to give ‘em hell and express your opinion strongly, but please, take the time to at least spell out your opinion so they understand why people are upset. 

[email protected]

[sonsofthemorning]

I got a reply!

Levi’s Baphomet was the first to have breasts and was artistically rendered over 500 hundred years after the Baphomet was first conceived.

In the 12th century, Baphomet was simply a human head with curly hair. Before that he was a goat. At one point, he was a cat. 

For you to fixate on a representation that substantially deviates from these previous representations that are part of long tradition and history of non-intersexed Baphomet is grossly arbitrary. For you to insist that no other representation should exist, but the arbitrary one you champion is a fascist mindset.

We care a great deal about LGBT issues, but this was not the forum for that. Had we offered a Baphomet statue with exposed breasts, the controversy would not have been about plurality and whether the 10 Commandments may stand on public property, but rather the focus would have been on questions of decency and whether that statue violates community standards.  Anyone can offer to donate a statue of a naked human form if they want to engage in that debate, but that was not our mission and that is precisely the debate we wanted to avoid. I am sorry you are not able to appreciate that. Everyone else has seemed to grasp the rationale behind our decision.

I suggest you start your own religion and build your own Baphomet statue in accordance with whatever arbitrary components you believe are essential. No one is stopping you, so you have no reason to be upset or disappointed, at least not with us.

Sincerely,

Malcolm Jarry

To which I said:

Dear Malcolm,

I feel you missed my point. 

I am aware that Baphomet has been represented in many different ways throughout the centuries. I am not upset about what you did, so much as the stated reasons why. 

I appreciate that if Baphomet had been portrayed with breasts, you would not have been able to display it publicly in Oaklahoma. Which is legitimate. You all could have just said that. I would have shrugged and moved on. 

Instead, you said you wanted to avoid a conversation about gender. Not decency, not nudity, but gender. 

Furthermore, you didn’t build a statue of Baphomet as a cat. Or a human head with curly hair. Or a goat. You built a statue based on Levi’s depiction… with one notable, consciously choosen, and publicly remarked upon difference. For me to notice what you did is not arbitrary in the leas– especially not after you all pointed it out! 

What seems arbitrary, to me at least, is that the Satanic Temple, which stands so firmly for bodily autonomy when it comes to abortion (which is great!) is not taking this moment to extend that support, logically, to transgender people. 

And I know this is precisely the discussion you wanted to avoid. Which is why I am bringing it to you, to the best of my very limited ability. Because I don’t think you should be able to avoid a discussion about gender.

You should be happy. You got what you wanted. You avoided a large-scale media blow-up about decency, nudity, and yes, gender. A few lonely trans occultists feeling upset about your decision was a predictable consequence. I am now also disappointed that you lack the grace to engage in this small-scale debate without cheap shots suggesting I start my own religion and build my own statue. You even called me a fascist, which is deeply illogical and not the least bit impressive.

[sonsofthemorning]

There is more. The dialog has become a lot more respectful, which makes me happy. 

He said:

Thank you for your reply.

I did not say you were fascist, I said that to insist that only one interpretation of something that is fundamentally arbitrary may exist is a fascist mindset. It is not an illogical statement, and I stand by that assertion.

We do not avoid discussions on gender and, again, we do our best to champion LGBT rights. This was not the forum for that. It is not possible, nor wise, to make every campaign about every issue. It is easy to pick apart every effort anyone undertakes to find some alleged missed opportunity for an issue that could have been raised. One could easily condemn MLK for not including gay rights as part of his Civil Rights campaign. A rational person would be able to discern that such a complaint would be idiotic even though no rational person would think they should not be entitled to the same civil rights as everyone else. One has to pick and choose one's fights and one has to conceive of an effective strategy.

The Baphomet has multiple components and we wanted to send a very clear message about our intent and purposes. This was not about gender. This battle was about something completely different just like the Pink Mass was not about religious plurality. Our volunteering to perform same-sex marriages prior to the Supreme Court ruling was also not about religious plurality. All the champions of religious plurality could have felt hurt and angry and whatever other emotions you are feeling because those particular campaigns actively avoided an addressing their preferred issue. In the case of the Baphomet statue, we are not focusing on one issue that we deeply care about, so that we can focus on another. It is strategy and it worked. We do not think that one diminishes the other, but apparently you do. I am curious as to whether you condemn MLK or Ghandi or any other individual who fought bravely for the rights of the oppressed, but failed to include gender issues in their successful campaigns.

Lastly, the tone of your initial email was anything but inviting of debate and while your follow up email takes a more conciliatory approach, for you to complain that my response lacked grace is devoid of context and sincerity. Normally, I do not reply to angry rants that are based on gross misunderstandings. The fact that I did is a sign of respect.

Sincerely,

Malcolm Jarry

I said: 

Malcolm, 

Thank you for replying and I am happy to continue this debate in a more civilized tone. I do recognize that the tone of my initial email was inflammatory, which I had not originally planned. I confess I grew angrier as I was writing it, and hit send in haste. For that, I am willing to apologize. 

I don't think only fascists insist on one interpretation of things. I don't think that's a defining quality of fascism, actually. But that's neither here nor there, because that was not what I was doing. A feline Baphomet statue would have been amazing. The internet would have loved it. But you didn't build one. You built a Levi-esque Baphomet with one notable and deliberate difference. Was I really not supposed to notice? 

On to some of your other points: you are not entirely right about the black civil rights movement in general, or even MLK in particular, being fully dissociated from gay rights. Ever heard of Bayard Rustin? He was MLK's right hand for a long time, a black gay man and a gay rights activist as well as a civil rights activist. He was eventually asked to leave MLK's employ for being gay, a decision which yes, I do consider cowardly, especially after everything Rustin had done for the movement. Rustin made peace with the decision, though.

But not everyone in the black civil rights movement was so exclusionary. Huey P. Newton of Black Panther fame had this to say about gay rights. He saw solidarity with gay activists, and with feminists, as being crucial. After all, if three movements-- black liberation, gay liberation, and women's right-- all teamed up together and lent support to one another's goals, doesn't it seem like more could get accomplished? 

As for Gandhi, he hated Africans. I have little respect for him, and the credit he has received for single-handedly liberating India from British Rule is probably undeserved. Many people put a lot more on the line in that fight. In fact, Gandhi is so famous precisely because he was the least threatening to the British Empire due to his policy of non-violence. It was much preferable to negotiate with him than with militant radicals. So since you ask, that's what I think about Gandhi. 

Perhaps you have heard the term "intersectionality?" It's a trend in political organizing that has been going on for awhile now, moving away from approach anything in a single-issue way. MLK, for example, was not single issue, he was also anti-classist and anti-war, and recognized that approaching black liberation without integrating these other issues would have been futile, given the prevalence of poverty in the black community and the racist, imperialistic nature of the war in Vietnam. He was unwilling to push for civil rights in the United States for people of color while ignoring the oppression of people of color by the United States abroad. 

I understand where you are coming from better now, though. You are using the tactic of focusing on one issue at a time, which is valid, though not what I or many others view as the most valid or effective way to go about things. We can agree to disagree on that.

What I think is not getting through is that transgender issues are not the same as "LGB" issues. Pink Mass and performing gay marriages is lovely, but it really has very little to do with gender or trans people. A beautiful, androgynous statue of Baphomet being unveiled in the wake of Caitlyn Jenner coming out, in an era where a black trans woman prison-abolition activist like Laverne Cox is a celebrity, when trans women like Chelsea Manning and CeCe MacDonald are heroes... that would have been, in my opinion, extremely of-the-moment and apropos. I will continue to view the fact that this didn't happen as an opportunity lost. 

Anyway, if there is anything The Satanic Temple takes away from this exchange, I would like it to be this: trans issues are front and center right now, and in my opinion, have everything to do with the stated agenda of the Satanic Temple. Maybe a physically androgynous Baphomet is not in the cards-- OK, I can accept that. But when are you going to have that conversation about gender that your leaders said you wanted to avoid with Baphomet? Because the iron is VERY very hot right now, and I think you guys should strike. 

And if you decide to, you can count on my help.

[sonsofthemorning]

I just sent this to The Satanic Temple.

Dear Satanic Temple:

I was overall thrilled to read about the unveiling of Baphomet. The statue is very beautiful.

However, I notice that this Baphomet seems to be lacking something. Breasts.

Apparently this was a conscious decision on your part. From the article on the symbolism of Baphomet that was linked in your most recent newsletter:

Levi’s Baphomet was a hermaphrodite, with breasts, “but we took the breasts off,” says Greaves. The Temple did not want to get embroiled in a debate about gender which might distract from what it believes are the more important messages of the Baphomet.

I’m ashamed of you. Ashamed and disappointed.

You pretend to be iconoclasts, and yet you can’t unveil a traditional, hermaphroditic statue of Baphomet even at a time when transgender issues have more attention and relevance in the mainstream media than ever?

This transgender Luciferian is not impressed.

By removing Baphomet’s female attributes, not only have you made it safer and more cis/hetero friendly while selling out queer, transgender, and non-binary people, you have also turned Baphomet into yet another unambiguously male idol, to be literally looked up to. In short, you’ve also sold out women.

Baphomet’s multigendered nature previously made this entity a powerful symbol that expressed provocative and powerful truths about gender. By removing Baphomet’s breasts, you’ve made it essentially irrelevant. You’ve neutered your own message, nearly literally. Good job.

[sonsofthemorning]

OK, this is picking up notes pretty quick. Which I am glad about, but I’m not really in the mood for all the B.S. that comes with a viral post on tumblr usually. 

I am just saying what I think, which is my right. Just as The Satanic Temple has the right to portray Baphomet however the heck they want.

In some ways it’s not what they did that bothers me so much as their stated reasons why. A very dear, queer, grumpy old Occultist friend of mine pointed out to me that if they had given Baphomet breasts they never would have been able to display it publicly in Oaklahoma. Which sucks, but if they had just owned up to that as a reason, I would have shrugged, maybe rolled my eyes a bit, and gone about my day.

However, they said they were trying to avoid a debate about gender, and I think that is cowardly. I think it’s cowardly especially because The Satanic Temple has taken a strong stance in favor of bodily autonomy when it comes to abortion (which is great!), and I think they should have the gonads to extend that to trans people, which would only be logical. 

And personally, I would like to see them catch a little bit of flack for that. 

So if you really like this post… here’s their email address. Feel free to give ‘em hell and express your opinion strongly, but please, take the time to at least spell out your opinion so they understand why people are upset. 

[email protected]

[sonsofthemorning]

I got a reply!

Levi's Baphomet was the first to have breasts and was artistically rendered over 500 hundred years after the Baphomet was first conceived.

In the 12th century, Baphomet was simply a human head with curly hair. Before that he was a goat. At one point, he was a cat. 

For you to fixate on a representation that substantially deviates from these previous representations that are part of long tradition and history of non-intersexed Baphomet is grossly arbitrary. For you to insist that no other representation should exist, but the arbitrary one you champion is a fascist mindset.

We care a great deal about LGBT issues, but this was not the forum for that. Had we offered a Baphomet statue with exposed breasts, the controversy would not have been about plurality and whether the 10 Commandments may stand on public property, but rather the focus would have been on questions of decency and whether that statue violates community standards.  Anyone can offer to donate a statue of a naked human form if they want to engage in that debate, but that was not our mission and that is precisely the debate we wanted to avoid. I am sorry you are not able to appreciate that. Everyone else has seemed to grasp the rationale behind our decision.

I suggest you start your own religion and build your own Baphomet statue in accordance with whatever arbitrary components you believe are essential. No one is stopping you, so you have no reason to be upset or disappointed, at least not with us.

Sincerely,

Malcolm Jarry

To which I said:

Dear Malcolm,

I feel you missed my point. 

I am aware that Baphomet has been represented in many different ways throughout the centuries. I am not upset about what you did, so much as the stated reasons why. 

I appreciate that if Baphomet had been portrayed with breasts, you would not have been able to display it publicly in Oaklahoma. Which is legitimate. You all could have just said that. I would have shrugged and moved on. 

Instead, you said you wanted to avoid a conversation about gender. Not decency, not nudity, but gender. 

Furthermore, you didn't build a statue of Baphomet as a cat. Or a human head with curly hair. Or a goat. You built a statue based on Levi's depiction... with one notable, consciously choosen, and publicly remarked upon difference. For me to notice what you did is not arbitrary in the leas-- especially not after you all pointed it out! 

What seems arbitrary, to me at least, is that the Satanic Temple, which stands so firmly for bodily autonomy when it comes to abortion (which is great!) is not taking this moment to extend that support, logically, to transgender people. 

And I know this is precisely the discussion you wanted to avoid. Which is why I am bringing it to you, to the best of my very limited ability. Because I don't think you should be able to avoid a discussion about gender.

You should be happy. You got what you wanted. You avoided a large-scale media blow-up about decency, nudity, and yes, gender. A few lonely trans occultists feeling upset about your decision was a predictable consequence. I am now also disappointed that you lack the grace to engage in this small-scale debate without cheap shots suggesting I start my own religion and build my own statue. You even called me a fascist, which is deeply illogical and not the least bit impressive.

[sonsofthemorning]

I just sent this to The Satanic Temple.

Dear Satanic Temple:

I was overall thrilled to read about the unveiling of Baphomet. The statue is very beautiful.

However, I notice that this Baphomet seems to be lacking something. Breasts.

Apparently this was a conscious decision on your part. From the article on the symbolism of Baphomet that was linked in your most recent newsletter:

Levi’s Baphomet was a hermaphrodite, with breasts, “but we took the breasts off,” says Greaves. The Temple did not want to get embroiled in a debate about gender which might distract from what it believes are the more important messages of the Baphomet.

I’m ashamed of you. Ashamed and disappointed.

You pretend to be iconoclasts, and yet you can’t unveil a traditional, hermaphroditic statue of Baphomet even at a time when transgender issues have more attention and relevance in the mainstream media than ever?

This transgender Luciferian is not impressed.

By removing Baphomet’s female attributes, not only have you made it safer and more cis/hetero friendly while selling out queer, transgender, and non-binary people, you have also turned Baphomet into yet another unambiguously male idol, to be literally looked up to. In short, you’ve also sold out women.

Baphomet’s multigendered nature previously made this entity a powerful symbol that expressed provocative and powerful truths about gender. By removing Baphomet’s breasts, you’ve made it essentially irrelevant. You’ve neutered your own message, nearly literally. Good job.

[sonsofthemorning]

OK, this is picking up notes pretty quick. Which I am glad about, but I’m not really in the mood for all the B.S. that comes with a viral post on tumblr usually. 

I am just saying what I think, which is my right. Just as The Satanic Temple has the right to portray Baphomet however the heck they want.

In some ways it’s not what they did that bothers me so much as their stated reasons why. A very dear, queer, grumpy old Occultist friend of mine pointed out to me that if they had given Baphomet breasts they never would have been able to display it publicly in Oaklahoma. Which sucks, but if they had just owned up to that as a reason, I would have shrugged, maybe rolled my eyes a bit, and gone about my day.

However, they said they were trying to avoid a debate about gender, and I think that is cowardly. I think it’s cowardly especially because The Satanic Temple has taken a strong stance in favor of bodily autonomy when it comes to abortion (which is great!), and I think they should have the gonads to extend that to trans people, which would only be logical. 

And personally, I would like to see them catch a little bit of flack for that. 

So if you really like this post... here’s their email address. Feel free to give ‘em hell and express your opinion strongly, but please, take the time to at least spell out your opinion so they understand why people are upset. 

[email protected]

[sonsofthemorning]

I just sent this to The Satanic Temple.

Dear Satanic Temple:

I was overall thrilled to read about the unveiling of Baphomet. The statue is very beautiful.

However, I notice that this Baphomet seems to be lacking something. Breasts.

Apparently this was a conscious decision on your part. From the article on the symbolism of Baphomet that was linked in your most recent newsletter:

Levi's Baphomet was a hermaphrodite, with breasts, "but we took the breasts off," says Greaves. The Temple did not want to get embroiled in a debate about gender which might distract from what it believes are the more important messages of the Baphomet.

I'm ashamed of you. Ashamed and disappointed.

You pretend to be iconoclasts, and yet you can't unveil a traditional, hermaphroditic statue of Baphomet even at a time when transgender issues have more attention and relevance in the mainstream media than ever?

This transgender Luciferian is not impressed.

By removing Baphomet's female attributes, not only have you made it safer and more cis/hetero friendly while selling out queer, transgender, and non-binary people, you have also turned Baphomet into yet another unambiguously male idol, to be literally looked up to. In short, you've also sold out women.

Baphomet's multigendered nature previously made this entity a powerful symbol that expressed provocative and powerful truths about gender. By removing Baphomet's breasts, you've made it essentially irrelevant. You've neutered your own message, nearly literally. Good job.

[occultobscura]

#tarot time

[sonsofthemorning]

WHAT IS THIS DECK?! I need!

[ex0skeletal]

(via 666 by CBedford on deviantART)

[hcdonic]

modern aesthetics: demons/fallen angels

[templeofapelles]

Caravaggio, Cupid as Victor (detail), ca. 1601

[sugar--dyke]

Rebellion and Resistance

For me at least, these two are some of the most important values I’ve learnt.

As Luciferians, these are values that are essential to our practice, as they are values essential to our deity. We need to rebel against society, against unjust authorities, but perhaps most importantly against ourselves. We need to question every value we hold, even if it seems obvious why we hold them and especially if it makes us uncomfortable to do so.

- Mindlessly accepting values that oppose the majority is not questioning them.

- If it is easy or comfortable to question yourself, YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG.

- You shouldn’t be looking for information to support your viewpoint, you should be looking for all evidence against it.

- If your response to having your viewpoint values questioned is to freak out, you have a LOT of work to do.

- You are objectively wrong on a whole lotta things. Do you really think that you are the only person alive with a perfect moral code? Other people can justify things to themselves just as easily as you can. Homophobes, neo-nazis, sexists etc. don’t just sit around being assholes cause they feel like it.

That’s about it, I think.

[occultmagic-deactivated20190805]

Baphomet

Created in 1854 by occultist Eliphas Levi for his book

Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie.

http://occultistspells.com

[sonsofthemorning]

Sorry for spamming your notes! I love your blog! :)

No apology necessary. Enjoy. 

[transientguests-deactivated2018]

[eeyebrows-blog]

[darshanasuresh]

Prometheus, how you suffered for helping mankind. Prometheus, was it worth it? Were your screams, your pain, your own hurt worth the hope you gave to others?

Darshana Suresh, “on selflessness” (via mythpoetrynet)

[ubuntuliberation-blog]

In Islam, Satan is identified as the single angel who, setting himself apart from all other angelic beings, refused God’s command to bow down before Adam on the day of his creation. When questioned by the Creator as to why he disobeyed, the Devil answered that he bowed down solely to the Divine, not to any of the created. Unrepentant, he also argued that God’s will determines all things, so it would not have been possible for him to refuse God’s command unless God himself had allowed him to do so. For this, he was banished from Heaven and was taken away from the presence of God. No more does the eye of God enlighten him; no more will the touch of God give him joy. But in spite of this punishment, he has never lost his love for God. He alone, of all beings in the cosmos, loves God without gain, without hope, without even the possibility of feeling loved in return. Thus, seen objectively, this unrequited love is the most pure of any. The Devil serves without reward. Even while bearing the burden of eternal separation, the Devil has taken on the thankless and usually misunderstood task of creating obstacles for human beings. What few realize is that, through rising above these obstacles, we are able to rise where he cannot go, stepping over him in our ascent toward our own higher natures. The Devil toughens us, forces us to remain awake, an offers lessons as no other angel can. Would we ever have learned to walk if our parents had continued to carry us everywhere? Our troubles and temptations, even if truly given to us by the Devil, are still ultimately gifts of God.

Ibrahimu (via ubuntuliberation)

[vlfgrim]

Will you tell me about cruel gods? Nothing specific about them, just... general things

This question actually made me sit down and think because I really wasn’t sure how to answer it. Thank you for sending it in.

Cruel gods are proud, they demand nothing less than everything within you. When your knees give out and your chest aches from sobbing your prayers through clenched teeth, then they are satisfied. Understanding of the divine comes from agony.

They are silent, always looking on, always watching the roads before you as you choose and choose again, until you no longer can understand which path is easier or which path is kinder. All roads are narrow and dangerous and eventually the stones will stop cutting your feet open.

Cruel gods smile when you fail, because they know that in the blink of an eye you will remember who you are and see the strength in your shoulders rise up. They did not teach you suffering for nothing.

They demand sacrifice of the most dear. Sometimes never to be returned because if it was something that you could live without, then it wasn’t as necessary as you believed. And while the hunger twists your belly and your heart into knots you could never hope to untangle, they are subtly sharpening the blades in your bones. Sometimes the best choice is to cut it loose.

Cruel gods point you to the places to test you, the places where you prove yourself again and again. Cruel gods look on as you pray, because they know that you have taught yourself how to survive and that your prayers are reminders to yourself more than anything else.