Since the beginning of the Hampstead SRA hoax, one of the recurring howls from those who would love to believe that hundreds of babies and children are being raped, murdered, and eaten in a school in North London has been, “Let the accused show us their tattoos!” The logic behind this being, of course, that any upright innocent person who was accused of such horrific crimes would instantly high-tail it down to the nearest police station, drop their draws, and demonstrate their non-tattooed privates.
We’ve tried to explain to the knobheads who believe this that such an approach is not just silly, but actually illegal, but to no avail. It’s silly because we all know that no matter how unblemished the skin of the alleged abusers might be, those who are excited by the thought of small children being raped and tortured would simply respond that the so-called accused had cheated in some way: tattoo removal, Photo-shopped images with the tattoos carefully blanked out, magical spells that erased the images from the camera, payoffs to the photographers…you get the idea.
And it’s illegal because the police are not permitted to demand that a person who has been accused of no crime reveal any evidence of anything. Period.
Then there’s the most obvious argument of all: that when one is accused of a crime (which no one has been, but in the event), it is up to the accuser to prove that the crime happened. It’s not up to the accused to prove that it did not. That’s part of the presumption of innocence, which is one of the fundamental tenets of law in all democratic societies.
Tattoos were ‘childish, Hollywood-inspired’
But quite aside from the legalities and practical issues of proving whether or not the parents, teachers, and clergy of Hampstead have various tattoos which demonstrate their allegiance to a fictional baby-eating cult, there’s the fact that the alleged tattoos themselves are just plain ridiculous.
As long-time commenter Justin Sanity pointed out yesterday, the pictures which Abraham Christie and Ella Draper forced RD’s children to draw betrayed a farcical, childish, and incorrect understanding of “Satanic imagery”, very much in keeping with Abraham’s own unsophisticated fascination with the subject:
I knew it! I knew this was going to be the STUPIDEST conspiraloon-faked “evidence” I’ve ever heard of!
Hahahahahaha- OMG – hahahaha!!
Seriously? Horned faces? hahahaha!!
Inspired by Pan, because he was surely Satan? WRONG!
Inspired then by the ancient stag-headed god Cernunnos, because he was surely Satan? WRONG!
Inspired at least by Eliphas Levi’s Baphomet, because that must certainly be Satan? WRONG!
OMG. The most childish, hollywood inspired understanding of “Satan” & “Satanism” – THAT is all this supposedly ultra-sophisticated international cult of Satan worshippers could come up with to symbolize themselves? They must surely have ridden on brooms then, and been obsessed with the number 13 and ouija boards – like Dr Pazder believed? The same childish understanding of an Abe, or an Ella, or an Angie?
What a farce. How does this nonsense even manage to perpetuate itself? It’s beyond me…
Here are the drawings in question: note the “horned god” and “god with antlers” motifs, along with the standard five-pointed stars:
As Justin points out, the idea that the Greek horned god, Pan, represents Satan is incorrect. In fact, Christ was originally associated with Pan, who was one of the “pastoral pantheon” in Greece—shepherds and farmers would pray to Pan to watch over their flocks, and to protect them from attacks by wolves. This was very much in keeping with the Christian view of Jesus as “good shepherd”. It was Pan’s other function, as a fertility god, that worried the Christians—a little too much fun and frolic for their taste—and so Christians (not Satanists) began to associate Pan with a devil-figure.
Similarly, the Celtic stag-headed god Cernunnos was a pagan entity, only associated with Satan in the eyes of Christians. As for Baphomet, the seated goat-figure has been traced back to the writings of Eliphas Levi, who gave the goat-headed creature the name Baphomet. We’ve heard this explained as a reference to a ram-headed Egyptian god named Banedbjedet, or possibly a distortion of the name Muhammed. Wherever it comes from, the association is quite recent, having been originally drawn in 1854.
So…no. Not an “ancient Satanic symbol”. Sorry.
Yet in Abraham Christie’s underdeveloped mind, these horned/antlered gods are not only representative, but literally central to the fictional tattoos in question.
He also includes five-pointed stars—surely as Satanic as it’s possible to get, right?
The earliest references to the five points of the star come from Christianity, where they were said to represent the five wounds suffered by Christ during his crucifixion. The goat’s head pentagram can be traced back only as far as an image in an 1897 book called La Clef de la Magia Noire written by Stanislas de Guaita, a French occultist who wanted to emphasise the distinction between occultism and Devil worship.
So to claim that any or all of these symbols represent an “ultra-sophisticated international cult of Satan worshippers” is just plain silly. These are not images that any “real” Satanist would choose—leaving aside the fact that absolutely no evidence of Satanic ritual sexual abuse has ever been found. In fact, the term “ritual abuse” can be directly traced back to 1980, when Lawrence Pazder and Michelle Proby wrote the infamous and almost wholly fictional book Michelle Remembers, kicking off the satanic panic of the 1980s and 1990s.
The fact that so many of Abraham’s followers have been not only willing but eager to swallow his childish fairy-tale version of “Satanic child rapists and baby eaters” only illustrates the profound and willful ignorance of all concerned.
1 May 2017: Edited to add this clarification from Justin—
To be fair, there have been self-professed “satanists” who used horned-god symbolism in various ways. Both LeVay’s Church of Satan and the more recent Satanic Temple DO use that imagery in their ‘corporate’ logos, and Satanic Temple have used baphomet statues to great effect in their struggles against government sanctioned, public, promotion of Christian symbolism & beliefs (which is a violation of the US constitution). But, both of these are public entities and more of a secularist, anti- religious tyranny organizations than genuine satan worshippers.
Teenaged dabblers have also used this symbolism, being inspired by commercial exploitation vis., “The Exorcist” and heavy-metal rock bands, with no genuine understanding of it.
BUT – the idea that a super-sophisticated, super-secret, international conspiracy of devil-worshippers as the Illuminati is alleged to be, would employ such childish & hollywood inspired imagery to represent themselves is simply farcical. It’s akin to suggesting that Interpol might use a cartoon figure like Superman, or a cartoon crime-fighter organization like The Justice League, to represent themselves.