HVad: Satanism (Was Re: The FAQ: Who are the real Satanists?)
nagasiva
49961028
In alt.magick, jk1...@hdc.hha.dk (Hr. Vad) wrote something he wanted added
to the alt.satanism FAQ. I review it here (various parts deleted throughout):
|WHO ARE THE REAL SATANISTS?
[disclaimer omitted]
| "Those who say they are Satanists probably are."
Compare: "If you think you are a Satanist, then you are one."
|One valid objection to this answer and definition of "real Satanists"
|is that it is too inclusive -- that it includes a lot of individuals
|whom no one sober would call Satanists.
Notice that HVad here continues the errors of the ways of other
religious, somehow acknowledging the value of assessing the
identity of another. It is this flaw which makes possible the
ludicrous establishment of the 'real vs. fake' issue in *every*
relgious social system.
First one begins associating the identifier with specific forms of
practice or doctrine and then one may divide the 'chosen' from the
'herd'. It is a classic error which even Satanists have not learned
to abandon.
Placed in the rhetoric of the true Satanist (:>), it is utterly
ridiculous to attempt to discern if another is or is not a Satanist.
It is much easier to figure out over time if another actually
THINKS that they are a Satanist (and has some feelings or ideas
about qualification which back this up). More important is
the ascertainment of whether one thinks one *is* a Satanist, since
the ego, the self, is given great value in most forms of Satanism.
|...at times a group or organization harps on the issue, usually
|promoting themselves as the "One True Way."
Sometimes this is done within Satanic forums in jest or in order
to establish a new paradigm (claiming 'One True Way' is a way to
get the reactionaries nitpicking and griping, assisting in the
fortification of logics and meme-self-cohesion). And yet the
beliefs of a few elite organized are always over-rated by the
many.
|Those persons usually try to convince everybody else that they
|are the only true Satanists, and everyone else is a pseudo-Satanist.
That is the old trap, yes. This is a far cry from attempting to
convince everybody that specific heretical factions or condemned
enemies are 'true Satanists' without bothering about whether there
might be 'pseudo-Satanists' (since it was an assertion of blatant
condemnation and, in many cases, libel).
|However, anyone who has ever seriously pursued _truth_ will recognize
|the folly of such preaching. What is at issue is often not _truth_,
|but simply differences of opinion which are essentially impossible
|to resolve in a way which relates meaningfully to _truth_.
I consider this preaching of a sort. This kind of rhretoric doesn't
belong in a FAQ, even one so constructed as a REFerence file as many
of the alt.satanism FAQs tend to be. One might also say that 'truth'
of the sort to which you are referring is an *experience*, wherein
linguistics and theoretics only contain opinions.
|Does this sound crazy? Well, try to think of the problems
|Christians have had defining who are the "real Christians":
|Protestants calling the Catholics Satanists; Jehovas Witnesses
|calling everybody else Satanists, false teachers and so on;
|Baptists, Mormons, Davidians, Methodists, etc., etc. --
This results from the butt-insky condemnation crew attempting to
foist *their* cherished meme-structure atop the rest of the
universe. Most fanatical and highly-developed religious
systems eventually reach this point in their growth.
That is, what you have not mentioned here is that many times
people mean different things by their terminology and often
have different criteria for inclusion when attempting to
characterize others.
|...To an outsider these "Battles of the True Ways" seem futile and
|pointless --
This is not necessarily the case. I have found a great deal of
value in such comparisons, especially when the contestants have
good heads on their shoulders, don't resort to ad hominems, and
are willing to support their assertions with common texts or
elaboration on shared experiences which bolster their claims.
In the evolution of religions, it is the survival of the most
persuasive (through word or sword! or both!!) which wins out.
|...At most we can say who has the most followers, but it is
|widely recognized in most fields that this is not necessarily
|indicative of truth.
Of course not, it is only indicative of popularity and census.
|...the only useful answer is that whoever calls himself a
|Christian or Satanist probably is.
Even this is not a useful answer some of the time. There are many
who enjoy putting on shows of label and identification when in
their hearts they know that they are not truly living up to these.
I would not include such individuals as legitimate exemplars of
their faith and so would restrict it to 'those who think of
themselves as a Satanist'.
Of course you may have some who discern 'satanists' from 'Satanists',
but this gets too far into complexity for a 'FAQ' (so called).
| "Modern Satanic organisations reserve the right to define
| Satanism as they see fit."
Better: "Modern Satanists define Satanism as they see fit."
This is how most religious truly operate. They feel that their ideals
do not conform to the current social milieu and so form their own
cabal/church/coven/temple/grotto/whatever and call this by the same
name (sometimes, if they are insecure, making this the 'real' kind).
|...No sane person would ask Adolf Hitler about the joys of Passover
|or Hannukah, or just _who_ and _what_ Jews really are.
Ridiculous. Asking the enemy of a religion what the religious are
is a very important part of religious research. I'm not saying that
we ought take Hitler's words as the last word, but I am saying that
his perceptions are just as important as anyone else's, even those
who identify as 'Jews'. He is merely vomitting his Jew-meme.
|...no one should ask the Satanists' enemies who or what "real
|Satanists" are.
Problem: Satanists are sometimes enemies with one another.
I think your claims about what 'sane people' and 'no one should do'
are ridiculous.
|Christians see Satanists everywhere and are quick to label someone
|or something Satanic without second thoughts.
And they are COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY CORRECT! That is the problem
with your FAQ that you do not relativize knowledge to the point
where any source adds a certain value.
The problem with Christian notions of Satanism is that it is part
and parcel of their religious tradition to identify with the Great
Adversary many very specific things which they may see in every
adult-bookshop and wiccan coven.
Their language contains this terminology. Given an understanding
of the particular intents and significances of ANY group's usage
of terminology (esp. those used to characterize others), it is not
too difficult to determine who qualifies for the name-calling and
who does not (this is part of what law enforcement agencies have
been coming to terms with over the last decades --> when these
fanatics say 'Satanism' or 'Ritual Abuse' what do they mean? are
they offering any substantive evidence to support their claims?).
|This is especially a problem with the Christians who define anything
|_non-Christian_ or "bad" as per definition "Satanic".
Only a problem if you make it so. If we understand that anything
a Christian means by 'Satanist' is something as ambiguous as 'what they
find offensive' or 'what they deem to be non-Christian' then we can
take this into account and react accordingly.
It is part of the grandeur of Satanism that the term constantly
varies and shifts in meaning depending on who is using it. This
is true for all terms (in living languages), but people like to
pretend otherwise in order to salve their confused minds and
portray themselves as 'knowledgeable'. This is also the problem
with trying to pass off REFerence files as FAQs, but I'll leave
off arguing that for now.
|But can we narrow down our definition a bit more? Yes, hopefully,
|and this will be done later on by discussing some specific persons
|or groups which are often associated with Satanism -- some
|rightfully and some not.
As you can see I'm arguing strenuously counter to your rhetoric
here and think the above paragraph and the bulk of the rest of
your text are wasting our time.
|What is often overlooked is that many so-called Satanists are often
|just people who have done something bad, which has nothing whatsoever
|to do with the religion....
This is provably false. What one culture considers 'bad behavior'
may seem, to another time, culture or neighborhood, quite spiritual
and, given sufficient social support, religious. Compare the various
dietary restrictions and what is 'good' and 'bad' within the nominal
Jewish and Muslim and Buddhist establishments.
|They may be quite unreligious -- this is why a lot of so-called
|"Satanists" hold no coherent beliefs about their religion.
I'm unsure I follow this logic out completely. I don't understand
how you can utilize the fact that the term 'Satanism' is used to
indicate a criminal or heretic (esp. by conservative Christians)
to elaborate on why some Satanists hold no coherent beliefs (either
about their religion or beyond this).
In fact I'm inclined to posit completely differently and assert that
the reason that Neopagans and Satanists typically don't have coherent
or consistent ideologies is that they have found such ideologies too
easily used as tools of oppression (thus the usual antagonism toward
proselytizing) and have reacted by coming to no particular metaphysics
or ethics themselves.
The exceptions to this are typically the organized and pyramidal
(oh go play with your trapezohedrons) Satanists, who, falling over
themselves to look good for the culture of which they are a part
(often for governments or other religious), define themselves right
out of true Satanism.
|...This is a quite common tactic called _demonization_: You accuse
|your enemy of unspeakable deeds to legitimize persecution, oppression
|or war, covering up the fact that the "enemy" isn't so bad at all.
Many times the people who perpetuate this type of information actually
believe it (they were told lies or rumors by others). There are no
deeds which legitimize persecution. Persecution is a deep reaction on
the part of the subconscious mind when it feels threatened by competing
meme-structures and acknowledges the impinging energies of the social
Id-force. Most cultures condemn it as criminal. Then again, one
person's 'persecution' is another's 'prosecution'.
|Who can support "baby eating Satanists"? No one. At least no one who
|believes [?] the propaganda.
That depends on what you mean here. Human children roasting over an
open fire? Well, that is outlawed in most cultures. But what if
one associated 'eating children' with the consumption of results of
intercourse (mingled pre-life substances)? See ACrowley's _Liber ABBA_.
|EXAMPLES:
|~~~~~~~~~
|--- RICHARD "NIGHTSTALKER" RAMIREZ AND OTHER CRIMINALS ---
|mentally unstable persons who are searching for a way to justify
|their deeds.
Exactly, and what is described as 'Satanism' conforms nicely, and
so they are indeed Satanists if they identify in this way.
|Very often they have already decided to commit the crime, but they
|just need a little justification.
I doubt there is basis for this claim. Do you have an intimate
knowledge of the mind of serial killers and sociopaths and what
makes up the process of their motivation and justification?
I don't, and I doubt the veracity of your portrait.
|...many, many more crimes have been committed in the name of
|God/Jehovah than Satan.
Crimes and religion are always together, though under the rubric
of acceptance the crimes are turned into crusades and the religion
is turned into a social folly.
I'll bet that few who commit crimes 'in the name of Satan' (this is
a very interesting phrase) associate themselves with organized
Satanism. Compare this to the number of people who associate
with organized major religions and are sociopaths. The plain fact
is that there are more adherents of those other religions.
As the society defines the organized religion within its culture,
no 'crimes' can become a legitimate part of it. Thus any who
ascribe criminal behavior to any religious group are, ipso facto,
also claiming that it is not religion at all, but criminality.
Therefore those who talk about Satanism in association with crimes
are actually saying something about a trend of sociopathy, whether
their claims are founded upon their imaginations or upon substance.
In this way no crime has ever been commited by a Christian in the
name of God, since their act was automatically excluded from the
religion by virtue of its accepted meaning within the society
itself (throughout all its variations). Otherwise the 'crimes'
are legitimized as 'acts of faith' (cf the Inquisition).
|Most people wouldn't say those persons were real Christians --
That is just plain stupid. It is better and more accurate to say
that 'most people would agree that their criminal acts were not
a legitimate part of their own religion', period.
|...they are first and foremost _criminals_ and the religious aspects
|enter at a later point _because_ of their criminal inclinations.
Exactly, criminality within a religious context. However, I would
warn of the potential problems where this enters into restrictive
cultures. Example: native American use of peyote as part of their
rites. Ingesting that substance was criminal behavior, and yet it
is now recognized as a religious ritual and protected by the US
Bill of Rights. So in many senses (which I've been attempting to
illustrate in various ways) the line between 'religious' and
'criminal' is not so black and white as you desire to paint it.
|Upon close examination most of these people also show themselves to
|lack any systematic, philosophical or theological base on which
|they found their so-called "religion" --
If this is indeed the basis upon which 'religion' must be founded,
then your point is important. If 'religion' includes more than that,
if it hinges on alternative things (praxis, quietism, anti-intellectualism,
etc.), or if there can be fewer than 2 within a religion (as I maintain
Satanism to be --> a religion of individuals) then your analysis here
would appear flawed or incomplete.
|this is exactly due to the fact that they are not religious people,
Whether a person is 'religious' or not is the same problem we have
when we attempt to discern if they conform to some predesignated
norm of religious identification. It is rather useless to attempt
to determine unless there are social and imperative needs (in which
case the results may be of limited value).
|These thoughts are also valid for people like cannibal
|Stanley Dean Baker, the Matamoros (drug gang) killers and the
|Norwegian Black Metal Mafia. The latter, some of whom killed each
|other, are now serving time for murder -- they have been referred
|to by many Satanists as "nasty Christians" because of their loose
|and admittedly _Christian_ based theology.
They were Christian killers. Whether killing (in these precise
ways) is a part of Christianity can be debated for aeons. There
has certainly been quite a bit of warfare and bloodshed associated
with most religous traditions.
|--- WICCANS AND OTHER PAGANS ---
|...Christians often claim that the Wiccans are Satanists.
|Likewise, some Satanists have claimed that the Wiccans are really
|Satanists (or that they _should_ be). Other Satanists say that
|Wiccans are really more like Christians. The Wiccans themselves
|claim that they are neither of the above. Whom do we believe?
Note that you lump all Wiccans together here and portray them
as indicating the same response. This is illusory and ill-founded.
It all depends on whom you take as 'real Wiccans', which brings
us back to your never-ending 'real v. fake' problem you appear to
be perpetuating.
|Well, according to our findings above,
Who is 'us'?
|it is reasonable to grant the Wiccans the right to define among
|themselves who and what they are....
PRECISELY, though I mean it much more broadly and expansively
(for all religious individuals). You appear here to be continuing
the allegiance to group-thought=truth which societies constantly
support for practical purposes of facility. It is not logical
and I suggest you desist.
|Thus there is no need to call these folks Satanists or Christians --
FALSE. Some *do* have the need to utilize their own linguistics for
the characterization of Wiccans or their own path (if they combine
Wicca with anything else). I agree that it is not always very polite
or very useful in the long run to clamor 'No, you are a Satanist!'
at those who deny the accuracy of the label, but I do think that it
is important to listen to the criteria whereby these classifications
of social taxonomy are being made. We may learn something, at *least*
about the speaker.
|they are a breed of their own and have every right to define themselves
|as such. The same can be said of other types of pagans.
I suggest you have much to learn about 'this breed', since it is very
widely varied and has some cross-overs with both Christianity and
Satanism (there are 'Satanic Wiccans' and 'Christian Wiccans', for
example), not to mention the fact that whoever ascribes them the
labels which you are suggesting against means nothing until they
carefully explain it. The best way to avoid idiocy is to ask questions.
|--- ALEISTER CROWLEY & THELEMITES ---
|In many ways the jury is still out on this question.
You are attempting to provide yet more Answers to these queries (that
aren't even queries!) through the reflection of Usenet/Email forum
exchange and perhaps your own investigation. I suggest that this
constitutes a very important REFerence file but that such materials
are useless for FAQs, which better contain slight mentions of the
complexity of an issue and additional references so that newbies will
not perpetuate common meme-strings within those forums.
|One thing is for certain though: The Thelemites/O.T.O. (Crowley's
|successors) do not call themselves Satanists --
This is blatantly FALSE. Not only do several organized Satanists
link themselves very strongly with Thelema (the Temple of Set is
certainly similar in many ways to Crowleyan orgs and it is in some
ways based upon the Church of Satan, for examples), but the Officers
of the OTO (at least the US) do not speak for the entirety of the
membership (even though they occasionally give this impression).
*Some* Thelemites do indeed consider themselves Satanists, and some
of these people are in the one or more OTOs (talk to more people
about this -- there are multiple orgs which identify as 'OTO').
|nor do most Satanists consider Thelemites to be Satanists --
With this I tend to agree, though I think most Satanists wouldn't
know a Thelemite she it came up and bit them in the leg. Not only
this, but 'Thelemite' has multiple meanings also, which you are
once again bypassing for popular pulp. It can mean 'one who
ascribes to the Law of Thelema' or it can mean 'someone who likes
the works or ACrowley' or it can mean 'one who acts according to
their true will' (in which latter case they may know nothing of
any of these religious nomenclatures *or* ACrowley *or* OTOs).
|and this more or less settles this matter.
Hah! In *your* mind, perhaps. I hope Lupo doesn't take you up
on your request to put this into the FAQ.
|Crowley ... used some Satanic symbology, ....
Seems to put him in line with the Satanic Musical artists like
Black Sabbath and Dio and the like.
|e.g. he referred to himself as the Beast of the Revelation,
True, but his mommy did it first.
|called his women "The Whore of Babylon"
I've only heard 'Scarlet Woman', though the association is often
made between these.
|and generally tried to appear as "the wickedest man in the world."
I think there is a big argument to be had here also, since it was
not his incentive which produced that news article (it was, again,
Christian or at least conservative sources -- so you are merely
perpetuating slanders, though I gather that Crowley did not always
take steps to challenge these characterizations and in some cases
may have inspired or encouraged them).
|...Crowley should probably not be called a Satanist -- ....
Whew! Glad that is decided! Get off it. You haven't even
come to the point about him dedicating himself to tutelary
relationship with Satan yet.
|...thus he could be labelled a _de_facto_ Satanist ....
Oooooooo, a new label. How about the notion that Satanism is in part
a REBELLION AGAINST THE LABELLING PROCESS??
|Once in a while Fascist or Nazi Satanists make the headlines,
So you have determined that they are Satanists, eh?
|but quite often this is not indicative of a real problem.
What 'problem'? Are you trying to say that being a Fascist or a
(neo)nazi is a 'problem'? I think your biases may be showing rather
badly.
|The reason they make headlines is often because other Satanists refute
|instantly any connections with these groups.
Now it is you who are splitting hairs without substance. It is not
really pertinent why they make headlines.
|...similarity between Nazism and Satanism it is probably because of
|a shared Nietzschean lineage.
Nice try. This is a good reference, but is not the obvious choice.
|This, however, is not enough to conclude that Satanists are Nazis --
Of course. The question isn't whether Satanists *are* neonazis
but whether those who claim to be neonazi Satanists are real. It is
this kind of rhetoric which gives us all back pain from bending over.
|most aren't because they feel that the fascist/national
|socialist/collectivist doctrines conflict with the Satanic
|emphasis on individualism.
So they don't value the neonazi trip. Ok. But you are so far ignoring
the fact that both identifiers retain similar stigmas. Would a
neonazi Satanist in *GERMANY* be similar to a nonneonazi Satanist
in a neonazi establishment? (Germany has outlawed reading and
speaking about National Socialism in their deprived pain.)
|Also, Satanism scares a lot of people and so does Nazism, so some
|Satanists like to dress up Nazi style simply because they love
|those horrified, shocked expressions on the faces of ordinary
|folks.
This is part of what the Great Martyrdom Cult does: take on the
appearance of the disease and manifest it to the consciousness
of the culture in which the disease has been perpetuated due to
repressed social contents. It is not, therefore, surprising,
that Satanists would find neonazism attractive given the
prevalent, Christian post-WWII culture.
|...most Satanists don't give a damn about Fascism or Nazism
|as they are already members of the most feared and loathed tribe
|on the face of the Earth: The Satanist tribe.
Perhaps they are members. Perhaps they aren't.
|--- HEAVY METAL & ROCK BANDS ---
I think this was addressed in the alt.satanism FAQ (consensus REF).
|...There is a kind of bands which should not be labelled Satanic.
WHY THE FUCK NOT?
I think you are full of it.
|Examples of such bands could be AC/DC, Black Sabbath, Dio,
|Iron Maiden and Slayer.
Black Sabbath is definitely Satanic by my reckoning. I think you
are just taking Ozzy's word that he is not a Satanist. That's fine,
but I still think they can create Satanic music. ;> Ascribing oneself
to 'Satanism' and making music doesn't necessitate that we ought to
consider their music 'Satanic' due to this (we each have our own
criteria for what 'Satanic music' means), nor the contrary.
|...they use a lot of Satanic imagery because they think it is fun,
|it shocks..., and it sells records.
That they use 'Satanic imagery' is sufficient for me to label them
'Satanic music'. I don't know what is more indicative of their
Satanism.
|The lyrics from these bands should _not_ be taken literally, as they
|are often intended just for dramatic impact:
|...heavy metal bands often write fictional lyrics!
This is just plain stupid. Art is taken by the recipient in any way
which he or she desires. Trying to associate a 'spin' with the art
is the worst form of rudeness. It is like telling you how to
interpret my painting by including a broadsheet about it or telling
you that the video accompanying my music are the 'correct' visual
images which ought be visualized during its play.
|However, very few of them actually call themselves Satanists, and
|when asked usually deny any and all connections with the dreaded
|"S" religion.
By this reasoning you are at least consistent with some of your other
claims (that those whom Christians call 'Satanists' aren't really),
but your logic is again wanting and you cannot escape the fact that
you are arbitrarily (by reason of popularity?) selecting the 'true'
from the 'false', which I think only perpetuates the idiocy that
Satanism opposes (take this as 'you are not being Satanic enough').
|There are some anti-Christian bands, or bands which are critical
|towards Christianity ....
|There are, however, a few genuinely Satanic bands or individual
|musicians in the heavy metal scene, .... Some members of these
|bands openly call themselves Satanists and therefore they probably
|are -- even though.... [etc., etc.]
[lots of the rest of this section deleted as unimportant]
See all the hoops you have to go through when beginning to consider
'what other people think'? Easier to merely live in my own cosmos
and make occasionally visits.
|...However, there isn't any objective way of "ruling anybody out"
|unless we are ready to accept one specific kind of Satanism,
Or a variety. In any case the 'ruling someone out' mentality is
sort of old hat. Real Satanism derives from the individual, not
some group-derived mentation-standard.
|e.g. the kind espoused by one of the various Satanic groups.
TOTAL BULLSHIT. The groups are arguably *less* Satanic due to
their allegiance with others in a common herd-group. I think your
CoSatanism is getting the better of you.
|...Satanism is a legal and recognized religion.
This means nothing except that some government accepted and acknow-
ledged a stratified and defined religious body as 'a form of Satanism',
and likely not even that. More plausible is the assertion that there
are legal and recognized religious bodies which associate with the
label 'Satanism'. I doubt that anyone acknowledges it across the
board.
|--- _DE FACTO_ SATANISTS ---
|_De_facto_ Satanists is a name for (mainly historical) individuals
|who are regarded by many Satanists as having possessed certain
|Satanic virtues, even though they did not _call_ themselves
|Satanists.
This would also apply using my criteria (unless any of these De Facto
Satanists thought of themselves as Satanists, which might be provable).
|A FINAL WORD:
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|...What is one to do then, when somebody claims to be a Satanist?
What is one to do about anything? This is ridiculous also.
|You need not pontificate on whether someone is a "true Satanist,"
Please stop telling us what we need to do. It is rather tedious.
|...it _is_ up to you to decide whether the person is _your_kind_ of
|Satanist.
You presume overly. The true Satanist doesn't bother with these
silly labels and discernments, trusting hir gut instincts will
indicate to hir what kind of people they are (regardless of what
labels we may utilize to represent this -- and different people
use different labels or the same ones in different ways).
|...Knowing more precisely what "real Satanists" are
YOU HAVEN'T GIVEN US ANY ASSISTANCE, ONLY FUCKING 'KNOWLEDGE', which
we may use as clubs to beat up our inferiors and ignore the true
Satanists. I suppose there is some solace in misleading newbies
(or perpetuating your own delusions), but this is not FAQ material
in any case.
|doesn't remove the need for individual assesment.
I have no need for boxing people up in nice safe packages and
pretending that this is in some way conducive to my benefit.
This is the exact kind of mentality which true Satanists are
out to disrupt and destroy.
BEWARE OF SATANISTS WHO KNOW THINGS OR OFFER TO IMPART KNOWLEDGE!
THEY SHALL *ALWAYS* DECEIVE YOU!!
ty...@houseofhouseofkaos.abyss.com
Lorax
The Order of Kaos Under Satan
--
To ensure my response CC all public replies to email (READ alt.magick.tyagi)
(emailed replies may be posted) * http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi/nagasiva.html
INTENTIONAL .SIG PROTEST: FUCK SHIT PISS COCKSUCKER MOTHERFUCKER TITS CUNT
Hr. Vad
ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nagasiva) writes...
>kaliyuga
>49961028
>
>
>In alt.magick, jk1...@hdc.hha.dk (Hr. Vad) wrote something he wanted added
>to the alt.satanism FAQ. I review it here (various parts deleted throughout):
Even though you are utterly ignorant of the concept of "context" and have
a propensity for splitting into atoms any post as well as nitpicking about
every single tiny bit of text -- what I'd call an inability to READ --
many of your criticisms were relevant.
Re. faq vs. ref you are probably right and quite a few of your insights
re. the wiccan, pagan, thelemic and oto "commmunities" were especially
valuable as I'm well aware of deficiencies in that respect, which is also
evident from other criticisms I've received -- this was part of the plan.
Your outright insults, and your apparent blindness to your own PONTIFICATING
attitude more than ANY indicating your TRUE-WAY-ISMIC mindset, and your
unwillingness to consider that the sort of document I published isn't a
doctoral treatise covering hundreds and hundreds of pages nitpicking at
every conceivable, possible, thinkable and/or mild to severe misunderstanding
HAS BEEN A COMPLETE WASTE OF MY TIME. I am well aware of these shortcomings
and they do not bother me much as most people tend to understand this when
they read it. This is also the reasong why I will only comment shortly
upon you reply. I refuse to be dragged into your spiral of incessant nit
picking. Nor will I reply to any future posts if you are not able to
STRUCTURE your criticisms in a more readable manner.
This said I'll comment a bit on your reply -- wasting some of your
time hopefully.
>| "Those who say they are Satanists probably are."
>
>Compare: "If you think you are a Satanist, then you are one."
...is equally good. Common sense would exclude insincere claims
to be a Satanists (notwithstanding the difficulties of determining
this...again this is the nitpicking I'll not participate in).
>Notice that HVad here continues the errors of the ways of other
>religious, somehow acknowledging the value of assessing the
>identity of another. It is this flaw which makes possible the
>ludicrous establishment of the 'real vs. fake' issue in *every*
>relgious social system.
>
>First one begins associating the identifier with specific forms of
>practice or doctrine and then one may divide the 'chosen' from the
>'herd'. It is a classic error which even Satanists have not learned
>to abandon.
You spend much effort criticising the whole bloody question of
"real Satanists" yet you plunge into your very own trap here.
Though, it is typically of you to pontificate on what Satanists
should or should not do.
>|However, anyone who has ever seriously pursued _truth_ will recognize
>|the folly of such preaching. What is at issue is often not _truth_,
>|but simply differences of opinion which are essentially impossible
>|to resolve in a way which relates meaningfully to _truth_.
>
>I consider this preaching of a sort. This kind of rhretoric doesn't
>belong in a FAQ, even one so constructed as a REFerence file as many
>of the alt.satanism FAQs tend to be. One might also say that 'truth'
>of the sort to which you are referring is an *experience*, wherein
>linguistics and theoretics only contain opinions.
I've received criticism from others of my above paragraph and this
is taken to heart. However, it would seem you didn't see my reply
to Michael Rohaly who raised this question first. Therefore: What
I'm advocating is NOT an answer of indisputable truth, but rather
a principle of cautiousness much akin to the principles that underlie
scientific discovery (cf. e.g. Karl H. Popper's works). Scientific
truth is almost per definition open to change in the face of new
knowlegde. (Though, having seen you on various net-forums I doubt
this explanation will make any sense to you -- cf. your notorious
disability to actually make a decision wrt to any philosophical
question.)
>|...To an outsider these "Battles of the True Ways" seem futile and
>|pointless --
>
>This is not necessarily the case. I have found a great deal of
>value in such comparisons, especially when the contestants have
>good heads on their shoulders, don't resort to ad hominems, and
>are willing to support their assertions with common texts or
>elaboration on shared experiences which bolster their claims.
In the context of the document I posted the ripped-out-of-context-
paragraph above actually refers to the kind of people who continue
to harp on an issue when it is clear no all-pervasive, global
agreement can be reached. This could probably have been cut out
more clearly.....I'll try to remember that I'm dealing with morons
if I get time to rewrite this paragraph.
>| "Modern Satanic organisations reserve the right to define
>| Satanism as they see fit."
>
>Better: "Modern Satanists define Satanism as they see fit."
Yes, but that is already covered in the first assertation in the
beginning of my post. You miss the point -- again! -- because you
take things out of their context and hence do not see the whole
picture. What I'm doing here -- as is painfully obvious to anyone
who READS my post -- is that I'm extending the first result to
cover organizations too. Kinda redundant, but sometimes it seems
one deals with morons.
>|...No sane person would ask Adolf Hitler about the joys of Passover
>|or Hannukah, or just _who_ and _what_ Jews really are.
>
>Ridiculous. Asking the enemy of a religion what the religious are
>is a very important part of religious research. I'm not saying that
>we ought take Hitler's words as the last word, but I am saying that
>his perceptions are just as important as anyone else's, even those
>who identify as 'Jews'. He is merely vomitting his Jew-meme.
Exactly, you know DAMN WELL what I mean. Stop nitpicking, and READ!
>|...no one should ask the Satanists' enemies who or what "real
>|Satanists" are.
>
>Problem: Satanists are sometimes enemies with one another.
>I think your claims about what 'sane people' and 'no one should do'
>are ridiculous.
OK. Granted these are not good expressions.
>|What is often overlooked is that many so-called Satanists are often
>|just people who have done something bad, which has nothing whatsoever
>|to do with the religion....
>
>This is provably false. What one culture considers 'bad behavior'
>may seem, to another time, culture or neighborhood, quite spiritual
>and, given sufficient social support, religious. Compare the various
>dietary restrictions and what is 'good' and 'bad' within the nominal
>Jewish and Muslim and Buddhist establishments.
You have provably misunderstood something. I'm not making a cross
cultural/religious study here and whether some irreligious behaviour
in western term is considered religious in some other culture is
besides the point.
Though generally: I acknowledge that there _are_ some problems with
this part as has also been pointed out by others.
>|Very often they have already decided to commit the crime, but they
>|just need a little justification.
>
>I doubt there is basis for this claim. Do you have an intimate
>knowledge of the mind of serial killers and sociopaths and what
>makes up the process of their motivation and justification?
>
>I don't, and I doubt the veracity of your portrait.
I believe this -- even though rather sweeping argument -- is mentioned
in both some of the reports of Kenneth Lanning, FBI special agent, as
well as in the book _The Satanism Scare_ by Richardson, Best and Bromley.
It is also well known in the psychological dynamics of rapists, see
e.g. _Men Who Rape_ by de Groth et al. Don't tell me you've never heard
of more than one e.g. rapist who've had to drink to boost his courage.
Same thing. You can't blame the beer.
>|Most people wouldn't say those persons were real Christians --
>
>That is just plain stupid. It is better and more accurate to say
>that 'most people would agree that their criminal acts were not
>a legitimate part of their own religion', period.
I'll agree with your reformulation. You are, however, an asshole.
You should've know what I meant. Think about it: If your can say
the above about a person, isn't there reasonable doubt as to
whether he's a Xtian? Otherwise any act of an individual can be
construed to be acts that were not a legitimate part of their owm
religion. Doesn't answer the question where the line between
Xtian and non-Xtian goes, actually it blurs it even more (not that
it was CLEAR at any point).
>|--- WICCANS AND OTHER PAGANS ---
[...]
>I suggest you have much to learn about 'this breed', since it is very
>widely varied and has some cross-overs with both Christianity and
>Satanism (there are 'Satanic Wiccans' and 'Christian Wiccans', for
>example), not to mention the fact that whoever ascribes them the
>labels which you are suggesting against means nothing until they
>carefully explain it. The best way to avoid idiocy is to ask questions.
I admit that I didn't know there were crossovers like this in the
Wiccan community. Though, on the average...isn't it quite right
that Wiccans don't consider themselves Satanists or Christians?
Or more generally: How many disclaimers must a post have to
avoid taygination? Do we need disclaimers until the Point of
Absolutely No Informational Value is reached?
>|--- HEAVY METAL & ROCK BANDS ---
>
>I think this was addressed in the alt.satanism FAQ (consensus REF).
I wrote this before the alt.satanism FAQ Ver. 2.3 was out.
>|Examples of such bands could be AC/DC, Black Sabbath, Dio,
>|Iron Maiden and Slayer.
>
>Black Sabbath is definitely Satanic by my reckoning. I think you
>are just taking Ozzy's word that he is not a Satanist. That's fine,
>but I still think they can create Satanic music. ;> Ascribing oneself
>to 'Satanism' and making music doesn't necessitate that we ought to
>consider their music 'Satanic' due to this (we each have our own
>criteria for what 'Satanic music' means), nor the contrary.
OK there's the distinction between Satanists and then just something
Satanic. So what? I never said I didn't find Black Sabbath's music
to be Satanic, but what is Satanic definately varies. It seems like
it is just a question of what you like: LaVey like old tunes, Boyd Rice
collects anything with ABBA, King Diamond and Deicide like heavy.
>|The lyrics from these bands should _not_ be taken literally, as they
>|are often intended just for dramatic impact:
>|...heavy metal bands often write fictional lyrics!
>
>This is just plain stupid. Art is taken by the recipient in any way
>which he or she desires. Trying to associate a 'spin' with the art
>is the worst form of rudeness. It is like telling you how to
>interpret my painting by including a broadsheet about it or telling
>you that the video accompanying my music are the 'correct' visual
>images which ought be visualized during its play.
This is just plain stupid.
>|...However, there isn't any objective way of "ruling anybody out"
>|unless we are ready to accept one specific kind of Satanism,
>
>Or a variety. In any case the 'ruling someone out' mentality is
>sort of old hat. Real Satanism derives from the individual, not
>some group-derived mentation-standard.
>
>
>|e.g. the kind espoused by one of the various Satanic groups.
>
>TOTAL BULLSHIT. The groups are arguably *less* Satanic due to
>their allegiance with others in a common herd-group. I think your
>CoSatanism is getting the better of you.
This exactly illustrates what I said in the beginning to this post:
You are one little slimey preacher yourself. Eventhough you seem
unable to GRASP that.
>|You need not pontificate on whether someone is a "true Satanist,"
>
>Please stop telling us what we need to do. It is rather tedious.
Yes, Tyagi, your preaching and telling us what to do and believe IS
getting rather tedious. GRASP THAT!
Probably my last post to you,
Hr. Vad "Judge,
(jk1...@hdc.hha.dk) and be prepared to be judged."
--Ayn Rand
(-)my newsfeed is a bit unstable -- you know what to do(-)
nagasiva/TOKUS
49960201 imbolc eve
jk1...@hdc.hha.dk (Hr. Vad) and I continue our exchange:
|Re. faq vs. ref you are probably right and quite a few of your insights
|re. the wiccan, pagan, thelemic and oto "commmunities" were especially
|valuable as I'm well aware of deficiencies in that respect, which is also
|evident from other criticisms I've received -- this was part of the plan.
Great. Glad you got something out of it, even if you do appear to have
taken personally my roasting review of your text.
[numerous ad hominems omitted in favor of on-topic discussion]
|...I am well aware of these shortcomings and they do not bother me much
|as most people tend to understand this when they read it.
I've noticed that such attitudes when taken toward 'FAQs' tends to lead
to misunderstanding among newbies, who are the targets of FAQ (and REF)
materials.
|>| "Those who say they are Satanists probably are."
|>
|>Compare: "If you think you are a Satanist, then you are one."
|...is equally good. Common sense would exclude insincere claims
|to be a Satanists ....
Actually it isn't, because the first implies a determination of another's
Satanism while the second focuses upon the self, which is the basis of
most forms of Satanism I've come across (whether discipline/development
as in the case of the Temple of Set or the more common self-fulfillment
and self-gratification of various other types). The focus of discernment,
especially when dealing with newbies, is essential.
|You spend much effort criticising the whole bloody question of
|"real Satanists"
That is correct. The 'real vs. fake' conjecture is illustrative of
the calcification of the herd-mind into the group using the labels.
This is my most persistent and energetic argument within most
religious forums, but particularly among Satanists, since it is yet
a burgeoning stewpot of new and varying things which might qualify
(being on the relative front-edge of the Great Martyrdom Cult's
emergent manifestation within at least Western society).
|yet you plunge into your very own trap here.
Ah, but I do so humorously. I don't take my own (intentionally overblown
but I think sincerely thought-out) pontification seriously. I criticize
others because they lay them before us as truths, whereas if you were
to criticize mine as limited and only partially accurate I would
immediately agree with you (unless you're being an idiot, in which case
I'd probably just ignore you).
Since I typically like your writing (even when I disagree with it
strenuously as I have done here), I take the time to review carefully,
if heatedly, and even follow up. Most people I blow off as useless
additions to the conversation or not worth my time.
|...it is typically of you to pontificate on what Satanists
|should or should not do.
If I use 'shoulds' at all (I usually argue against these), they are
usually in humor (note the frequent ':>' smileys after the usage of
obviously unsupportable statements I make, usually in response to
equally extreme assertions on the part of those whom I am reviewing.
It is an important part of my own Satanism that I exercise my ego
and state baldfacedly what I cannot possibly know and find, in other
moments, to be overly extreme. I provide by example what most take
too seriously and feel to be dangerous (consider them sword-parries
if you will).
|>|However, anyone who has ever seriously pursued _truth_ will recognize
|>|the folly of such preaching. What is at issue is often not _truth_,
|>|but simply differences of opinion which are essentially impossible
|>|to resolve in a way which relates meaningfully to _truth_.
|>...This kind of rhretoric doesn't
|>belong in a FAQ, even one so constructed as a REFerence file as many
|>of the alt.satanism FAQs tend to be. One might also say that 'truth'
|>of the sort to which you are referring is an *experience*, wherein
|>linguistics and theoretics only contain opinions.
|...it would seem you didn't see my reply to Michael Rohaly who raised
|this question first.
That is correct. I didn't see *any* other replies. I don't make time
to read every post in every thread in every newsgroup to which I
subscribe and, when it comes to alt.satanism, I get to it rather
infrequently due to its low substance-content, though if you'd care to
email me a few of the cogent responses I'd be happy to review them.
|What I'm advocating is NOT an answer of indisputable truth, but rather
|a principle of cautiousness much akin to the principles that underlie
|scientific discovery (cf. e.g. Karl H. Popper's works).
These kinds of conclusions et al are best left out of FAQs. FAQs are
best utilized not to reach some sort of 'scientific' (knowing, even
tentative) conclusions, but as redirection for newbies so that they do
not continually regurgitate the indoctrination which they have
received at the hands of their culture and clutter up the newsgroup.
In this way the current 'FAQ' maintained by Lupo is only partly
successful, putting forth too much extreme information without
merely pointing out the ambiguities and complexities of common
newsgroup topics. Note that I haven't reviewed that 'FAQ' in a
half year at least, though I doubt it has changed much (if it
has, let me know).
|Scientific truth is almost per definition open to change in the face
|of new knowlegde.
Science does not establish truth, even changeable, but I'll address
that issue in some other thread.
|>|...To an outsider these "Battles of the True Ways" seem futile and
|>|pointless --
|>This is not necessarily the case....
|In the context of the document I posted the ripped-out-of-context-
|paragraph above actually refers to the kind of people who continue
|to harp on an issue when it is clear no all-pervasive, global
|agreement can be reached.
Thanks for clarifying.
|>| "Modern Satanic organisations reserve the right to define
|>| Satanism as they see fit."
|>Better: "Modern Satanists define Satanism as they see fit."
|Yes, but that is already covered in the first assertation in the
|beginning of my post.
Your first assertion was that 'if someone says they are a Satanist
then they probably are one'. This does not cover Satanic organizations,
since there is some controversy (albeit small and perhaps only in my
mind) as to whether 'Satanic organization' is an oxymoron (compare the
equally laughable 'Chaote organization' and 'Thelemic organization').
It may be a subtle point, but I think it is an important one for which
the alternative I give provides some caution.
|>|...many so-called Satanists are often just people who have done
|>|something bad, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the religion....
|>This is provably false. What one culture considers 'bad behavior'
|>may seem, to another time, culture or neighborhood, quite spiritual
|>and, given sufficient social support, religious. Compare the various
|>dietary restrictions and what is 'good' and 'bad' within the nominal
|>Jewish and Muslim and Buddhist establishments.
|...I'm not making a cross cultural/religious study here
I wasn't specifically attempting to indicate geographically disparate
cultures. Example: Christian vs. self-identified adolescent Satanists.
|>|Very often they have already decided to commit the crime, but they
|>|just need a little justification.
|I believe this -- even though rather sweeping argument -- is mentioned
|in both some of the reports of Kenneth Lanning, FBI special agent, as
|well as in the book _The Satanism Scare_ by Richardson, Best and Bromley.
I read the Lanning ASCII(s?) and didn't see these mentions, nor do I know
him to be an authority on serial killers (note that he was not writing as
an FBI agent in those reports as I understand it, merely capitalizing on
an authority-hook; corrections welcomed; I don't even know what he used
to do at the FBI, do you?).
|It is also well known in the psychological dynamics of rapists, see
|e.g. _Men Who Rape_ by de Groth et al. Don't tell me you've never heard
|of more than one e.g. rapist who've had to drink to boost his courage.
|Same thing. You can't blame the beer.
Are there as many serial-killers who identify themselves as Satanists
as there are rapists who offer any type of justification for their
crime? I am not aware of the numbers and have seen few statistics to
indicate that there are very many of the former.
|>...It is better and more accurate to say that 'most people would agree
|>that their criminal acts were not a legitimate part of their own
|>religion', period.
|You should've know what I meant.
We're talking about FAQ/REF material. Whether *I* infer your meaning from
what I take to be your awkward phraseology is of less consequence than
how a newbie will understand you without any background whatever.
|If [you] can say the above [not sure which 'above', sorry] about a person,
|isn't there reasonable doubt as to whether he's a Xtian?
No, there isn't. The whole 'determination of another's religion' is what
I'll probably continue to oppose rather strongly. I don't know why there
can't be 'homocidal Christians' or 'homocidal Satanists' for that matter.
That doesn't make either religious system supportive of homocide, which
is the truly important matter (and is not supported by this obvious fallacy).
|Otherwise any act of an individual can be construed to be acts that were
|not a legitimate part of their owm religion.
Not with a rational review of general religious practices and doctrines
as espoused by those who identify with the label, no. I'm sure that
the serial killers are minorities in social religious systems, when they
actually have involved themselves with them, and can be adequately shown
by sociologists of religion not to be representative.
|Doesn't answer the question where the line between
|Xtian and non-Xtian goes, actually it blurs it even more (not that
|it was CLEAR at any point).
The line is none of our business. Invasion of another's state of
'spiritual' (and I use the term rather loosely) development is
simply impossible to assess and the further we move from such
ridiculousness the better off we'll *all* be, whether Satanist
or Subgenii.
|>|--- WICCANS AND OTHER PAGANS ---
|>...'this breed'... is very widely varied and has some cross-overs
|>with both Christianity and Satanism (there are 'Satanic Wiccans'
|>and 'Christian Wiccans', for example),
|I admit that I didn't know there were crossovers like this in the
|Wiccan community. Though, on the average...isn't it quite right
|that Wiccans don't consider themselves Satanists or Christians?
If you qualify it like this then I agree completely and think that
*right now* this is the case, yes. I leave room for development in
these directions, however, and think your assertions extreme.
|>...whoever ascribes them the labels which you are suggesting against
|>means nothing until they carefully explain it....
|...How many disclaimers must a post have to avoid taygination?
|Do we need disclaimers until the Point of Absolutely No Informational
|Value is reached?
Disclaimers are like putting out fires before you start them. They
are only necessary if you can't put into words the true ambiguity
of the subject in question. It is far better merely to remain
conservative in content. In this way there will be less misunderstanding
among the newbies who read the REF.
Contrary to your assertion, disclaimers don't reduce informational value,
they merely add contradictory elaboration on implicitly extreme and
unbalanced expression. Quite beside this, one disclaimer on a large
text in which several extremisms are voiced doesn't really cover it.
Better to omit disclaimers or offer a very limited one and then be sure
to restrain yourself from generalization.
|>|--- HEAVY METAL & ROCK BANDS ---
|>I think this was addressed in the alt.satanism FAQ (consensus REF).
|I wrote this before the alt.satanism FAQ Ver. 2.3 was out.
Thanks for clarifying. Sorry I didn't catch that.
|>Black Sabbath is definitely Satanic by my reckoning....
|>Ascribing oneself to 'Satanism' and making music doesn't necessitate
|>that we ought to consider their music 'Satanic' due to this..., nor
|>the contrary.
|OK there's the distinction between Satanists and then just something
|Satanic. So what? I never said I didn't find Black Sabbath's music
|to be Satanic,
We're talking about Satanic music. Previously you were discussing
'Satanic organizations' and I had thought (perhaps incorrectly) that
you intended these to mean 'music composed by Satanists' and 'orgs
composed of Satanists' respectively (at least this is what the text
which is now deleted implied and included as I remember). I think
you may be trying to wriggle out of your own generalizations.
|but what is Satanic definately varies. It seems like it is just a
|question of what you like: LaVey like old tunes, Boyd Rice
|collects anything with ABBA, King Diamond and Deicide like heavy.
This is likely an overly ambiguous characterization (perhaps by us
both). I would recommend a more exacting standard for the FAQ (or
REF), one which blatantly includes well-known terminology and themes
associated with Satanism.
I agree with you that many tunes (or other pieces of art) might
be ascribed 'Satanic character' based on their residence within
principles supported by organized or popular Satanists, and that
this is largely based one's discernment and taste (therefore
leading to an overly broad categorization).
However, I think that 'music created by Satanists' may be way too
difficult to discern itself (only self-proclaimed Satanists? who
qualifies? etc.) and is also extremely limited. There are many
pieces of art with daemonic and Luciferian/Devil-related themes,
and, as with the modern Wiccan prevalence for excising the 'old
hag on a broomstick' from what is 'truly Witch-related', so I
think it an error to exclude mythological qualifiers (whether
or not composed/orchestrated by self-identifying Satanists).
|>...the 'ruling someone out' mentality is sort of old hat. Real
|>Satanism derives from the individual, not some group-derived
|>mentation-standard.
|>...
|>|...various Satanic groups.
|>...The groups are arguably *less* Satanic due to their allegiance
|>with others in a common herd-group....
|You are one little slimey preacher yourself.
I agree that I was supporting particular positions here, but I wasn't
saying that my position was 'true', and I was contrasting my own text
with yours which varied considerably (by example illustrating the
diversity of individual vs. organized Satanism). I do this very often
and do not think what I say is beyond question. Earlier in the post I
had prepended a (:>) before the phrase 'Real Satanism', since I had
already *argued against* the very notion that such 'Real' versions
exist! I.e. I am being self-contradictory on purpose and in some
measure to contrast what I see to be your extremity (i.e. reflecting).
The second case was qualified by the term 'arguably', and I think that
my arguments within the file to which you respond are not, by and large,
solitary notions. They are derived from research of a variety of forms
of self-identified 'Satanism' and as such ought to be taken into account
when attempting to create something like a 'FAQ' or 'REF' so as not to
deceive the reader.
I found your text extreme and wanted to demonstrate alternatives. I'm
sorry you didn't see my methods here. Please keep this in mind in any
future interaction rather than merely resorting to ad hominems (which
only demonstrate your lack of credibility/substance).
|>Please stop telling us what we need to do. It is rather tedious.
|Yes, Tyagi, your preaching and telling us what to do and believe IS
|getting rather tedious. GRASP THAT!
Well, usually I don't address the reader or the previous writer. I
sometimes characterize the TEXT as silly, ridiculous, ludicrous,
etc. If you associate with your writing (dangerous! I advise against
it but don't tell you you shouldn't!), then you're going to see my
assertions as flames and 'telling you what to do' when in fact it is
nothing of the kind. My request above was merely that.
Interesting exchange, barring the comments on my person, Mr. Vad. I
think we're bringing to the fore some very important and controversial
points which, while many are inappropriate for a real FAQ as I see it,
are very well-placed in any REF or apology file.
ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com
nagasiva
The Order of Kaos Under Satan (TOKUS)
Balanone
ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com responded to Hr. Vad's FAQ discussion Re: HVad:
Satanism (Was Re: The FAQ: Who are the real Satanists?)
|>|Very often they have already decided to commit the crime, but they
|>|just need a little justification.
|I believe this -- even though rather sweeping argument -- is mentioned
|in both some of the reports of Kenneth Lanning, FBI special agent, as
|well as in the book _The Satanism Scare_ by Richardson, Best and Bromley.
t@h> I read the Lanning ASCII(s?) and didn't see these mentions, nor do I
t@h> know him to be an authority on serial killers (note that he was not
t@h> writing as an FBI agent in those reports as I understand it, merely
t@h> capitalizing on an authority-hook; corrections welcomed; I don't even
t@h> know what he used to do at the FBI, do you?).
/* begin extract */
***********************************************************
INVESTIGATOR'S GUIDE TO ALLEGATIONS OF "RITUAL" CHILD ABUSE
***********************************************************
January 1992
Kenneth V. Lanning
Supervisory Special Agent
Behavioral Science Unit
National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime
Federal Bureau of Investigation
FBI Academy
Quantico, Virginia 22135
*************************************************
...
1. INTRODUCTION
Since 1981 I have been assigned to the Behavioral Science Unit at the FBI
Academy in Quantico, Virginia, and have specialized in studying all aspects of
the sexual victimization of children. The FBI Behavioral Science Unit provides
assistance to criminal justice professionals in the United States and foreign
countries. It attempts to develop practical applications of the behavioral
sciences to the criminal justice system. As a result of training and research
conducted by the Unit and its successes in analyzing violent crime, many
professionals contact the Behavioral Science Unit for assistance and guidance
in dealing with violent crime, especially those cases considered different,
unusual, or bizarre. This service is provided at no cost and is not limited to
crimes under the investigative jurisdiction of the FBI.
In 1983 and 1984, when I first began to hear stories of what sounded like
satanic or occult activity in connection with allegations of sexual
victimization of children (allegations that have come to be referred to most
often as "ritual" child abuse), I tended to believe them. I had been dealing
with bizarre, deviant behavior for many years and had long since realized that
almost anything is possible. Just when you think that you have heard it all,
along comes another strange case. The idea that there are a few cunning,
secretive individuals in positions of power somewhere in this country regularly
killing a few people as part of some satanic ritual or ceremony and getting
away with it is certainly within the realm of possibility. But the number of
alleged cases began to grow and grow. We now have hundreds of victims alleging
that thousands of offenders are abusing and even murdering tens of thousands of
people as part of organized satanic cults, and there is little or no
corroborative evidence. The very reason many "experts" cite for believing these
allegations (i.e. many victims, who never met each other, reporting the same
events), is the primary reason I began to question at least some aspects of
these allegations.
I have devoted more than seven years part-time, and eleven years full-time, of
my professional life to researching, training, and consulting in the area of
the sexual victimization of children. The issues of child sexual abuse and
exploitation are a big part of my professional life's work. I have no reason to
deny their existence or nature. In fact I have done everything I can to make
people more aware of the problem. Some have even blamed me for helping to
create the hysteria that has led to these bizarre allegations. I can accept no
outside income and am paid the same salary by the FBI whether or not children
are abused and exploited - and whether the number is one or one million. As
someone deeply concerned about and
professionally committed to the issue, I did not lightly question the
allegations of hundreds of victims child sexual abuse and exploitation.
...
/* end extract */
I can email this report (148k) to those who can't find it online.
Balanone
PP
FidoNet: Balanone at 1:203/2019
PODS: Balanone at 93:9303/2019
Internet: Bala...@tefnut.gigo.com
... Did you say MNP means Modem Needs Pizza?
___ TagDude 0.87 [Unregistered] with 12691 taglines.
--
: Fidonet: Balanone 1:203/2019 .. speaking for only myself.
: Internet: Bala...@tefnut.gigo.com