Satanist religious tenets as post-facto motivated reasoning for atrocities

Emphases added:

13. The forensics of war

Higher cortical functioning does not completely disappear in massacres. Indeed, on close inspection, the actions of the military, especially in Nanking and the massacres in Rwanda, seem designed to violate universal taboos—e.g., the slaying of family members in front of other family members or the commanding of family members to have sex with each other. Staub (1999) has termed this a “reversal of morality.” If a forensic examination was conducted on these perpetrators, it would indicate the awareness of the humanity of the victims, the status of a family, and the extreme humiliation such actions would cause. It is this for reason that perpetrator reports of the victims as not human must be balanced against a forensic construction of what they had to know in order to behave as the did.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238111175_The_Psychology_of_Genocide_Massacres_and_Extreme_Violence_Why_Normal_People_Come_to_Commit_Atrocities#pf25

In other words, committing atrocities requires a conscience and would not be possible without it. When observing the hijinks of Satanists we usually assume that the causation goes from belief to action, but I’d like to consider the opposite: maybe Satanism is a set of beliefs that arises, emergently, to post-facto rationalize the commission of atrocities. That is, maybe TPTB violate universal taboos as part of their pursuit for greater and greater feelings of power, and then they reinvent Satanism to explain to themselves why they behave the way they do.

Fromm (1973) called sadism “the conversion of impotence into the experience of omnipotence” (p. 323). He argued that,

“The core of sadism, common to all its’ manifestations, is the passion to have absolute and unrestricted control over a living being. . .. To force someone to endure pain or humiliation without being able to defend himself is one of the manifestations of absolute control. …The experience of absolute control over another being, of omnipotence…creates the illusion of transcending the limitations of human existence, particularly for one whose real life is deprived of productivity and joy” (pp. 322–323)

Although this paper draws parallels between military massacres and sexual killers like the Boston strangler, the descriptions remind me more of the Phoenix Program and Jewish sexual trafficking like at Epstein Island or in Hollywood/ThinkGeek.

It is apparent that the actions of brutal rape, torture, and murder that occurred in Rwanda, Bosnia, and all military massacres are similar to those committed by sexual sadists who serially kill (Ressler et al., 1992; Ressler, Burgess, & Douglas et al., 1986). Indeed, Ressler, Burgess, and Hartman et al. (1986) describe “the ultimate expression of the murderers perversion being the (postmortem) mutilation of the victim” (p. 273) and identify elevated rates of prior sexual abuse victimization among eventual perpetrators as a causal factor in murder mutilation. Brownmiller (1975) compared actions described under the testimony of a U.S. Army soldier about sexually mutilating a Vietnamese woman to those of Albert DeSalvo, the “Boston Strangler” (p. 109). She found no difference.

Through use of “crime scene analysis,” the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit has established different categories of sexual killers, typically differentiated into “organized” and “disorganized.” The former is psychopathic and emotionless, the latter is typically considered psychotic. The latter tends to position the dead body and to insert foreign objects into the vagina. Both practices were reported at Rwanda and Nanking. The psychiatric diagnosis given to such perpetrators is sexual sadist, sadistic personality disorder, or antisocial personality disorder. However, the killers in military cases were following orders to dispose of the “enemy” and took that order as license to wreck havoc on the enemy. Also, the sexual killers in these two locations had immediately prior sex with living women, more consistent with the profile of an “organized” killer.

As described above, murderers who mutilate the victim’s body were found to be more likely to have been sexually abused (Ressler et al., 1986). Of course, we know nothing of the backgrounds of genocidaires in Rwanda or Nanking. However, the high level of participation in the killing and its public nature suggests that situational rather than predispositional factors explain the actions. Sexual killers often harbor beliefs about their target population that are similar to the intense form of out-group stereotyping described by Staub. Serial rapists often view woman as “whores” or even target only prostitutes (Marshall & Kennedy, 2003). It appears that their own sexual urges are viewed as abhorrent and projected onto the victims.

In normal society, we view “lust killers” who mutilate their victims as psychotic (Hickey, 2002, p. 17) (in the sense that they live within a sadistic fantasy that captures their reality), yet the same actions committed during mass social violence appear to be committed by men who have no prior signs of psychosis but function well as soldiers.

Apparently, this is how you conduct a race war. In conditions of peace, genetically distinct elite classes tend to engage in racial cold wars to exterminate the underclasses, hence the long-term form of their Satanism. The white genocide thing is a bit more obvious in this bit toward the beginning of the paper:

Such acts include killing members of the group, causing serious bodily harm or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life to bring about its destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group (Power, 2002).

It makes sense that, in order to conduct such a program, you must simultaneously humanize your enemy in order to recognize universal taboos, and dehumanize them in order to justify proactively breaking those taboos as part of your reign of terror. Such justifications would result in a certain set of beliefs that could be codified as a religion.

Isn’t it to be expected, then, that the Talmud was written immediately after killing God and persecuting the early church? And isn’t it curious that classical Judaism coincides with the mysterious disappearance of the Jewish poor and all Jewish historical records of the period when they disappeared?

Between the second phase and the third, that of classical Judaism, there is a gap of several centuries in which our present knowledge of Jews and Jewish society is very slight, and the scant information we do have is all derived from external (non-Jewish) sources. In the countries of Latin Christendom we have absolutely no Jewish literary records until the middle of the 10th century; internal Jewish information, mostly from religious literature, becomes more abundant only in the 11th and particularly the 12th century. Before that, we are wholly dependent first on Roman and then on Christian evidence. In the Islamic countries the information gap is not quite so big; still, very little is known about Jewish society before AD 800 and about the changes it must have undergone during the three preceding centuries.

Major Features of Classical Judaism

Let us therefore ignore those ‘dark ages’, and for the sake of convenience begin with the two centuries 1000-1200, for which abundant information is available from both internal and external sources on all the important Jewish centres, east and west. Classical Judaism, which is clearly discernible in this period, has undergone very few changes since then, and (in the guise of Orthodox Judaism) is still a powerful force today.

How can that classical Judaism be characterised, and what are the social differences distinguishing it from earlier phases of Judaism? I believe that there are three such major features.

1. Classical Jewish society has no peasants, and in this it differs profoundly from earlier Jewish societies in the two centres, Palestine and Mesopotamia. It is difficult for us, in modern times, to understand what this means. We have to make an effort to imagine what serfdom was like; the enormous difference in literacy, let alone education, between village and town throughout this period; the incomparably greater freedom enjoyed by all the small minority who were not peasants – in order to realise that during the whole of the classical period the Jews, in spite of all the persecutions to which they were subjected. formed an integral part of the privileged classes. Jewish historiography, especially in English, is misleading on this point inasmuch as it tends to focus on Jewish poverty and anti-Jewish discrimination. Both were real enough at times; but the poorest Jewish craftsman, pedlar, landlord’s steward or petty cleric was immeasurably better off than a serf. This was particularly true in those European countries where serfdom persisted into the 19th century, whether in a partial or extreme form: Prussia, Austria (including Hungary), Poland and the Polish lands taken by Russia, And it is not without significance that. prior to the beginning of the great Jewish migration of modern times (around 1880), a large majority of all Jews were living in those areas and that their most important social function there was to mediate the oppression of the peasants on behalf of the nobility and the Crown.

Everywhere, classical Judaism developed hatred and contempt for agriculture as an occupation and for peasants as a class, even more than for other Gentiles – a hatred of which I know no parallel in other societies. This is immediately apparent to anyone who is familiar with the Yiddish or Hebrew literature of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Most east-European Jewish socialists (that is, members of exclusively or predominantly Jewish parties and factions) are guilty of never pointing out this fact; indeed, many were themselves tainted with a ferocious anti-peasant attitude inherited from classical Judaism. Of course, zionist ‘socialists’ were the worst in this respect, but others, such as the Bund, were not much better. A typical example is their opposition to the formation of peasant co-operatives promoted by the Catholic clergy, on the ground that this was ‘an act of antisemitism’. This attitude is by -no means dead even now; it could be seen very clearly in the racist views held by many Jewish ‘dissidents’ in the USSR regarding the Russian people, and also in the lack of discussion of this background by so many Jewish socialists, such as Isaac Deutscher. The whole racist propaganda on the theme of the supposed superiority of Jewish morality and intellect (in which many Jewish socialists were prominent) is bound up with a lack of sensitivity for the suffering of that major part of humanity who were especially oppressed during the last thousand years – the peasants.

-Israel Shahak in Jewish History, Jewish Religion (chapter 4)

This attitude sounds an awful lot like what you’d expect from people who massacred their own agricultural class and did some pretty awful things to them in the process. Just speculating.