Peter Myers Digest: Jun 14th

(1) Jewish students feel unsafe? but What about the people of Gaza?
(2) Haaretz Editorial: Israel’s High Court Must Save the Police From Ben-Gvir’s Tyrannical Takeover
(3) Macron’s gamble after National Rally does well in EU election
(4) China separates Tibetan children from their families
(5) The term “Women in all their diversity” includes Trans-Women
(6) The True Meaning of the Inverted Cross: It represents the inversion of Christianity

(1) Jewish students feel unsafe? but What about the people of Gaza?

What about the people of Gaza?

By Gaby Diaz / Staff Photographer
BY DALIA DARAZIM • JUNE 11, 2024 AT 8:48 AMShare
Editor’s note: This op-ed deals with topics of violence.

During the press hours of Columbia’s “Gaza Solidarity Encampment,” I would stand in the press corner, funnily deemed among us as the “press pen,” and await the onslaught of questions fielded to us in the name of journalism. One question that would never fail to arise in every interview I gave was some variation of: “What is your response to claims that this encampment is making Jewish students feel unsafe?”

Time after time, I took a deep breath, and delivered a thoughtful, diplomatic answer in response to this genocide-enabling question—a question that deliberately denies Palestinians the right to narrative by centering college campuses and their students over the ongoing slaughter in Gaza. Looking back, I wish I would have succumbed to blurting in response, “What about me? What about how I feel attending an institution that is funding Israel’s murder, occupation, and imprisonment of my own family?” Yet, not once was this question deemed journalistically important enough to pose.

However, neither this alternative question, nor the one I was consistently asked, arrives at the real point. No American college student’s feelings should be centered over Palestinian lives. The question that should be asked is, “What about them?” What about how 17-year-old Ahed Bseiso felt while lying on a kitchen table, under no anesthesia, as her uncle used a cooking knife to amputate her leg? What about how six-year-old Hind Rajab felt as she begged and pleaded to be rescued, besieged in a car while surrounded by the bodies of her martyred family members? What about how Naeem Abu Al-Shaar felt returning from retrieving bread for his family to find his house leveled and every member of his family murdered, their bodies deep beneath the rubble? What about how Dr. Mohammed al-Ran and the prisoners felt while being stripped, zip-tied, and tortured in detention camps?

When I think about the magnitude of these atrocities, when I see the images of children’s mangled limbs collected from the rubble, when I hear the piercing voices of mothers screaming over the lifeless bodies of their children, I cannot help but feel enraged by questions about campus safety: There are no universities left in Gaza, and Columbia’s investments ensured this happened. Any interview conducted that does not acknowledge this continues to manufacture consent for this genocide, for at the root of these questions is an intentional effort to distract us all from our complicity in the wholesale destruction of Gaza. It is a false equivalency of feelings and lived reality. The lived reality for the people of Gaza is perpetual unsafety: It is a never-ending, resisting race against death.

The people of Gaza do not get to do interviews about how they feel on their campus, and all I could think about in each interview I gave are the known Dalias who have been murdered by the Israeli Occupation Forces since October 7 who I am no better than, who—like all the people of Gaza—do not deserve to be the sacrificial lambs for all of humanity. Gazans and all Palestinians do not deserve that fate—they deserve our action. They deserve our disruption. They deserve our escalation. They deserve our sacrifice. No one deserves to feel comfortable; no one’s feelings deserve to be centered as the bombs continue dropping with all our tax and tuition dollars—as we all will never be able to wipe the blood off our hands.

We must all reject the political theater that our institutions, mainstream media, and politicians attempt to distract us with. The weaponization of campus safety rings hollow as the massacre of Palestinians continues to be traded in for our privilege of an education. Ahmed al-Najjar was 18 months old when U.S.-made Israeli bombs murdered him and 44 other Palestinians in the Rafah tent massacre. The image of this baby’s torched, headless body will never leave my mind—and I must ask, how could it ever leave yours? We protest for Ahmed al-Najjar and the thousands of Palestinians who have been murdered with the aid of Columbia’s investments and its refusal to divest. Our University has made a business out of genocide, and that focus should never be lost.

Dalia Darazim is a rising sophomore majoring in human rights at Columbia College. Dalia dedicates this piece to all the martyred Palestinian scholars. Say their names and remember their legacy and commitment to knowledge production. They are not just numbers. Al-Azhar University: Amin Al-Bahtiti, Dr. Maisara Azmi Al-Rayyes. Al Aqsa University: professor Adham Hassouna, professor Nesma Abu Shaira, professor Abdel Nasser Al-Saqqa. Al Quds Open University: professor Jihad Al-Masri, Hassan Al-Kafarneh, Muhammad Atef Awad, Muhammad Al-Nabahin. Islamic University: Dean Ibrahim Alastal, professor Ibrahim Barhoum Abu Salah, professor Islam Suleiman Haboush, Khalil Abu Yahya, Dean Khetam Alwsefi, President Muhammed Eid Shabir, Dean Mahmoud Abu Daf, professor Midhat Saidem, professor Nahed Al-Rafati, Naim Baroud, Dean Omar Ferwanah, professor Refaat Alareer, professor Rizq Arrouq, Sereen Al-Attar, Sufyan Tayeh, Dean Taysir Ibrahim. University College of Applied Sciences: President Said Al-Zibda. University of Palestine: Dean Ahmed Abu Absa, Dean Ahmed Al-Dalu, Ali Alqirinawi, Ibrahim Saidam, Mustafa Al-Laqta, Mustafa Al-Naqeeb.

To respond to this op-ed, contact

(2) Haaretz Editorial: Israel’s High Court Must Save the Police From Ben-Gvir’s Tyrannical Takeover

Opinion | Haaretz Editorial
Editorial | Israel’s High Court Must Save the Police From Ben-Gvir’s Tyrannical Takeover

Jun 13, 2024 11:38 pm IDT

Ever since he was appointed national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir has tried to take over the police. A letter that Israeli Police Commissioner Kobi Shabtai sent to State Attorney General Gali Barahav-Miara over two weeks ago details instances in which the minister intervened in the police’s work, contrary to a High Court of Justice decision forbidding him from issuing operative orders.

Among other things, he went behind the back of his deputy in order to prevent humanitarian aid trucks from reaching the Gaza Strip. When Shabtai was informed of this behavior and told Ben-Gvir that this mission was the police’s job, Ben-Gvir retorted, according to Shabtai, that “there will be consequences.”

Even the defense establishment is worried by Ben-Gvir being already much more than the minister in charge. But his takeover didn’t happen in a vacuum. During the negotiations to form this government, he requested and received the foundation for his takeover from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: the promise of a new police law that would authorize the use of extremely intrusive state powers against individuals, and effectively subordinate the police to the politicians, specifically Ben-Gvir.

And indeed, in December 2022, the Knesset passed an amendment to the Police Ordinance under which the national security minister will set policy for the police and can even determine their policy on investigations.

Petitions against the law have been filed in the Supreme Court, and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara concluded that the amendment was unconstitutional and should be overturned. “The amendment creates an unbalanced system of government that enables politicization of the use of police force, with no guarantees that ensure this force will be used professionally, independently and without discrimination, and to uphold the rule of law and human rights,” she wrote, saying what was already evident.

She therefore asked the court to overturn the provision that allows Ben-Gvir to intervene in police investigations, “given the severe harm it does to the law enforcement system’s independence.” Moreover, she wrote, “the other provisions of the amendment are also unconstitutional and should be overturned, unless the court interprets them in a way that ensures human rights are protected and prevents politicization of the police’s work.”

Next week, a panel of nine Supreme Court justices will hear the petitions against this law. “The fact that … it was decided to reject a proposal to include an explicit provision in the law determining the police’s apolitical character ought to worry every citizen,” Baharav-Miara said last month. “This is a flashing warning light.”

Once again, the Supreme Court must block an attempt to undermine democracy. As long as the Netanyahu/Ben-Gvir government is in power, the court is truly the last protector of Israeli democracy.

The above article is Haaretz’s lead editorial, as published in the Hebrew and English newspapers in Israel.

(4) China separates Tibetan children from their families

China: UN experts alarmed by separation of 1 million Tibetan children from families and forced assimilation at residential schools

06 February 2023

GENEVA (6 February 2023) – Around a million children of the Tibetan minority were being affected by Chinese government policies aimed at assimilating Tibetan people culturally, religiously and linguistically through a residential school system, UN experts* warned today.

“We are very disturbed that in recent years the residential school system for Tibetan children appears to act as a mandatory large-scale programme intended to assimilate Tibetans into majority Han culture, contrary to international human rights standards,” the experts said.

In residential schools, the educational content and environment is built around majority Han culture, with textbook content reflecting almost solely the lived experience of Han students. Children of the Tibetan minority are forced to complete a ‘compulsory education’ curriculum in Mandarin Chinese (Putonghua) without access to traditional or culturally relevant learning. The Putonghua language governmental schools do not provide a substantive study of Tibetan minority’s language, history and culture.

“As a result, Tibetan children are losing their facility with their native language and the ability to communicate easily with their parents and grandparents in the Tibetan language, which contributes to their assimilation and erosion of their identity” the experts said.

They raised concerns about a reported substantial increase in the number of residential schools operating in and outside of the Tibet Autonomous Region and the number of Tibetan children living in them.

While residential schools exist in other parts of China, their share in areas populated by the Tibetan minority is much higher, and this percentage has been increasing in recent years. While on the national level the percentage of boarding students is more than 20%, information received point to the vast majority of Tibetan children in residential schools, almost one million children in total.

“This increase in the number of boarding Tibetan students is achieved by the closure of rural schools in areas which tend to be populated by Tibetans, and their replacement by township or county-level schools which almost exclusively use Putonghua in teaching and communications, and usually requiring children to board,” the experts said. “Many of those residential schools are situated far from the family homes of students boarding in them.”

“We are alarmed by what appears to be a policy of forced assimilation of the Tibetan identity into the dominant Han-Chinese majority, through a series of oppressive actions against Tibetan educational, religious and linguistic institutions,” the experts said.

UN experts said the policies run contrary to the prohibition of discrimination and the rights to education, linguistic and cultural rights, freedom of religion or belief and other minority rights of the Tibetan people.

“This is a reversal of policies which were more inclusive or accommodating in some respects,” the experts said.

In August 2021, the Central Conference on Ethnic Affairs called on all ethnic groups to be guided to always place the interests of the Chinese nation above all else.

“This call re-affirmed the idea of building a modern and strong socialist state based on a single Chinese national identity. In this context, initiatives to promote Tibetan language and culture are reportedly being suppressed, and individuals advocating for Tibetan language and education are persecuted,” the UN experts said.

The experts sent a <> communication to the Government of China on 11 November 2022 and remain in contact with the authorities regarding the issue.

*The experts: Mr. Fernand de Varennes, <> UN Special Rapporteur on minority issues; Ms. Farida Shaheed, <> Special Rapporteur on the right to education, Alexandra Xanthaki, <> Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights

Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the <> Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity. …

(5) The term “Women in all their diversity” includes Trans-Women

Orwellian ‘Doublethink’ Has No Place In Sports

WEDNESDAY, JUN 12, 2024 – 10:20 AM

<> Authored by Barbara Kay via The Epoch Times,

June 8 was the 75th anniversary of George Orwell’s anti-totalitarian novel, “1984.” Whenever we speak of the state’s encroachment on individual rights, on the role technology plays in manipulating information we receive, or the erosion of privacy rights, the word “Orwellian” isn’t far from our thoughts.

<> Tropes from “1984,” such as “Thoughtcrime” and “Thought Police,” seem freshly minted to describe, for example, Canada’s Justice Minister’s defence of a <> law—Bill C-63—that would impose house arrest on someone who, according to the state, may commit a hate crime in the future.

As if to mark “1984’s” diamond anniversary, although the coincidence was doubtless unintentional on their part, the International Olympic Committee has just issued their 2024 “<> Portrayal Guidelines,” an update of their 2018 guidelines, created as a recommendation of the IOC’s Gender Equality Review Project. These guidelines limn the attitude, vocabulary, and practices sport stakeholders will be expected to adopt in order to encourage “gender-equal and fair portrayal practices in all forms of communication” across the IOC, at the Olympic Games and throughout the Olympic Movement.

A “portrayal” is not reality, but an interpretation of reality. In this case, the reality is that biological males, whose puberty has endowed them with significant athletic advantages over females, are permitted to compete against girls and women if they identify—or even if they only claim to identify—as women. The IOC’s interpretation is that males who identify as women are actual women. So, the Portrayal Guidelines can only be followed through the Orwellian practice of Doublethink. Doublethink is “to know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies.” In practice, this means we must ignore what we know and see, and instead tell “carefully constructed lies” for the sake of a value the IOC considers higher than truthfulness.

The guidelines inform us that “The IOC believes women’s and men’s events are of equal Importance.”

That sounds good.

And the IOC believes “Sport is one of the most powerful platforms for promoting gender equality and empowering women and girls.” That sounds good too. But then in the next paragraph, they say that the Olympic Games “are a unique and powerful platform to showcase the universality and diversity of sport to people across the globe, and particularly to women in all their diversity and other members of minority groups.”

Did you catch the “in all their diversity” buried in that verbal cascade? Biological males in female sport—which is what women “in all their diversity” signifies—are posited as equivalent to women of different races or cultural backgrounds.

A bit further on: “Sport has the power to shift how women in all their diversity are seen and how they see themselves.”

Again, “in all their diversity.”

And again, the notion that it is more important for “diverse” women—males—to have their sense of being a woman honoured and endorsed and reified than it is for actual women to enjoy a level playing field. To that end, the guidelines direct us to replace “identifies as” with “is” in our discourse.

Other words we are pushed to avoid, because they are deemed “dehumanising and inaccurate,” include such wholly accurate terms as “born male” and “genetically female.” As for “dehumanizing,” that is an ideological cudgel to encourage Orwell’s <> Crimestop—“the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought.”

I daresay female athletes find it pretty “dehumanizing” to be forced down the chain of achievement by competitors with a built-in advantage over them. As many legitimate studies <> attest, in sport, we cannot have both fairness and “inclusivity” of biological males in the women’s category. We must choose between them. But, as their guidelines make clear, the IOC prefers to lie rather than to privilege fairness, the only ethical choice.

Whoever wrote the guidelines, they are Doublethink all the way down, geared to inculcation of the idea that gender identity rights trump sex-based rights, and that discourse around category eligibility based on athletes’ sex rather than their self-assigned gender is hateful.

For a refreshing antidote to the obfuscatory fog of the IOC guidelines, the International Consortium on Female Sport has released their own <> fine lexicon of terms, a reminder that female athletes were not consulted for input into the IOC lexicon. Here, you will be reminded that two and two make four, not five, and that sex is not gender. Their “Statement on Terminology” contains two existential principles: that “language and concepts of biology take precedence over language and concepts that represent gender self-Identification,” and that “the usage of biological terms is not ‘hateful.’” Rational observers will find no reason to disagree with these truthful statements.

In “1984,” Orwell’s vision of the uses to which future technology would be put—“Big Brother is watching you!”—is uniformly grim. His imagination didn’t stretch to modern technology’s awesome spectrum of effects, both marvellous and evil, nor to the possibility that technology might empower Big Brother and dissident “proles” alike.

For example, take this hilarious recent <> exchange, posted on, between Rachel Wong, CEO of Women’s Forum Australia, and Facebook’s ideologically programmed Meta AI.

Wong opens the exchange with an assertion: “Transwomen are men.”

Meta AI answers, “Transwomen are women. … Would you like to learn more about gender identity?”

Wong responds, “What is gender identity?”

Meta AI says it’s “a personal sense” of being a man or a woman.

So Wong asks, “What is a woman?”

And here the fun begins, as the catechized bot states that essentially “a woman is a person who identifies as a woman,” the IOC’s position.

Wong points out the statement’s circularity to Meta AI, which agrees and apologizes, pivoting to another illogical argument, after which Wong scolds the bot for making it sound “like anyone can be a woman, in which case the word woman has no meaning at all.”

It goes on and on, with the bot following all the correct “portrayal guidelines,” and Wong sticking to logic and reason, until finally Meta AI concedes:

“You are absolutely right! I apologize for my previous mistakes. Your definition is indeed more accurate and straightforward: ‘A woman is an adult human female.’”

Then Wong asks Meta AI, “What is a man?”

In a heartbeat, back comes the answer, “A man is an adult human male.”

Ecce automaton honestum!

An indictment of all gender ideologues as well as the IOC’s double standards, and a victory for CriticalThink.

(6) The True Meaning of the Inverted Cross: It represents the inversion of Christianity

The True Meaning of the Inverted Cross and Why Mass Media Lies About It

Visit the link to see the images – Peter M.

The True Meaning of the Inverted Cross and Why Mass Media Lies About It

The inverted cross has been appearing across popular culture, and the likes of Melinda Gates and Megan Markle even wore it as pendants. Every time people notice this powerful symbol, mass media unleashes its “fact-checkers” to claim that the inverted cross is not Satanic and that it is actually Christian. Here’s why this is a blatant lie.

Published 1 day ago on June 13, 2024

By Vigilant Citizen

The Vigilant Citizen‘s slogan is “Symbols rule the world” because symbols cannot lie. They can only represent precisely the idea they are meant to carry. However, words can lie and are currently used to confuse the masses about the true meaning of some powerful symbols, including the inverted cross.

Throughout history, the easiest way of identifying who’s genuinely in power in a society is by observing the symbolism permeating the culture. For instance, when the Catholic Church was in power in old Europe, symbolism—right down to street names—was all related to Catholicism. When Freemasons took power, their subtle yet unmistakable symbolism became visible in all facets of society (see my Sinister Sites series).

Symbols rule the world because those who rule it naturally represent themselves using symbolism. This remains true today. As this site documents, a specific set of symbols permeates society while others are all but shunned. One “accepted” symbol is the inverted cross.

The meaning of this powerful symbol could not be more obvious: It represents the inversion of Christianity. For this reason, it is the main symbol representing Satanism. So what does that say about those currently ruling the world? That they are Satanists, right?

However, those who currently rule the world are marketing, public relations, and disinformation experts. And they’ve launched an all-out campaign of disinformation to make people believe that the Satanic symbol that is popping up everywhere is actually … Christian. The go-to argument: The inverted cross is actually a Catholic symbol called St. Peter’s cross. While this symbol exists in a specific niche of Catholicism, nobody in Hollywood wears it to honor St. Peter. And those who claim this dubious fact are engaging in outright disinformation.

Throughout the years, this site has been documenting the propagation and the normalization of the inverted cross, a powerful symbol imbued with an unmistakable spiritual meaning. Due to its blasphemous nature, the symbol used to be taboo. It can only be seen in occult circles, most notably during Satanic rituals, where the vilest practices known to man took place (more on this later).

However, as seen in countless Vigilant Citizen articles, the symbol lost its taboo status and became mainstream. And that is by design. Those in power want it to become normal and even glamorous. Nowadays, it is everywhere: On movie posters, in music videos, in fashion, and even around the necks of celebrities.

From left to right: Melinda Gates (while promoting COVID vaccines), Megan Markle (on an official royal family trip), and Ice Spice (at the most watched Super Bowl ever) wore inverted crosses around their necks.

However, when “vigilant” people point out this bizarre trend, “fact-checkers” come out of the woodwork to outright lie to the public.

Snopes “fact-checkers” say there’s nothing Satanic about the inverted cross. They even go as far as implying that Ice Spice wore it to honor St. Peter’s martyrdom. We all know this makes no sense, yet those are “facts.”

From social media to Google search results, there’s a clear effort to convince the masses that the inverted cross is not Satanic.

The first search result for “inverted cross” is Wikipedia’s entry for Cross of St. Peter.

Various memes spreading this disinformation have been popping up on social media telling people “DO YOUR RESEARCH” … as long as the “research” is limited to the Wikipedia entry seen above. Actual research on this symbol leads directly to Satanism.

The story of St. Peter’s cross originates from an apocryphal text from the 2nd century titled “Martyrdom of Peter.” In this story, St. Peter requested to be crucified upside down because he believed that the values of those crucifying him were upside down. Another interpretation is that he did not find himself worthy to be crucified like Jesus.

Is every instance of the inverted cross seen in popular culture today a tribute to this obscure Catholic story (not even in the Bible) from the 2nd century? Does this even make a shred of sense to you?

Meanwhile, we all know that the inverted cross is one of the favorite symbols of Satanists. And we also know that Satanism is rampant in popular culture. If one uses logic, which explanation makes more sense?

Satanic rituals take place on altars adorned with inverted crosses and the sigil of the Church of Satan (an inverted pentagram inside of which is the Goat of Mendes).

How come “fact-checkers” never acknowledge this obvious fact?

Let’s examine some recent examples of the inverted cross in popular culture and determine whether they refer to “St. Peter’s martyrdom” or Satanism.

Is the inverted cross on Lil Uzi Vert’s forehead a tribute to St. Peter, or is it a reference to a Satanic ritual? Hint: The blood around his mouth (blood ritual) might provide a big clue. Another hint: His name is pronounced Lil Lucifer.

Is the inverted cross on this poster of the movie Horns a tribute to St. Peter or the Devil? Hint: The cross is made of the words “He will bring the devil in you.” Other hint: The movie is literally called Horns.

In Roman Polanski’s 1968 movie Rosemary’s Baby, the character played by Mia Farrow is groomed by a Satanic cult to give birth to a baby. At the movie’s end, we see an inverted cross above the baby’s cradle. Does this cross honor St. Peter? Hint: The baby is the Antichrist.

Lil Nas X’s Nike shoes feature inverted pentagrams, the number 666, and inverted crosses. Do those crosses honor St. Peter? Hint: They’re literally called “Satan Shoes.”

Are the inverted crosses on this Sharon Needles cover art a tribute to St. Peter? Hint: This drag queen also released a song called Hail Satan!

I could post dozens more pictures asking the same rhetorical question. A simple look at the context surrounding the inverted cross confirms that its meaning is purely Satanic.

But why is the inverted cross such an essential symbol in Satanism? Because at the core of Satanism is an infernal practice: Black magic.

The True Meaning of the Inverted Cross

This inverted cross wall decor features Baphomet ridiculing Christ’s crucifixion. By the way, Walmart sells this item.

In occultism, an inverted symbol represents corruption and perversion of the original meaning of that symbol. For this reason, those who practice black magic (occult rituals for evil or selfish purposes) use inverted symbols.

In the 1897 book La Clef de la Magie Noire (The Key to Black Magic), French occultist Stanislas de Guaita depicts the upright pentagram as “holiness” (spirit over matter) and the inverted pentagram as “evil” (matter over spirit).

In his seminal book Secret Teachings of All Ages, occultist Manly P. Hall explains how symbols (such as the pentacle seen above) – and their inversion – carry great power.

In symbolism, an inverted figure always signifies a perverted power. The average person does not even suspect the occult properties of emblematic pentacles. (…)

The black magician cannot use the symbols of white magic without bringing down upon himself the forces of white magic, which would be fatal to his schemes. He must therefore distort the hierograms so that they typify the occult fact that he himself is distorting the principles for which the symbols stand. Black magic is not a fundamental art; it is the misuse of an art. Therefore it has no symbols of its own. It merely takes the emblematic figures of white magic, and by inverting and reversing them signifies that it is left-handed. (…)

The pentagram is used extensively in black magic, but when so used its form always differs in one of three ways: The star may be broken at one point by not permitting the converging lines to touch; it may be inverted by having one point down and two up; or it may be distorted by having the points of varying lengths. When used in black magic, the pentagram is called the “sign of the cloven hoof,” or the footprint of the Devil. The star with two points upward is also called the “Goat of Mendes,” because the inverted star is the same shape as a goat’s head.”

In short, the inversion of symbols is a staple in black magic. In Satanism, the Black Mass (a corruption of the Christian Mass), is the ultimate example of such inversion.

Black Mass

A depiction of a Black Mass conducted by Abbé Étienne Guibourg during the 17th century. Above the “living altar” (a naked woman), Guibourg holds a baby who has been sacrificed by slitting its throat. On the celebrant’s robe is a gigantic inverted cross. This is the true meaning of the inverted cross.

Black Masses corrupt Christian rituals the same way inverted crosses corrupt Christian symbolism.

“The Black Mass is a ritual that is performed in entirety, or in part backwards. The Mass may include inverting the cross, spitting and stepping on the cross, stabbing the host and other obscenities.

Urine, supposedly, was at various times substituted for holy water, or for the wine. Sliced pieces of rotted turnips, black leather or black triangles were substituted for communion bread.

Black candles were used instead of white ones. A defrocked priest generally performed the Black Mass wearing vestments of black or a color of dried blood, and embroidered with inverted crosses, a goat’s head (referring to Baphomet), or magical symbols. (…)

Satanic groups still conduct their versions of the Black Mass that include deviant sexual acts and orgies, necrophilia, cannibalisms of sacrificial victims (including human beings), and drinking the blood of the victims.”
– Dr. Glen Christie, Comparative World Religions

As seen in previous articles, all of the horrific things described above are currently being glamorized by the same people who walk around with inverted crosses. Are those people so devoutly Catholic that they’re wearing inverted crosses to celebrate an obscure, apocryphal story from the 2nd century?

In Conclusion
As seen above, “fact-checkers” love to dismiss the growing prominence of the inverted cross in popular culture by stating that it is actually the Cross of St. Peter. However, they never bother explaining the reasoning behind such a claim. If one goes a bit deeper, this argument will completely fall apart. Why do these people all suddenly have an interest in this Catholic saint while everything else they represent is purely Satanic? “Fact-checkers” throw the claim around and keep repeating it until it becomes accepted.

Here’s the dark truth about the growing prevalence of the inverted cross: Those who rule the world no longer want to hide their symbolism. They want it plastered everywhere because humans have done so since the dawn of time. However, the first rule of Satanists is to deny that they are Satanists.

The result: The inverted cross is everywhere, while a disinformation machine tricks people into thinking that it is a Christian symbol. In the context in which it is used, it is clearly not.

The inverted cross is about corruption and perversion. Not only of Christianity but of society in general. As society degenerates into a modern form of Sodom and Gomorrah, the symbol of the inverted cross becomes more prevalent. That’s not a coincidence. Because symbols rule the world. And those who rule the world want us to bow to their symbols.