Thoughts on Sin by Ted Peters (1994) Blasphemy 8D

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.


Thoughts on Sin by Ted Peters (1994) Blasphemy 8C

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.


Thoughts on Sin by Ted Peters (1994) Blasphemy 8B

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.


Thoughts on Sin by Ted Peters (1994) Blasphemy 8A

When the cruel person acts as the Instrument of God, she blasphemes.

Who is she blaspheming?  The God of Her Instrumentality or the God Beyond Her Instrumentality?

The reputation of Christianity may be trashed whenever the Bible is used for “seeking the thrill (without conscience)”, but that does not tell the whole story.  What has really happened?  The ideologue-blasphemer has interpreted the words of the Bible in a way that anoints her with Power.

She has transformed The God Beyond Her Instrumentality into the God of Her Instrumentality.


Thoughts on Sin by Ted Peters (1994) Cruelty 7D

In many ways, this transformation from Epicurean to Sadist captures the difference between concupiscence and cruelty and the difference between the planes of “doing” and “perversion”.

Concupiscence() seeks all sorts of fulfillmentselfs.  That is the nature of “being in the state(with Cupid)”.

Cruelty() seeks the rush of anti-fulfillmentself, where the victim is deprived – like those little crawfish in the marsh of Peters’ childhood – of her legs and claws.  Watch her squirm at the debasement!  What fun!

Unfortunately, you can only do it once to each crawfish.

So perhaps the nature of “cruelty” is “seeking the thrill(without conscience)”.

Just as Cupid’s arrow takes over the person’s heart or “state of being”, perverse instrumentality (“without conscience” in its myriad of possibilities) removes the most important hindrance to the thrill of debasing others.

The Marquis de Sade was so complete a perverse instrument of “the Pleasure of Giving You Pain”, that he longed for nothing more than the pure thrill of acting without conscience.

Today’s sadists are not so agenda free.

Today’s sadists pose as “the Instruments of Some Higher Order that Will Take Away Your Pain”, like National Socialism, Communism or Progressivism.  In this way, the pleas of their victims float like incense above their Lack of Conscience and fill the nostrils of a Divinity Who Feeds Off Love.  Look.  We have taken away the Pain of Your Own Conscience.  Too bad that also required putting that probe into your brain.

Do you know why you are here?

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

Today’s Sadists have transcended their Master.


Thoughts on Sin by Ted Peters (1994) Cruelty 7C

At the point, Peters brought up the issue of Sadism.

The word comes from the name of a member of royalty – or, perhaps, if you will excuse the pun – a royal member who spent half of his life in prison for petty crime and debauchery.

What better place to pen one’s life-style setting treatise?

The Epicurean motto was: Seek pleasure and avoid pain.

Sade asked: What if your pleasure comes from other’s pain?

Then the motto transforms into: Seek thrills and avoid good conscience.


Thoughts on Sin by Ted Peters (1994) Cruelty 7B

How do describe cruelty?

Peters started with childhood memories of little cruelties committed by children “just because they could”.

He continued by envisioning the many cruelties committed in history.  The primordial image of “the wolf” raises its head here.  Who is afraid of the big bad Wolf?  And weirdly, biological observations of wolf behavior occasionally confirm the intuition of the folklore.  Talking to them is useless.

Peters moved on to specific cases of torture.

In all his examples, individuals act as instruments of a Political Power while inflicting cruelty.

Peters pointed out that the cruel person has two faces: The face of the one who tortures others and the face of the regular family person, living an upstanding life, who is just like you and me.  He called it “doubling”.

“Doubling” may be defined as “the wolf putting on sheep’s clothing”.  The person in sheep’s clothing talks a shifty technical vocabulary that masks the wolf’s predatory procedures.

In the same way, dictators “hold elections” in order to “appear legitimate”.  The whole charade is bogus.  The words are changed in order to advance the Powerful.

Once every word has been “redefined” by the “Powers That Be”, cruelty becomes the social norm.

The same ploy is evident in people diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder.  These people can act with exceptional cruelty.  At the same time, they can manipulate words in order to seem perfectly normal.  They will not play by the rules.  Instead, they create the rules as they go along.  They are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Beware of the Apparently Normal Person who manipulates Words for the Advancement of the Powers that Be.


Thoughts on Sin by Ted Peters (1994) Cruelty 7A

Thoughts on Sin by Ted Peters (1994) Cruelty 7A

Step 6 on Peters seven steps to Radical Evil is titled Cruelty: Enjoying My Neighbor’s Suffering.

Cruelty is one level above Pride.  Cruelty takes place on a plane that puts the situational plane of “doing” of “justificationself(concupiscence())” into context.

At the moment, I do not name this plane.

The words “willful” “inflicting” “causing anguish and fear” describe a situation of willful “ignorance” or “blindness” of “the victim” while, at the same time, a “knowledge” or “agency” of a “higher force of righteousness”.

Cruelty is like concupiscence.  It is pleasurable.  It is addicting.  But unlike concupiscence, which is all about “me”, cruelty is all about “my treatment of you”.  Cruelty is inherently relational.

Peters said that cruelty is a “perverse pleasure”.  In saying this, he inadvertently uses a term that figures in the writing of the Slovene Postmodernist Slavoj Zizek, whose foundational works were written between 1989 and 2000.

A “pervert” is “a person who becomes an instrument of a Power”.


Thoughts on Sin by Ted Peters (1994) Self-Justification 6U

In order to appreciate the richness of Peters’ intuition, I associate “sacrifice” with the divine point of view and “scapegoating” with the human.

Now, consider a general formula for the nested form in the plane of “doing”:

JustificationX(state of beingY(with desireZ)

Apply that general formula to the divine and human points of view:

Human justificationself:  The rhetoric of “sacrifice” identifies the good (Pharasees, Saducees, and Roman players) and damned (Jesus, alleged King of the Jews)

Divine justificationGod:  The rhetoric of “sacrifice” identifies the good (Father) and the damned (Son of the Father) in a relation of infinite love

State of beinghuman: the joys of mob action and political intrigue in the spectacle of a public crucifixion

State of beingdivine: the accomplishment of an incomparably unique yet intimated theodrama that realizes – or fulfills – many Old Testament prophecies and resonates with – or redeems – many pagan themes

With Cupidhuman: The craving to steal the life and authority of the scapegoat Jesus for their own

With desiredivine: The craving to reveal Jesus as the Messiah.  That is: Jesus is the Way That God Recognizes and Loves Himself and The Mediator For All Humans through taking and redeeming the mantle of the Scapegoat.