At this point, Peters proceeded into Chapter 9: Forgiveness: Grace, Love and Unfinished Business.

I here also begin to wrap up.

My conclusion is that Peters seven steps to Radical Evil may be systematized using the nested formalism of Normal Context(Actuality(Possibility)) where:

Possibility makes Actuality possible.

Actuality situates Possibility.

Actuality makes the Normal Context appear actual.

Normal Context contextualizes Actuality.

Steps 1, 2 and 3 may be formalized as Pride(Anxiety(Faith^UnChristian))

Steps 4 and 5 may be formalized as Justification^self(concupiscence())

Concupiscence encompasses actuality(possibility) and may be described as “the state of being(with Cupid)”

Steps 6 and 7 may be formalized as Blasphemy(Cruelty()).

Cruelty encompasses actuality(possibility) and may be described as “the thrill of acting(without conscience)”.

These nested formalisms fall within planes that may be described as “setting the stage” (steps 1,2, and 3), “doing” (steps 4 and 5), and “perverting” (steps 6 and 7).

The “call to shed innocent blood” indicates that Satan is present.

Is Satan the personification of blasphemy(cruelty())?

Yes.

So blasphemy is more than just “stealing symbols”.

Blasphemy is investing certain symbols with such authority as to be “beyond question” or “beyond uncertainty”.

In doing so, these symbols button down a symbolic order or “language” that cannot be consonant with the symbolic order or “language” of Christianity.

Those who tried to justified cruelty with the “language” of Christianity have always never quite succeeded.  Even the worst of the Inquisition was a mixed bag.  Consider Jonah Goldberg’s The Tyranny of Clichés, in that regard.

Those who tried to justify cruelty with the “language’ of Science, on the other hand, have succeeded so well that Modern History stands as a testament to the delusional powers of the Symbols of Science.

Now, Modernism transcends itself.  Modernism has shed its old skin. Postmodernism sets forth in a new skin, with a new “language” defining a new symbolic order.

Progressivism will justify its cruelty with the “language” of the Social Sciences.

Is Satan the real interiority of a society that idolatrously pursues its own self-enhancement, as Peters claimed?

Say “yes” and beware of Peters’ warning against those simplistic Christians who confound Satanic and New Age Cults.  As noted before, both are private cults that complement the Public Cult of Progressivism.  Yet, Peters was not aware of the Public Cult.

Say “no” and realize that the word “society” and “interiority” are slippery symbols.  Peters looked through the lens of his own narrow research. What did he mean by “society”?  “Society” is placeholder in a system of differences – a symbolic order – that belongs in a “language” once Christian, but now co-opted by Progressivism.

“Society” now defines “the Greatest Good” for this faith^UnChristian.

As such, “Society” is “the Good” that the Thrill Seekers may become the Instruments of.

And there are no thrills as vibrant as political – or military – contest.

Perhaps, the answer to Peters’ claim can be formulated as such:

“Society” is the real interiority of a religion – that denies that it is a religion – idolatrously pursuing its own self-enhancement.

Blasphemy provides the excuses to be without a conscience.

And weirdly it works in two ways.

In one way, you justify looking inside yourself to see the image of “You as the Instrument of the Greatest Good”.

In the other way, you justify looking at others to see the demonic image of “What You Could Be”, while denying that “You Could Be That Way”.

The Massachusett “satanic preschool” trials prefigure the trials to come.

The Satanic Soul is a House of Mirrors.

The parents, therapists and lawyers of the “satanic preschool trials” saw their own unconscious persona in the testimony of those eager-to-please manipulated children.  The testimony reflected through their own House of Mirrors, where one of the surfaces contains an image of what they could never admit to be, but could be in the proper circumstances.  Those Progressives could be the Instrument of some Divine Compulsion – some “fill in the blank” – some Order of the Hypergalactic Space Probe.

Satan has one face that appears as two.  One face is transfixed – by the thrill of what it sees – one of the multiple reflections of – what appears to be another face – the one who would say “yes” to being without conscience.  The one face is that of the accuser, who thrills in the accusation and the trial.  The other face is that of the accuser, who longs to serve as the perverse vessel of a Higher Good.   Yet both belong to one.

One face of Satan is on the Outside Looking In.  The other face of Satan is on the Inside Looking Out.  The One on the outside is looking in, seeking the thrill of catching a glimpse of its own image.  The one on the inside is looking out, seeking the excuse to be without substance, that is, without conscience.

Satan wants to be reflected be a Hall of Mirrors instead of a single Mirror, which reflects a unified image, an image without “doubling”.

Consider the Massachusetts “satanic preschool” trials.

Here, “the possibility of satanic cult activity” was reified.

Let’s say that local secular  therapists were talking to themselves about how “creepy” those Christian preschools were.  Was there not a problem with their faith^Christian, as opposed to our university-trained faith^UnChristian?

Then the serpent joined their conversation, speaking through the mouths of children, telling them exactly what they already suspected.

The therapist’s “metaphorical” truths became “empirically” true.

How could the children’s claims be “metaphorically” true?

All families feel vulnerable to external forces.  What external force is more immediate than that little preschool down the street?  Parents never really know what is going on behind those closed doors. So their anxiety was written all over their faces when their child causally mentioned, while they read the New York Times on one fine churchless Sunday morning, that her preschool teacher touched her lips with a hypergalactic space probe.

The serpent converted the metaphorical truth of the therapists into an empirical truth.

Welcome to MA: First in Witch-hunts.

What seems really weird, to me, is that Ted Peters did not even see the Blasphemy involved in the Democratic Party – er, Progressivist – Takeover of California in the 1990s.

Instead, he kept his blinders on and focused on Satanism as a type of Private Cult within the spectrum Private Cults that constituted the New Age Movement.  He spent over 20 pages wondering whether Satanic Cults really existed.  Perhaps, they were figments of therapists’ expectations.  Perhaps, they were exaggerations of fundamentalist Christians.

Peters discussion has the same quality as the scene where the serpent appears in An Archaeology of the Fall.  Somebody was telling secular therapists and fundamentalist Christians something that they – on an unconscious level – already knew.  The secular therapists and the fundamentalist Christians thought they knew something – I mean – saw ‘something’.  And what they saw was a distorted image of themselves.

During the Enlightenment, the “language of Christianity” was co-opted by the Parties of Collectivism.

The Modern “social constructions” of Fascism and Communism served as sites of unparalleled cruelty.

Why?  Because their divinities were Blasphemy Incarnate that allowed – really, seduced – individuals into becoming their Instruments.  Personal responsibility was eclipsed in favor of instrumentality “without conscience”.  And what a pleasure that instrumentality turned out to be.

Fascists and Communists were “radically evil” in that they sought to deprive their victims of solace of any God Beyond Their Instrumentality.

Their cruelties were so cruel as to pose the ultimate question.

Do you know why you are here?

You are here to give us the thrill of destroying your conscience.

An Archaeology of the Fall provides a secular parallel to this theological transformation.   Every “language” is a symbolic order that exists as a system of differences.  Because humans evolved in a Lebenswelt of hand talk, we project “referentiality” onto each word in each system of differences and thereby socially construct our diverse worlds in our one Civilization.

Each “social construction” or “language within the Language” has a buttonhole, a word that cannot be defined, that serves to anchor all the other symbols in the system.  These buttonholes are vulnerable to concerted political action, characteristic of the competition by institutions for the role of Sovereign.  At the same time, when the Sovereign falls, these buttonholes are open to institutions that develop character instead of pursue sovereign power.

Institutions that pursue the Role of the Sovereign develop “ways of talking” consistent with the God of the Institution’s Instrumentality.  That is, the Sovereign becomes the Instrument of this God.

They blaspheme by co-opting words developed by Institutions that built a consensus in their worship of a God Beyond Their Own Instrumentality.