Question for Aquino
mephisto...@cotse.com
> Lupo's name, and actually posted the name and location of Lupo's workplace,
> inviting readers to contact Lupo's supervisor or visit him at work. No
> doubt he was hoping some real kook or fanatic would do the job he lacked the
> nerve to do himself.
well, well, well.
Is this true?!?!?!
(It's a pedantic question--I know from past experience any reply from you will
either dodge the question or put so much spin on it a tornado will likely be
generated whenever your reply is opened.)
_THIS_ from what appears to me to be a self-professed examplar of "truth?"
tsk, tsk, tsk
Things ain't always what they seem to be, are they?
Dr. Michael A. Aquino
Hash: SHA1
<mephisto...@cotse.com> wrote:
>> Aquino chose a different tack -- he went beyond
>> the usual outing of Lupo's name, and actually
>> posted the name and location of Lupo's workplace,
>> inviting readers to contact Lupo's supervisor or
>> visit him at work. No doubt he was hoping some
>> real kook or fanatic would do the job he lacked the
>> nerve to do himself.
>
> Is this true?
Not at all in the context implied by this quotation.
Some years back Scott "Lupo" Locklin was a Setian I*
in the Temple of Set, and also very active on the alt.
satanism newsgroup, including authoring its FAQ.
When I read Locklin's FAQ, I saw that it contained
advertisement and contact information for several
"Satanist" persons and groups of a fraudulent, dubious,
or even dangerous nature - for instance a self-
acknowledged pedophile, a person/"group" espousing
literal human sacrifice, and the financial enterprise
exploiting the name of the original/authentic Church
of Satan. None of this information was included in the
respective descriptions/contacts in Locklin's FAQ.
I advised Locklin that, particularly since alt.satanism
could be read by uninformed individuals of any age,
advertising such persons/groups was unacceptably
irresponsible from a Setian.
Locklin decided that this was an intolerable affront to
his civil rights, resigned from the Temple of Set, and
continued to publish the FAQ without change - except
that, at my insistence, he removed the Temple of Set
from it.
That took the Temple of Set off the hook for the FAQ,
but it still disturbed me that any number of unsuspecting
people could blunder into exploitation or personal danger
because of Locklin's FAQ - for which he used only his
"Lupo" pseudonym.
I therefore suggested on the newsgroup that, if he
insisted on publishing such a document, readers of it
at least deserved the courtesy of knowing who the
author was and how to locate him in the case they
came to grief by trusting his advertisements. In this
I indeed used his true name and mentioned the
university whose ISP he had been using for much
of his Internet activity. I was not interested in seeing
any harm come to Locklin, but I *did* think that if
he felt himself *personally* accountable for what
he was doing, it might inspire him to take greater
concern for his readership.
That infuriated Locklin even more than my "violation
of his civil rights". Evidently he felt that if people got
hurt because of his FAQ, that was just their tough luck -
and certainly nothing that should find and hold *him*
responsible as the FAQ's author. Thus began his multi-
year campaign of vulgarity against myself and my
wife in particular, and the Temple of Set generally.
At the time Locklin's FAQ appeared, Satanism generally
had just been through a decade-long gauntlet of "crime"
and "sexual abuse" allegations from scam-profiteers and
the Fundamentalist Right in the USA and elsewhere. In
my opinion Locklin's FAQ was - especially because of its
viewability by persons of any age completely unfamiliar
with Satanism - extremely dangerous to the legitimate
religion. It's all too easy for habitual haunters of this
newsgroup - who are presumably adults having some
familiarity with the Satanic subculture - to ignore such
possibilities. In good conscience I didn't feel that I could,
and all the more so at that point in time, when the
"Satanic Panic" was only just receding.
I don't mind Internet anonymity among courteous,
responsible people who don't use it maliciously; I have
dialogued with many "pseudopeople" here [including
yourself]. But good-natured verbal tennis games are
one thing, and doing something which could seriously
endanger people - to say nothing of harming this religion's
already-severely-shaken reputation - is quite another.
In that sense I think that Internet anonymity should
be regarded as a courtesy which should be earned,
not a "right" regardless of any harm you intend or
do, whether through carelessness or deliberation.
As a "sidebar": I am of course aware that expecting
good manners and a sense of responsibility on alt.
satanism might strike some as screamingly funny
_a la_ Don Quixote. Usenet, and the Internet generally,
is awash in raving lunatics of all imaginable - and
some unimaginable! - flavors. Be that as it may, I
have taken the dignity of this religion seriously and
personally since I accepted its Priesthood thirty years
ago, and I mean to keep on doing so as best I can.
Michael A. Aquino
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
iQA/AwUBOkbx7WRWyNykJwrDEQL4YwCgioAntFHl4I6MUgjCtrJ0taM6RsQAn230
P72CKNUWbn5Wqk0LrSh6nHev
=2spV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
IX Corp
Dr. Michael A. Aquino <xe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Aquino chose a different tack -- he went beyond
>>> the usual outing of Lupo's name, and actually
>>> posted the name and location of Lupo's workplace,
>>> inviting readers to contact Lupo's supervisor or
>>> visit him at work. No doubt he was hoping some
>>> real kook or fanatic would do the job he lacked the
>>> nerve to do himself.
>>
>> Is this true?
>
>Not at all in the context implied by this quotation.
Actually, what Mikey means is that it was entirely accurate; he did just
that. He'd be better off admitting, to himself and to others, "yeah, that
was stupid," rather than spin doctoring ad nauseum. Oh well; you can't
expect a man who continues to be married to "that hatchet faced pat wise"
to admit his mistakes.
If he wants to go through this again with me, I'd be more than happy to
conjure forth another convenient looney.
-Lupo
"The reductionist worldview is chilling and impersonal. It has to be
accepted as it is, not because we like it, but because that is the way the
world works."-Steven Weinberg <i...@io.com>
Dr. Michael A. Aquino
Hash: SHA1
<mephisto...@cotse.com> wrote:
>Fast work. You began the spin in the first sentence!
No, you asked me what I did and why, so I told you
what I did and why, that's all.
>I don't understand why Set members would participate
>in alt.satanism, why you post here, or why Set would be
>included in an alt.satanism FAQ (compiled *by* a setian)
Many people who aren't avowed/affiliated Satanists
participate in this newsgroup - some out of simple
curiosity, some to evangelize, whatever.
I've been interested in a.s. as one of many "mirrors" of
public attitudes concerning this topic. Usually I limit
my own posts to responses to questions concerning which
I have some knowledge and authority, both as the
senior Master of the original 1966-75 Church of Satan
and as the first High Priest of its evolutionary successor
institution, the Temple of Set.
I had no objection to the Temple of Set being included in
any FAQ about "Satanism" for the simple reason that
a "frequently asked question" *is* what-if-any connection
the Temple has with Satanism. I objected to Locklin's
FAQ only when I saw what else it contained, and what
its consequences might be.
>Moreover, I don't understand by what right you chose
>to assume the mantle of responsibility for others by
>(a) assuming that people or groups posted in a FAQ
>might cause harm to others
As a consecrated Priest of the Prince of Darkness. As
I quoted G.B. Shaw in the _Crystal Tablet of Set_,
"I promised him my soul, and swore an oath that I
would stand up for him in this world and stand by him
in the next."
>after all, weren't you yourself accused of pedophelia?
Yes, in one of the $-scams of the "Satanic Panic". [Anyone
wanting a fact sheet on it can email me anytime.] So
I had a very brutal first-hand experience with just how
unethical and vicious the anti-Satanic elements of
contemporary society could be. That made me
consider the implications of Locklin's FAQ with that
much more of an eye to its risks.
>by posting your own comments and objections to
>the FAQ.
I did that as well. But Locklin continued to publish and
distribute the FAQ, and presumably it reached a much
wider and more permanent audience via FTP, etc.
than merely a transitory post.
>That you [discussed personal information of] a former
>setian, who had entrusted you with personal information,
>indicates to me that former setians should have reason
>to not feel comfortable about any personal information
>they might have provided or you might have gleaned
>of them.
I stated Locklin's name, which was no secret to alt.satanism
regulars at that time, and the university whose ISP he had
also been publicly using for a long time. This was very
pointedly and explicitly to inspire a sense of serious
responsibility in him concerning that FAQ, period.
Obviously the fact that Locklin *had* been a Setian I*
was pertinent to the situation as well. I don't recall
ever posting anything else about his personal/professional
life.
>Nah, I don't buy it. But thank you for confirming,
>in your own loquacious and obtuse manner, that you
>did reveal another's personal information publicly.
You obviously see yourself as someone who takes no
responsibility whatever for the name and honor of the
Prince of Darkness. So you have the luxury of "not
buying it".
As for my explanation, I answered as frankly and
candidly as I can: exactly what I did and why. If
you insist on putting your own "spin" on that, that's
your affair. Other newsgroup readers can draw their
own conclusions.
Michael A. Aquino
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
iQA/AwUBOkeT1GRWyNykJwrDEQL/bACfcQ0vDmwI8ziEnJogIFmfphbMn5gAoLGl
rh/nryzprK37T4tzwhT0pUC8
=4vEV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
jakem...@my-deja.com
> When I read Locklin's FAQ, I saw that it contained
> advertisement and contact information for several "Satanist"
> persons and groups of a fraudulent, dubious, or even
> dangerous nature - for instance a self- acknowledged
> pedophile, a person/"group" espousing literal human sacrifice,
> and the financial enterprise exploiting the name of the
> original/authentic Church of Satan.
You disagreed with Lupo's FAQ and pressured him to change it using your
status as high Anteater of the Temple of Ants. It was, "change it, or
else." By the way, you fail to mention that the person "exploiting the
name of the original/authentic Church of Satan" is you.
> I advised Locklin that, particularly since alt.satanism could be
> read by uninformed individuals of any age, advertising such
> persons/groups was unacceptably irresponsible from a Setian.
The idea that you are concerned for the youth of America is particularly
laughable. Funny that no one is laughing.
> Locklin decided that this was an intolerable affront to his civil
> rights, resigned from the Temple of Set, and continued to
> publish the FAQ without change - except that, at my
> insistence, he removed the Temple of Set from it.
You're like a grumpy old lady shaking her finger. It's no surprise he
ignored you. Believe it or not, there are others with different opinions
than you. They have a right to be heard, like it or not.
> That took the Temple of Set off the hook for the FAQ, but it
> still disturbed me that any number of unsuspecting people
> could blunder into exploitation or personal danger because of
> Locklin's FAQ - for which he used only his "Lupo"
> pseudonym.
You were "disturbed" because you couldn't control the situation. Brother
Lupo wasn't interested in doing the two-step with you. Isn't that the
real answer?
> I therefore suggested on the newsgroup that, if he insisted on
> publishing such a document, readers of it at least deserved the
> courtesy of knowing who the author was and how to locate
> him in the case they came to grief by trusting his
> advertisements.
Oh, nonsense. He defied you and you punished him in the only way you
knew how-by betraying him. You are particularly good at betraying
associates, aren't you, Michael?
> In this I indeed used his true name and mentioned the
> university whose ISP he had been using for much of his
> Internet activity.
I rest my case.
> I was not interested in seeing any harm come to Locklin,
Not *much.*
> but I *did* think that if he felt himself *personally*
> accountable for what he was doing, it might inspire him to
> take greater concern for his readership.
Bullshit. You acted in a spiteful and irresponsible manner with complete
disregard for a fellow Setian. Only a yellow-bellied spineless coward
would do such a thing.
> That infuriated Locklin even more than my "violation of his
> civil rights".
No shit, Sparky. No wonder people hate you.
> Thus began his multi- year campaign of vulgarity against
> myself and my wife in particular, and the Temple of Set
> generally.
He simply pointed out (in his own inimitable way) that Pat wouldn't be
winning any beauty contests. Neither will you, for that matter.
> In good conscience I didn't feel that I could, and all the more
> so at that point in time, when the "Satanic Panic" was only just
> receding.
It's interesting to notice that not one Satanist got caught up in the
"Satanic Panic." Not one! Well, you did, but you're not a Satanist. Had
you not walked around the Presidio wearing a funny haircut and eyebrows,
you might have fared differently. Obviously the Lesser Magic rule of
"when in Rome," is beyond your comprehension.
> I don't mind Internet anonymity among courteous, responsible
> people who don't use it maliciously;
Yet you yourself have used several anonymous Usenet names. Not very
responsibly nor very competently, I might add.
> I think that Internet anonymity should be regarded as a
> courtesy which should be earned, not a "right" regardless of
> any harm you intend or do, whether through carelessness or
> deliberation.
You know, Michael, and I know this is going to come as a shock . . .
there aren't a whole lot of real Satanists who give a rat fart what you
think ought to be people's "rights." Especially from one whose personal
integrity is in the proverbial dumpster. And if there is anything that's
earned, it's a boot in the butt . . . for you.
> As a "sidebar": I am of course aware that expecting good
> manners and a sense of responsibility on alt. satanism might
> strike some as screamingly funny _a la_ Don Quixote.
You got that right. Welcome back, Don.
> Usenet, and the Internet generally, is awash in raving lunatics
> of all imaginable - and some unimaginable! - flavors.
Truer words were never spoken, Michael. Truer words were never spoken.
> Be that as it may, I have taken the dignity of this religion
> seriously and personally since I accepted its Priesthood thirty
> years ago, and I mean to keep on doing so as best I can.
Does this mean you're going to continue posting for the NEXT thirty
years? Set help us!
Zipper
Armadillo Jake
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
mephisto...@cotse.com
> responsibility whatever for the name and honor of the
> Prince of Darkness. So you have the luxury of "not
> buying it".
I don't hold myself forth to be responsible for anything or anybody beyond
myself and what I consider to be the responsibility we all share.
I have become mildly interested in the various incarnations of satanism and
what appears to be numerous spinoffs. It appears each likes to lay claim to
"legitimacy," in any number of ways. Yet it appears none of the factionalized
segments has evolved to provide that which people seek--or perhaps there are
too many disparate seekers, without a common goal (or, more likely, who are
unable to define a goal). And if the latest "revelations" are any indication it
appears ToS, like the rest, will become the victim of further factionalization.
"Prince of Darkness," or "Prince of Light," or "Prince of Men" are in
themselves a worthless capitualtion, IMHO...a means of dodging that which
should be most dearly held--individual responsibility and personal honour.
I don't view deceipt as "white magic" or lawsuits as "lesser black magic" or
public disclosure of another's personal identity as adherence to a personally-
made "oath." Rather, as you yourself have alluded, identifying a person as a
member of a group subject to scorn, and making that disclosure in a public
forum, makes it all the more likely that person might become the object of
derision and, possibly, persecution. Invoking an "oath" as justification is,
IMHO, merely an attempt to disavow personal responsibility.
Life, truth, and honour, ain't about disavowal of personal responsibility.
Dr. Michael A. Aquino
Hash: SHA1
In article <9288qv$2b7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
jakem...@my-deja.com wrote:
> [a sarcastic rant]
A question was posed to me; I answered it frankly,
factually, and courteously. Was the Locklin/FAQ
business an enjoyable concern for me? Certainly
not. But I have always held to certain standards
and responsibilities, and have tried to honor them
as conscientiously as I can, convenient or not.
If you don't agree with my reasons and actions,
that's your prerogative, of course. But in that case
have the maturity to take responsibility for your
own biases and prejudices, rather than trying to
project distorted "excuses" for them onto myself
or anyone else.
Michael A. Aquino
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
iQA/AwUBOkfWqWRWyNykJwrDEQJbwQCg7g7ezy8/byoK0YDHRNAb1m3GR00AnAhx
B9x7df+XQtOJAhABGHUEQMwx
=hUBq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dr. Michael A. Aquino
Hash: SHA1
<mephisto...@cotse.com> wrote:
>I don't hold myself forth to be responsible for anything
>or anybody beyond myself and what I consider to be
>the responsibility we all share.
Well, that's a key difference between us. As a Priest of
Mendes, and then High Priest of Set, I felt [and continue
to feel] an intense responsibility where the dignity and
honor of the Prince of Darkness are concerned. Unless
you understand that, some of my statements and actions
over the last thirty years could indeed seem mystifying/
arrogant/irrational/egotistical/etc. The truth is that
they are simply consistent with my religious sincerity.
Some find this an admirable, even sacred attribute.
Others, encountering such an "absolute" in our plastic
culture of "postmodernist deconstruction", consider
even its presence in someone else an intolerable
reproach, hence feel compelled to deface it to give
themselves relief, like teenagers "tagging" a wall
with four-letter words.
>if the latest "revelations" are any indication, it
>appears ToS, like the rest, will become the victim
>of further factionalization.
What "revelations"? Two Setians' memberships
were revoked by the Council of Nine for behavior
not in keeping with our standards of protocol.
Otherwise the Temple of Set is going about its
business as usual.
Over the last 25 years thousands of persons have
entered/departed the Temple: after long/short
stays, pleased with their experience/angry about
it, usually on their own decision/occasionally on
the Temple's. That is to be expected in an organization
as peculiar, challenging, and experimental as this one.
>"Prince of Darkness," or "Prince of Light," or "Prince
>of Men" are in themselves a worthless capitualtion,
>IMHO...a means of dodging that which should be
>most dearly held--individual responsibility and
>personal honour.
Your position appears to be that there is no metaphysical
consciousness prior to/higher than your own to which
you feel any responsibility or owe any allegiance or
respect.
Such atheism is assuredly your prerogative, and
many atheists indeed adhere to personal codes of
responsibility and honor - usually based on
instinctive feelings of decency towards others of
their species. I have no quarrel with that.
My only question - which I have gently posed many,
many times over the years! - remains: In that case,
what are you doing *here* ("here" being an inevitable
compulsion to use the name of the Prince of Darkness
for what you've just finished describing as enlightened
personal atheism)? And don't give me the tired line
about "Satan as a symbol", which is about as
convincing as saying that you just buy _Playboy_
for the articles. :-)
>I don't view deceipt as "white magic" or lawsuits as
>"lesser black magic" or public disclosure of another's
>personal identity as adherence to a personally-
>made "oath."
White and Black Magic as developed by the Temple
of Set are fairly complex concepts, which are not
usually the way profane society imagines them.
>identifying a person as a member of a group subject
>to scorn, and making that disclosure in a public
>forum, makes it all the more likely that person
>might become the object of derision and, possibly,
>persecution.
I don't regard the Temple of Set as anything "subject
to scorn", except by persons too stupid to know any
better. [We've only had to be concerned when such
stupid people happen to be in secular positions to
do damage based on their prejudices.]
As far as I'm concerned, Locklin abandoned any
"right" to anonymity as that FAQ's author the
moment he published it. Yes, we live in a society
and an era when taking responsibility for what
you say and do is shrugged off, even jeered at as
something for "suckers", so consider me as a
relic "from a more civilized age", as Obi-wan
Kenobi put it.
It fascinates me to hear you argue that when
someone does something dangerous or irresponsible,
and is then exposed for doing it, *he* is held to be
the aggrieved party. But then we live in an age
when, if a burglar breaks into someone's house and
trips over the furniture, he can sue the owner for
damages ...
>Invoking an "oath" as justification is, IMHO,
>merely an attempt to disavow personal
>responsibility.
An oath is simply a formalized statement of
principles and your pledge to uphold them.
You can make that pledge by "our lives, our
fortunes, and our sacred honor" as did the
signers of the Declaration of Independence,
or "on my honor" as we did in the Boy Scouts,
or by something greater than yourself you
hold in reverence: God/gods, your ancestors,
an original Shelby Cobra 427, etc.
In this case you happen to be talking to the
person who wrote the Oath that was
incorporated in the adult Satanic Baptism
(as reprinted in Anton LaVey's _Satanic
Rituals_). For aspirants who took that Oath
sincerely, it opened a Great Gate into their
souls. For persons who looked at it as "just
a bunch of words", it was, well, just a bunch
of words.
Michael A. Aquino
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
iQA/AwUBOkf/emRWyNykJwrDEQISqwCfbgyNGAO6lklmJoEbcD10gjpIJQ4An1C1
i8JZarIziGwr8UYD++VXlYq0
=EcyD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
> <mephisto...@cotse.com> wrote:
Aquino, you are clearly not a satanist. Why are you here?
-----.
.
> any FAQ about "Satanism" for the simple reason that
> a "frequently asked question" *is* what-if-any connection
> the Temple has with Satanism. I objected to Locklin's
> FAQ only when I saw what else it contained, and what
> its consequences might be.
Being not much more than a inverted-layered cult of
power quite dependant on a highly flawed and corrupted
system of initiation and belief, it has nothing to do
with satanism at all.
-----.
.
> Hash: SHA1
> <mephisto...@cotse.com> wrote:
>>I don't hold myself forth to be responsible for anything
>>or anybody beyond myself and what I consider to be
>>the responsibility we all share.
> Well, that's a key difference between us. As a Priest of
> Mendes, and then High Priest of Set, I felt [and continue
> to feel] an intense responsibility where the dignity and
> honor of the Prince of Darkness are concerned. Unless
> you understand that, some of my statements and actions
> over the last thirty years could indeed seem mystifying/
> arrogant/irrational/egotistical/etc. The truth is that
> they are simply consistent with my religious sincerity.
Could it possibly be that your religion itself is irrational?
See PKD for details.
-----.
mephisto...@cotse.com
Our most important concern should be for our own dignity and honour, and that
of others. My observation is those who espouse a need to "protect" the dignity
and honor of a (deity/cause/group/mythical figure/construct) are generally
either (a) not self-actualized or (b) use that plea as a means to justify or
explain otherwise abberant or selfish behaviour or actions.
> What "revelations"?
Well, it seems to me as a disinterested outside observer that a great deal of
inter- and intra-factional dissent exists, and I'm certain only a small portion
of it is exhibited here...or at various web sites established for the purpose
of voicing criticism. Each offers a glimpse, however small and however biased,
into your "experimental" organizations. I'm beginning to believe there might
be some material here for another Scott Adams ("Dilbert") effort. Got any
members who can draw? If so, you'd better not let them leave.
> Your position appears to be that there is no metaphysical
> consciousness prior to/higher than your own to which
> you feel any responsibility or owe any allegiance or
> respect.
That's not the case. Maybe there is and I'm simply not aware of it. But I do
believe, to a degree, in a collective conscious--and a collective
responsibility, best served by "everyman."
> My only question - which I have gently posed many,
> many times over the years! - remains: In that case,
> what are you doing *here*
I'm curious--about people both individually and collectively, their motivations
and their actions--both individually and collectively. This group is much more
interesting to observe because of its variety, vindictiveness, vituperativeness
and venom...much more amusing than Christian debates about whether or not Jonah
being swallowed by a whale was a parable or literal.
>>I don't view deceipt as "white magic" or lawsuits as
>>"lesser black magic" or public disclosure of another's
>>personal identity as adherence to a personally-
>>made "oath."
> White and Black Magic as developed by the Temple
> of Set are fairly complex concepts, which are not
> usually the way profane society imagines them.
Oh, I see...more "constructs" which can conveniently be summoned when needed.
I was merely alluding to specific comments/statements made earlier by you.
> I don't regard the Temple of Set as anything "subject to scorn"
Well, duh.
No, of course you don't. You're a Grand Poobah or whatever.
The majority of the U.S. holds non-Christians as suspect and subject to
disdain, as surely you are aware (and have in fact relied upon in earlier
arguments to assert prejudice against yourself).
> It fascinates me to hear you argue that when
> someone does something dangerous or irresponsible,
> and is then exposed for doing it, *he* is held to be
> the aggrieved party.
YOU refer to it as "dangerous and irresponsible." I don't know that to be
factual. What I do know is that you posted his name and university affiliation
publicly online. That's an action that I *DO* find dangerous and irresponsible.
So even if your judgemental assertion is correct, it does not, IMHO, diminsh
the despicability of your own action. Two "dangerous and irresponsibles" don't
make a right.
SVsite
will. It was WAR and all is fair in war. The shit got so bad on this
ng, what LITTLE I saw in print out, I decided to take it to the FBI.
Accusations of stalking, death threats, the kids outed a bunch of TOS
members to black nationalist violent people, death porno was written
with their names MINORS, and my name in it. And well, it got WAY out
of hand. It got so damned bad that conditions were ripe for some real
violence. I took it all, print outs, to the FBI. OK? Inso doing, I
had to sign my name, addy, all my own info. Well, the shit STOPPED
COLD after I did that. Finally.
So, you can rest assured, we ALL have FBI files now. Do you think that
the Feds don't keep track of every single Satanic org out there? The
FBI does its main recruiting amongst conservative Christian groups.
Hello. So what. Anyone scared? IDGAF. And all that happened, over
what - a bunch of stupid shit, whether Satan is Anton's Dark Force, or
whether it's some entity as Aquino says. Jesus fucking Christ. :D
Now Satan is no longer the Dark Force for the Bartonians. Whoopee doo.
I see the god damned morons trying their best to provoke me when I've
gone my own damned way and have an org connected to other orgs -
combined - which are BIGGER than the damned COS. I see the damned COS
morons still intimidating other orgs, even writing emails to news
people when they want to do interviews with other orgs; always trying
to fuck something up; and both news and groups give the evidence to
Ole: it just gets posted for the world to see. I don't see TOS doing
this - oh ho ho, but we all THOUGHT Tos did it and why? Because COS
high ups said they did. They won't learn. They are incapable of
learning.
Scratch was a fanatical Setian (involved in all this bs back then,
btw). In fact, HE was the first to post about arsenals of weapons -
and that just went from there. What, he worked for Big Brother 1984
for 12 years and only just realized it? Nope. He'd still be working
for Big Brother if he didn't get booted out with one difference: he'd
never call it Big Brother. Whatever. WHATEVER.
TJ
In article <977873957.3...@webmail.cotse.com>,
<mephisto...@cotse.com> wrote:
>
> YOU refer to it as "dangerous and irresponsible." I don't know that
to be
> factual. What I do know is that you posted his name and university
affiliation
> publicly online. That's an action that I *DO* find dangerous and
irresponsible.
>
> So even if your judgemental assertion is correct, it does not, IMHO,
diminsh
> the despicability of your own action. Two "dangerous and
irresponsibles" don't
> make a right.
>
>
--
Visit #satanmuse the Official Chatroom of
Satanic Reds and HrVad's Dark Doctrine Web Site!
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
Satanic Reds is a Council Member Org.
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
SLAVA NAM! SLAVA SATANYE! SLAVA CHYERNOMU PLAMYENI! SLAVA YA!
Dr. Michael A. Aquino
Hash: SHA1
In article <mephisto...@cotse.com> wrote:
>My observation is those who espouse a need to "protect"
>the dignity and honor of a (deity/cause/group/mythical
>figure/construct) are generally either (a) not self-
>actualized or (b) use that plea as a means to justify or
>explain otherwise abberant or selfish behaviour or
>actions.
That's the cynical reaction, if you presume that such
individuals *really* don't believe in anything beyond
their personal whims/conveniences and are just using
an allegiance to shift responsibility.
That kind of cynicism certainly has much evidence in
today's society to support it, from the bulk of the world's
religions to various pretentions of "patriotism", class/
ethnic/etc. "solidarity", and so on. Many persons who
claim to believe in, or lead, such movements actually
believe no more in the espoused ideology than they do
in the Easter Bunny.
However there are also true believers (or True Believers
as per Hoffer), who *do* hold the beliefs they espouse,
and personally accept them as guidlines for their own
behavior. That can range all the way from the sincerity
of Mahatma Gandhi to the fanaticism of a Kamikaze
pilot or Islamic suicide bomber.
I happen to be one of those true believers - hopefully more
to the Gandhi-side of the scale, to be sure.
>it seems to me as a disinterested outside observer that
>a great deal of inter- and intra-factional dissent exists,
>and I'm certain only a small portion of it is exhibited
>here ...
Actually alt.satanism is an extremely limited, extremely
distorted lens through which to form an impression of
"Satanism", because of the regrettable tradition that
newsgroups - especially the alt.-ones - are just for raving,
flaming, bitching, and turd-throwing generally.
Where the Temple of Set is concerned, it habitually - and
currently - conducts its affairs methodically and politely.
Sure there's the occasional problem - or problem-person -
but that's inevitable in any heterogenous environment.
We do the best we can, try to learn from any new
situation, improve our membership guidelines as may
be necessary, and continue on.
But again, when you're looking at something like the
"Satanic tradition", remember that this is by definition
an intensely individualistic, egoistic, anticonventional,
and uncharted area of human interest. You're going to
get a lot more "fireworks" here than you would, say, in
a newsgroup dedicated to the Quakers or the Unitarians.
Just expect that, and - particularly as a "disinterested
observer" - don't feel that you have to "rule" upon it like
one of those TV-show judges [or Jerry Springer].
>I'm beginning to believe there might be some material
>here for another Scott Adams ("Dilbert") effort. Got
>any members who can draw? If so, you'd better not let
>them leave.
Well, where the Temple of Set's concerned, particularly
in its fledgling days, I favored Booth cartoons. One showed
a bunch of far-pre-human cavepeople (most on all-fours)
all talking at once and throwing sticks and stones around.
Off to one side one remarks to another: "It's obvious this
meeting isn't going to settle anything - we might as well
go home."
Another Booth caveman meeting has the presiding
f-p-h saying: "This meeting was called to discuss the
meat. It has been pointed out that there is no more
meat. A motion has been made to fight over the bones."
>I do believe, to a degree, in a collective conscious--and
>a collective responsibility, best served by "everyman."
Why bless my britches - a classical *Marxist*. :-)
That's very quaint and very utopian, but as history
and Orwell's _Animal Farm_ have shown, it doesn't
work very well in practice. At best you get some
individualism-stifling socialisms, as in Sweden. At
worst, communist totalitarianism such as that of
China.
The USA is, of course, a society based on the principle
of personal greed, with enough bones and
propaganda tossed to the less-successful to keep
them from uniting in revolution. It works.
>This group is much more interesting to observe
>because of its variety, vindictiveness,
>vituperativeness and venom ... much more
>amusing than Christian debates about whether
>or not Jonah being swallowed by a whale was a
>parable or literal.
That's more like it. FYI Our religious services are
usually more fun too: daemons & monsters,
gorgeous vampire-women, shoggoths, wild music,
pizza, and supernatural light shows. Conjure up
your first Elemental from the Pit and you'll never
be the same ...
>> White and Black Magic as developed by the Temple
>> of Set are fairly complex concepts, which are not
>> usually the way profane society imagines them.
>
>Oh, I see...more "constructs" which can conveniently be
>summoned when needed.
No, they're discussed in great detail in our introductory
membership reference work, the _Crystal Tablet of Set_.
Much too long to post here, and, frankly, intended for our
own Initiates, not the idly curious non-Initiate. [You want
to find out what it's like to parachute from a plane? Go
parachute from a plane.]
>You're a Grand Poobah or whatever.
Senior Magister Templi IV*-II' of the Church of Satan
1966-75, Ipsissimus VI* and High Priest of the Temple
of Set 1975-96, and now Old Hobbit enjoying the fire
at Rivendell. But you can call me Grand Poobah if you
like. [You may kneel, but no excessive groveling.]
>The majority of the U.S. holds non-Christians as suspect
>and subject to disdain
The majority of the U.S. [and other cultures] hold
*anything* unusual as s-&-s-t-d. Quoth Abbie Hoffman:
"The first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it."
>What I do know is that you posted his name and
>university affiliation publicly online. That's an action
>that I *DO* find dangerous and irresponsible. So even
>if your judgemental assertion is correct, it does not,
>IMHO, diminsh the despicability of your own action.
>Two "dangerous and irresponsibles" don't make a right.
A Liberal is a Conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.
Advertisements [to readers of all ages] for a pedophile,
a human sacrifice advocate, a financial game, and a
neo-Nazi group [if memory serves, the New Zealand
outfit was in there too] in the name of "Satanism" could
have caused a lot of grief - *particularly* when it was
exactly such allegations that were being hurled at
Satanism from its most rabid opponents. As far as I
know, no such catastrophe happened: We were lucky.
So Locklin threw a big tantrum because he was actually
*identified* as the author of that document? My answer
is: "Grow up. If you're not prepared to assume personal
responsibility and accountability for what you say
and do, then don't say or do it." [And of course, just as
the rest of us were lucky that his FAQ didn't cause *us*
grief, Locklin didn't get any angry parents knocking on
his door either. So he has nothing to bellyache about,
nor, so self-righteously, do you.]
Michael A. Aquino
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
iQA/AwUBOklV6mRWyNykJwrDEQINVACeNjEiuX/vHWbERDTmyNd6V8NHXpkAoIG2
FT17X39ZPw6AGMYI/LsSbDo/
=ZA7S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
IX Corp
>any FAQ about "Satanism" for the simple reason that
>a "frequently asked question" *is* what-if-any connection
>the Temple has with Satanism. I objected to Locklin's
>FAQ only when I saw what else it contained, and what
>its consequences might be.
Well, fucknuts; how do you feel about an entry in the FAQ detailing the
shennanigans involved in an affiliation with the ToS?
Like, you know, posting someone's name and address of his workplace to
Usenet with an incitement to harass the person in question. You did do
that, Mikey. It's only fair, since you're so worried about all those
"unethical" types taking advantage of the poor innocents who may read the
FAQ for the newsgroup. This is, afterall, the only firsthand danger I have
ever experienced with any group mentioned in the FAQ, and in fact, your
group, with its idiotic lawsuits and harassment attempts is the only
unethical and dangerous one I have yet heard of, on the outskirts of the
Satanist community. Unless you count Gerbler and that ignorant Mongoloid
whore from Florida.
-Lupo
"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his
tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand
this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they
receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat." -Albert
Einstein explains the radio <i...@fnord.io.com>
IX Corp
>to scorn", except by persons too stupid to know any
>better.
That would include most of the american physical society, I suppose.
>It fascinates me to hear you argue that when
>someone does something dangerous or irresponsible,
>and is then exposed for doing it, *he* is held to be
>the aggrieved party.
Yes, that is an interesting point of view you have there Mikey.
You did a sleasey, unethical thing in a pathetic attempt to silence a
critic, and somehow seem suprised that this keeps coming up, years later.
Behold the Aggrieved; Mikey Aquino, who has yet to take responsibility for
his own actions.
IX Corp
Dr. Michael A. Aquino <xe...@aol.com> wrote:
>Advertisements [to readers of all ages] for a pedophile,
>a human sacrifice advocate, a financial game, and a
>neo-Nazi group [if memory serves, the New Zealand
>outfit was in there too] in the name of "Satanism" could
>have caused a lot of grief - *particularly* when it was
>exactly such allegations that were being hurled at
>Satanism from its most rabid opponents. As far as I
>know, no such catastrophe happened: We were lucky.
Funny isn't it Mikey; nothing bad happened to anyone. Perhaps because
you're a lying sack of shit regarding these other groups?
Spare us the "den mother" crap.
The child molestation allegations should also be made known to anyone who
would associate themselves with your group, don't you think? Afterall,
very real world repurcussions could take place from association with
someone so tarred, innocent or not. Certainly a much more serious
possibility than any of those you mention above.
>So Locklin threw a big tantrum because he was actually
>*identified* as the author of that document? My answer
>is: "Grow up. If you're not prepared to assume personal
>responsibility and accountability for what you say
>and do, then don't say or do it."
Well then, you damned well better begin demonstrating some personal
responsibility and accountability for your own actions. Twit.
Of course, in the end, you were held responsible for your actions, as is
often the case with your ilk: you mostly did yourself in. You have been
made an utter laughingstock of in a forum which by all rights should be
your stomping grounds. Hell, you ain't even grand poobah in the group you
founded anymore.
You have been mocked from one end of usenet to another by a looney middle
aged woman with accusations which will haunt you well past your death. You
do realize that's going in your obit, right? Can't say I feel sorry for
you.
-Lupo
"When Xerxes wrote again: 'Deliver up your arms,' Leonidas wrote back:
'Come and take them.'" <i...@fnord.io.com>
IX Corp
Dr. Michael A. Aquino <xe...@aol.com> wrote:
>A question was posed to me; I answered it frankly,
>factually, and courteously. Was the Locklin/FAQ
>business an enjoyable concern for me? Certainly
>not.
Damn straight, though not as painful as I would have liked.
>If you don't agree with my reasons and actions,
>that's your prerogative, of course. But in that case
>have the maturity to take responsibility for your
>own biases and prejudices, rather than trying to
>project distorted "excuses" for them onto myself
>or anyone else.
That's quite a chuckle, coming from you.
I have yet to hear why I'm so damned scary you ToSsed Craig and Kerry for
being my pals. It ought to be as amusing as your attempt to wiggle out of
our little tango. Funny how that doesn't seem to be going so well.
Amazing how uniform Usenet ethics are in that regard, unless you're Bill
Bennett.
Kevin Filan
xe...@aol.com (Dr. Michael A. Aquino) wrote:
> >What I do know is that you posted his name and
> >university affiliation publicly online. That's an action
> >that I *DO* find dangerous and irresponsible. So even
> >if your judgemental assertion is correct, it does not,
> >IMHO, diminsh the despicability of your own action.
> >Two "dangerous and irresponsibles" don't make a right.
>
> A Liberal is a Conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.
> Advertisements [to readers of all ages] for a pedophile,
> a human sacrifice advocate, a financial game, and a
> neo-Nazi group [if memory serves, the New Zealand
> outfit was in there too] in the name of "Satanism" could
> have caused a lot of grief - *particularly* when it was
> exactly such allegations that were being hurled at
> Satanism from its most rabid opponents.
I presume that Dr. Aquino is referring to the Church of Satan as
a "financial game." If that is indeed the case, I also presume that he
has some evidence of financial shenanigans or misdeeds on the part of
the Church of Satan's administration. Obviously someone has come
forward who lost his life savings thanks to Anton LaVey's cynical con
games, right? Or someone is claiming that they were "ripped off" by the
Church of Satan.
Alternately: you may be saying the Church of Satan is a "financial
game" because you disagree with its theology. If that's the case, may
I helpfully point out that one could just as easily say that the Temple
of Set is a "bait and switch" confidence game. After all, you persist
in trying to market your group as "the authentic Church of Satan" or
the "Improved Church of Satan," despite the fact that your philosophy
bears little if any resemblance to Anton LaVey and despite the fact
that LaVey publicly and repeatedly disavowed any connection between
your respective organizations.
> As far as I
> know, no such catastrophe happened: We were lucky.
>
> So Locklin threw a big tantrum because he was actually
> *identified* as the author of that document? My answer
> is: "Grow up. If you're not prepared to assume personal
> responsibility and accountability for what you say
> and do, then don't say or do it."
Well, then: would you have any objection to someone making your
neighbors aware of the 1987 events at the Presidio daycare center?
Given that you were rather loudly and repeatedly connected to a
particularly nasty child molestation scandal -- and given that quite a
few people still believe you were guilty of some pretty horrendous
crimes -- it seems that maybe the pillars of your community need to be
apprised of your history, no? And, after all, if the evidence suggests
your innocence as strongly as you seem to think it does, you should
have no problem convincing those people that you're really the fine,
upstanding citizen you claim to be.
> [And of course, just as
> the rest of us were lucky that his FAQ didn't cause *us*
> grief, Locklin didn't get any angry parents knocking on
> his door either. So he has nothing to bellyache about,
> nor, so self-righteously, do you.]
I take it, then, that you DON'T object to someone sending copies
of "Armies of the Night" to your neighbors. Duly noted.
Peace
Kevin Filan
Kevin Filan
> >What I do know is that you posted his name and
> >university affiliation publicly online. That's an action
> >that I *DO* find dangerous and irresponsible. So even
> >if your judgemental assertion is correct, it does not,
> >IMHO, diminsh the despicability of your own action.
> >Two "dangerous and irresponsibles" don't make a right.
>
> A Liberal is a Conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.
> Advertisements [to readers of all ages] for a pedophile,
> a human sacrifice advocate, a financial game, and a
> neo-Nazi group [if memory serves, the New Zealand
> outfit was in there too] in the name of "Satanism" could
> have caused a lot of grief - *particularly* when it was
> exactly such allegations that were being hurled at
> Satanism from its most rabid opponents.
I presume that Dr. Aquino is referring to the Church of Satan as
a "financial game." If that is indeed the case, I also presume that he
has some evidence of financial shenanigans or misdeeds on the part of
the Church of Satan's administration. Obviously someone has come
forward who lost his life savings thanks to Anton LaVey's cynical con
games, right? Or someone is claiming that they were "ripped off" by the
Church of Satan.
Alternately: you may be saying the Church of Satan is a "financial
game" because you disagree with its theology. If that's the case, may
I helpfully point out that one could just as easily say that the Temple
of Set is a "bait and switch" confidence game. After all, you persist
in trying to market your group as "the authentic Church of Satan" or
the "Improved Church of Satan," despite the fact that your philosophy
bears little if any resemblance to Anton LaVey and despite the fact
that LaVey publicly and repeatedly disavowed any connection between
your respective organizations.
> As far as I
> know, no such catastrophe happened: We were lucky.
>
> So Locklin threw a big tantrum because he was actually
> *identified* as the author of that document? My answer
> is: "Grow up. If you're not prepared to assume personal
> responsibility and accountability for what you say
> and do, then don't say or do it."
Well, then: would you have any objection to someone making your
neighbors aware of the 1987 events at the Presidio daycare center?
Given that you were rather loudly and repeatedly connected to a
particularly nasty child molestation scandal -- and given that quite a
few people still believe you were guilty of some pretty horrendous
crimes -- it seems that maybe the pillars of your community need to be
apprised of your history, no? And, after all, if the evidence suggests
your innocence as strongly as you seem to think it does, you should
have no problem convincing those people that you're really the fine,
upstanding citizen you claim to be.
> [And of course, just as
> the rest of us were lucky that his FAQ didn't cause *us*
> grief, Locklin didn't get any angry parents knocking on
> his door either. So he has nothing to bellyache about,
> nor, so self-righteously, do you.]
I take it, then, that you DON'T object to someone sending copies
SVsite
times worse. Watch it.
I'm not a Down's Syndrome and not a whore. Watch with the slander.
You WHINE like a fucking victim. Then you HIDE behind .gov on your
job? You can't hide forever, you slandering son of a bitch. You think
people might NOT want to do something *really awful* to you for that?
In person, you'd be minus a few teeth.
Annette Greiner email: amgr...@lbl.gov
Leres, Craig A. (CAL3-ARIN) le...@ee.lbl.gov
Lupo works for the Optical Metrology Lab, for Advanced Light Source
(ALS). "The Advanced Light Source (ALS), a division of Berkeley Lab
ASK FOR MORE.
You retarded, cock-eyed troll.
In article <Zgf26.173408$DG3.3...@news2.giganews.com>,
--
Visit #satanmuse the Official Chatroom of
Satanic Reds and HrVad's Dark Doctrine Web Site!
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
Satanic Reds is a Council Member Org.
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
SLAVA NAM! SLAVA SATANYE! SLAVA CHYERNOMU PLAMYENI! SLAVA YA!
IX Corp
SVsite <tanija...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Jeff Gerber is right here, now. Yeah, he did that and he'd do 100
>times worse. Watch it.
Well, then the stupid fuck will go to jail.
Love to put him there.
>I'm not a Down's Syndrome and not a whore. Watch with the slander.
No, but you are a mongoloid idiot, ain't ya?
>You WHINE like a fucking victim. Then you HIDE behind .gov on your
>job? You can't hide forever, you slandering son of a bitch. You think
>people might NOT want to do something *really awful* to you for that?
>
>In person, you'd be minus a few teeth.
What, is poodles gonna kick my ass? I have seen the lad, not much
chance of that.
As for .gov addresses; I don't see any on here.
Say, is this you, Tani?
Tanya Lysenko
2804 West 6th Street
Lehigh Acres, FL 33971
PO Box
Lehigh Acres, FL 33971
Tani Jantsang
December 13, 1950
(941)368-7071 (listed under "Obed Marsh" a Lovecraftian pseudonym)
Lehigh Acres Unit 6
Blk 52 PB 13 PG 22
Lot 14
Dr. Michael A. Aquino
Hash: SHA1
I normally do not respond to Filan posts, since
his motives are routinely malicious. But in this
one he both raises and personally serves as an
illustration of some points which alt.satanism
readers may think significant.
>In article <92c44q$nuv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>Kevin Filan <raksh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I presume that Dr. Aquino is referring to the
>Church of Satan as a "financial game." If that is
>indeed the case, I also presume that he has some
>evidence of financial shenanigans or misdeeds on
>the part of the Church of Satan's administration.
There are two aspects to this answer: the theological
and the corporate.
Theological:
The Church of Satan was founded as, operated for its
first nine years as, and represented itself as a church
believing in and dedicated to the worship of Satan,
the metaphysical conscious entity standing apart
from and in contrast to the singularity of the cosmos.
As with any religion, the Church tolerated varying
shades of literal belief in Satan among its lay
membership, but where the Priesthood of Mendes
was concerned, there was no question of the literal
sincerity of the Church whatever. At the lay level,
see for example the Adult Rite of Satanic Baptism,
with particular attention to its Oath, as contained
in Anton LaVey's _Satanic Rituals_.
The Oath administered to Priests and Priestesses of
Mendes was equally unequivocal. The entire
Ceremony of Ordination is sworn not to be revealed
to the profane, but I think this specific passage is
justifiably quoted here:
"Advance to the altar of Hell, that the eye of Our
Lord Satan may seize upon you. As your mind is
revealed to the Lord of This World, do you affirm
your cause with Satan and accept of your free
will his eternal Priesthood? [Response]
"I bring your hand to that of Azazel, High Herald
of the Infernal Empire, who shall set upon you the
seal of the Priesthood of Mendes.
"In the name of Satan, and of his Exarch upon Earth,
I name you to our Fellowship and send you forth -
beyond the Abyss - to walk in ways of strangeness
and of beauty. You are become as Belial - knowing
no master - and you are a glory to your race and
a brilliance before the sight of Our Lord Satan."
My point is simply that, as I have recounted here
and elsewhere at length, this belief in and allegiance
to Satan was absolutely and unequivocally at the
core of the original Church of Satan. Just as pointedly
the Church was vague about this in its interactions
with the public, for the obvious reason that it was
much more easy for it to be tolerated as a mere
psychodramatic/symbolic affair than as a deadly
serious religion dedicated to the Devil, his Daemons,
and Black Magic.
Thus when in 1975 Anton LaVey announced that all
degrees, including the Priesthood, were henceforth
for sale simply for cash, and shortly thereafter
renounced his own High Priesthood as "symbolic,
not literal", he instantly destroyed precisely what
had made the Church of Satan exactly and
authentically what its name bespoke. After that
it was simply his personal fan club, taking in
money from persons who at least initially thought
they were joining the authentic Church as it had
existed the previous nine years. Anton LaVey
knew quite well that it was no longer even a shadow
of that, but went right on capitalizing on its
reputation. That was fraudulent at the most
essential level, of which fees and dues elicited
from applicants was only a symptom.
Corporate:
The Church of Satan was formalized 9/20/1971 as
a California non-profit corporation, Article #8 of its
Articles of Incorporation providing that: "The property
of this corporation is irrevocably dedicated to
charitable and religious purposes, and no part of the
net income or assets of this organization shall ever
inure to the benefit of any director, officer, or member
thereof, or to the benefit of any private persons."
Nevertheless on 4/25-26/1985, Anton and Diane
LaVey signed an Agreement in which they defined
the Church of Satan as wholly their personal property
in partnership. This document was never made known
to any of the current "membership" (who, per this
Agreement, had no legal membership status of
anything whatever), and surfaced only when Diane
sued Anton in 1988 [as an exhibit in that suit].
In that lawsuit Anton, under penalty of perjury,
swore on 6/1/1989: "Defendant denies that plaintiff
and defendant formed a partnership on or about April
30, 1966 and took steps to form a non-profit corporation."
This document was not published to the "membership
of the Church of Satan" either.
Following that lawsuit Anton filed for bankruptcy, and
on 4/22/1992 swore, again under penalty of perjury,
that: "My income derives from my operation as a sole
proprietor known as the Church of Satan", and then
on 1/31/1992 that "no revenues are generated by or
through the Church of Satan". Again neither document
was published to the "membership of the Church of
Satan", who might well have wondered where
their $100 fees, $150,000 Church of Satan franchises
[as stated by Sharon "Blanche Barton" Densley in
Gilmore's magazine #5/1991], $200/hour consultations,
and royalties for all of the Church-authorized trinkets
the Gilmores were selling to them were going.
After that court case the lid went down again, so
nobody but Anton and Densley probably knows what
labyrinths the money trail led down thereafter. We
do know that the IRS and the California Franchise
Tax Board both refused to grant the Church of Satan
federal/state tax-exempt standing.
As for anyone suing the "Church of Satan" on grounds
of fraud, I doubt that anyone of its post-1975
membership caliber either really cares or even
has the slightest idea who/what/how to sue -
particularly given the ever-morphing legal
entity of the "Church", Anton's demise, and the
sworn-to $0 bank balance of whatever-it-is!
>you persist in trying to market your group
>as "the authentic Church of Satan" or the
>"Improved Church of Satan," despite the fact
>that your philosophy bears little if any resemblance
>to Anton LaVey and despite the fact that LaVey
>publicly and repeatedly disavowed any connection
>between your respective organizations.
The Temple of Set has always considered itself the
religious/authentic continuation and evolution of
the original 1966-75 Church of Satan, as we made
quite clear from the moment of our founding. We
have just as explicitly made it clear that we disclaim
any connection with the personal business that Anton
LaVey ran under the name of the "Church of Satan"
after 1975.
>> So Locklin threw a big tantrum because he was actually
>> *identified* as the author of that document? My answer
>> is: "Grow up. If you're not prepared to assume personal
>> responsibility and accountability for what you say
>> and do, then don't say or do it."
>
>Well, then: would you have any objection to someone
>making your neighbors aware of the 1987 events at the
>Presidio daycare center? Given that you were rather
>loudly and repeatedly connected to a particularly nasty
>child molestation scandal -- and given that quite a
>few people still believe you were guilty of some pretty
>horrendous crimes -- it seems that maybe the pillars
>of your community need to be apprised of your history,
>no?
Well, there's a very fundamental difference between those
two situations: Locklin *did* a dangerous thing when he
advertised persons/groups including a pedophile, human
sacrifice, neo-nazism, and financial fraud, to a readership
of all ages, including minors - without acknowledging his
personal responsibility for it. In doing this he recklessly
jeopardized legitimate Satanism, which was only then
recovering from a decade of false accusations on
*precisely* those grounds.
As for Lilith and myself, we did *nothing* except to be
surprise victims in a $3 million financial scam by an
Army chaplain and his wife, which we both then and
since have quite thoroughly detailed - which means
that either you are too stupid to see the truth [which
I doubt], or just unprincipled and malicious enough
to keep trying to misrepresent that scam for your
shabby little smear purposes.
That you, as a spokesman for the "Church of Satan",
would try to smear two innocent people with "SRA"
propaganda, all the more when knowing that this
plays right into the hands of fanatics who are trying
to paint *all* of Satanism with that brush - just because
Anton LaVey hated me for refusing to go along with his
financial prostitution of the Church, and because you
thus hoped to suck up to him/Densley - is, in a word,
nauseating. *And*, I think, glaringly evident to the
readership here as well, whatever philosophical
differences they and I may have during ongoing
discussions.
>I take it, then, that you DON'T object to someone
>sending copies of "Armies of the Night" to your
>neighbors. Duly noted.
Sometimes I can only shake my head at your
naivete, even when you're doing your best to be
a prick. In this case you have *no idea whatever*
of the length, ferocity, and in this case sideshows
of the Adams-Thompson/Presidio scam.
Do you suppose for a moment that the SFPD, the FBI,
and the Army CID didn't interview and reinterview
*everyone* on our block, hoping that *someone* could
say they'd seen us with children? Do you think that
they didn't interview and reinterview all of our
acquaintances, and of course as many people who
had any kind of grudge against us whatever? What
do you think the SFPD/FBI/CID wanted to do - clear
us? The fuck they did. Their agenda was to pander
to the accusing parents, get patted on the head by
the "SRA"-frolicking news media, and of course do
a favor for the Good Christian Mainstream of the
country by exterminating [ugh!] "Satanism". If
there had been *any way whatever* that they
could have managed to frame Lilith and myself to
make the chaplain's scam stick - and they tried to
the extent of several attempts to conceal or destroy
exculpatory evidence, manufacture evidence, and
lie to federal courts - they would have done it in
an instant and we'd have been toast.
As for "Armies of the Night", that was one of the
most inaccurate and witchhunt-blatant
newspaper articles of the Presidio scam, by a
reporter who had already become famous for
her unquestioning fanning of the flames from
the moment the scam started [long before it
occurred to the chaplain to try to make a fast
$3 million by accusing us]. I sent a detailed
refutation of it to the publisher, and none of
its falsehoods ever reappeared in that paper.
Indeed later that same reporter, to our
astonishment, sent a letter to Lilith and myself
expressing regret and sympathy for the ordeal
that we'd been through.
So much for your "great threats". They were
both tried before, much more intensively and
with a much more aggressive frame-agenda
behind them.
But in your Filanesque fashion you have indeed
[and doubtless unintentionally] highlighted exactly
how dangerous Locklin's FAQ was. At least until
I corresponded with him about this, it's entirely
possible he was utterly clueless about what could
result from those advertisements. He hadn't been
through anything remotely resembling our ordeal.
So it was very easy for him - especially anonymously -
to shrug it all off. What he did was to stick his hand
personally - and legitimate Satanism's hand
reflectively - into a rattlesnake cage. Lucky for
him and lucky for the religion, the rattlesnake
wasn't paying attention. If I happened to annoy
Locklin enough to make him pull his hand out a
little sooner, well, you know, it just *might* dawn
on his silly ass one of these years that it was an
unbelievably stupid thing for him to do.
If you yourself have the sense to realize and respect
this, well and good. If you don't, and just try to
come up with a "cute" retort, so much for that.
Michael A. Aquino
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
iQA/AwUBOkrJdmRWyNykJwrDEQL/CQCgpwklExAQ7JQmc8xM/nKfpV70LSQAnjKd
dzjnFfejJbYqosjaii6pQabA
=SDq8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Circe
the Churches in my area and told them I was a devil worshipper. I'm a member
of The Church of Satan and he feels so cocky these days that he will do
anything to kiss the CoS ass. It is obvious to most that read his blather
that he is indeed obsessed with religion, worse than any televangelist ever
thought about being. I did return the favor however and called his neighbors
and local christian and catholic establishments and told them that he
definately bares watching. I told them he was sacrificing small animals and
possibly had a desire to move to his next level and that of course being
children.
"Dr. Michael A. Aquino" <xe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001228000344...@nso-ct.aol.com...
IX Corp
Dr. Michael A. Aquino <xe...@aol.com> wrote:
>Well, there's a very fundamental difference between those
>two situations: Locklin *did* a dangerous thing when he
>advertised persons/groups including a pedophile, human
>sacrifice, neo-nazism, and financial fraud, to a readership
>of all ages, including minors - without acknowledging his
>personal responsibility for it.
Who the fuck is this "dangerous" to, dipshit? Exactly to who, and in what
way is this dangerous? I don't see you going after the creators of any of
the websites which continue to publish that FAQ, nor the owners of
bookstores which publish the materials of the groups you slander so, nor
to the many many publishers of far more damning information on websites
(ever look at the devil worshippers H.O.M.E.?).
The raw, ugly fact of the matter is, you couldn't stand the fact that
there was information available about groups which had nothing to do with
your absurd little pretentions.
I don't see you going after former Tosser, Egan. He has formed a religion
which is certainly a financial scam, and which advocates sexual relations
with children and the use of illegal drugs. His former second in command
now advocates Aryan superiority and is porking a girl who barely has
her pubes. None of the groups in the FAQ which you had such a problem with
advocated anything so extreme, or dangerous to the "image of
Satanism" with the public at large.
So don't give us any net.nanny crock of shit, you Roy Orbisson lookin'
hypocrite.The only danger was to your fragile ego.
The fact also remains, your active behavior in your treatment of former
Setians could potentially be very dangerous for someone who would choose
to affiliate themselves with you. A very specific danger which you
demonstrated for all to see, using my own self as an example; not
to mention several others who are no longer with us. Beyond that, there is
the passive and very very real danger of being associated with a
propagandist so inept, he will be best remembered for a child molestation
scandal, rather than for any of his actual merits.
> In doing this he recklessly jeopardized legitimate Satanism, which was
>only then recovering from a decade of false accusations on *precisely*
>those grounds.
Don't project your psychological state at the time on "legitimate
Satanism."
Your problems at the Presidio were directly attributable to your own
anti-charisma. There were plenty more high profile Satanists such
charges could have stuck to, and with much better reason: Egan or
Valentine, for example, both admitted to having sex with underage
people. Your little priestess Kelly Bundy admitted she was playing hide
the salami with Satanists when she was 12 in the introduction to a book.
The fact that the charges almost stuck to you has more to do with the fact
that you are an asshole than anything else. Fundamentalist christians will
always assert what they do.
I will repeat again, if you're the net.nanny of Satanism; what are you
doing about the admitted advocate of Satanic pedophilia and drug use,
Egan? What about Valentine, your comerade from the talk shows, boinking a
15 year old girl, or however old she was? And speaking of Neo-Nazis, you
were advocating the Leuchter report as objective history to Setians when I
was a member, and you seem to be scrambling pretty hard to get ole Nicky
"werewolf order" Schreck zephered up the ranks.
.....
> The fuck they did.
Michael Aquino; if I didn't know better I would think you just used
profanity! Between the cuss words and your giving up of your
"ph.d." ego-boost sign off, I might almost confuse you with a grown man!
>But in your Filanesque fashion you have indeed
>[and doubtless unintentionally] highlighted exactly
>how dangerous Locklin's FAQ was. At least until
>I corresponded with him about this, it's entirely
>possible he was utterly clueless about what could
>result from those advertisements. He hadn't been
>through anything remotely resembling our ordeal.
"Your ordeal" has nothing to do with providing accurate information in a
FAQ. Your ordeal is directly attributable to the personality quirk which
led you to attempt to censor this document. In short, you are a fucking
scumbag, and you have reaped the rewards of this.
Frankly, I do not give a squirt in Zeena's eye if someone hurt themselves
with the information found in that FAQ. It might even make me grin if they
did: though the only way I can see it happening is if you were to print
it out, roll it up, and poke someone in the eye with it.
Circe
it, in the very same org. that he and others bitch slap Lord Egan about.
That org. of course being N.A.M.B.L.A. (North American Man Boy Love
Association) Filan showed an uncanny interest in N.A.M.B.L.A. by stating
"They have valid questions". Also he went as far as linking to the
N.A.M.B.L.A website from his website. The only people I can think of that
would actually go as far as giving any credence or credit to an org. such as
N.A.M.B.L.A. would be pedofilans themselves. Just so you know.
"Dr. Michael A. Aquino" <xe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001228000344...@nso-ct.aol.com...
Kevin Filan
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I normally do not respond to Filan posts, since
> his motives are routinely malicious. But in this
> one he both raises and personally serves as an
> illustration of some points which alt.satanism
> readers may think significant.
Mighty gracious of you to oblige us, Doc.
> >I presume that Dr. Aquino is referring to the
> >Church of Satan as a "financial game." If that is
> >indeed the case, I also presume that he has some
> >evidence of financial shenanigans or misdeeds on
> >the part of the Church of Satan's administration.
>
> There are two aspects to this answer: the theological
> and the corporate.
Let's cut to the chase: do you believe the current Church of Satan is a
dangerous scam? That is: do you believe that people who become involved
with the Church of Satan are at risk of being exploited financially?
And do you believe that this risk is so great that the Church of Satan
should not be mentioned in an alt.satanism "Frequently Asked Questions"
file?
> Theological:
We are all well aware that there are theological disagreements between
the Temple of Set and the Church of Satan. What I am asking, again, is
this: in your opinion is the CoS theology not only wrong but actively
dangerous? Stating that "a loyal Setian should expunge all mention of
the Church of Satan from an ecumenical FAQ he operates, because we
disagree with their theology," is rather like saying that a loyal
Catholic shouldn't mention the Inquisition in a book of Renaissance
history.
> The Church of Satan was founded as, operated for its
> first nine years as, and represented itself as a church
> believing in and dedicated to the worship of Satan,
> the metaphysical conscious entity standing apart
> from and in contrast to the singularity of the cosmos.
Says you. Others who were there during those first nine years disagree
with you... and LaVey's own words written at that time suggest that he
never saw Satan as anything other than a symbol of man's "animal
nature."
> As with any religion, the Church tolerated varying
> shades of literal belief in Satan among its lay
> membership, but where the Priesthood of Mendes
> was concerned, there was no question of the literal
> sincerity of the Church whatever. At the lay level,
> see for example the Adult Rite of Satanic Baptism,
> with particular attention to its Oath, as contained
> in Anton LaVey's _Satanic Rituals_.
Ummm... you *have* heard the word "psychodrama," have you not?
> My point is simply that, as I have recounted here
> and elsewhere at length, this belief in and allegiance
> to Satan was absolutely and unequivocally at the
> core of the original Church of Satan. Just as pointedly
> the Church was vague about this in its interactions
> with the public, for the obvious reason that it was
> much more easy for it to be tolerated as a mere
> psychodramatic/symbolic affair than as a deadly
> serious religion dedicated to the Devil, his Daemons,
> and Black Magic.
As you found out when you decided to "go public" as a devil
worshipper. (Get that titling block removed from your military records
yet? I didn't think so. And exactly HOW much did you spend in
litigation fees to get that end result? Methinks it's even more than
you spent on your Electriciti.com fishing expedition...)
> authentically what its name bespoke. After that
> it was simply his personal fan club, taking in
> money from persons who at least initially thought
> they were joining the authentic Church as it had
> existed the previous nine years. Anton LaVey
> knew quite well that it was no longer even a shadow
> of that, but went right on capitalizing on its
> reputation. That was fraudulent at the most
> essential level, of which fees and dues elicited
> from applicants was only a symptom.
1) Most of the CoS members I know do *not* believe in Satan as a
literal entity, nor did they so believe upon joining the Church of
Satan. Of course, most of the CoS members I know appear capable of
recognizing psychodrama, irony, tongue-in-cheek humor, and metaphor ...
things which you seem entirely incapable of grasping.
2) Again: is this "fraud" so egregious, so hazardous to one's health,
that all mention of the Church of Satan (unless you're talking about
Anton's bankruptcy or lack of personal hygeiene) is grounds for
expulsion from the Temple of Set?
Let me see if I have this straight: you purchased copies of LaVey's
divorce petition and bankruptcy petition, copies of all relevant Church
of Satan corporate documents, and anything else you could get your hot,
sweaty little hands on ... just so you could prove that the Church of
Satan no longer exists.
Nope... he doesn't have an obsession problem.
(Why do I suspect that the pages of the bankruptcy petition Dr. Aquino
purchased are stuck together...?)
> >you persist in trying to market your group
> >as "the authentic Church of Satan" or the
> >"Improved Church of Satan," despite the fact
> >that your philosophy bears little if any resemblance
> >to Anton LaVey and despite the fact that LaVey
> >publicly and repeatedly disavowed any connection
> >between your respective organizations.
>
> The Temple of Set has always considered itself the
> religious/authentic continuation and evolution of
> the original 1966-75 Church of Satan, as we made
> quite clear from the moment of our founding. We
> have just as explicitly made it clear that we disclaim
> any connection with the personal business that Anton
> LaVey ran under the name of the "Church of Satan"
> after 1975.
Actually, the majority of your organization appears to be quite happy
to disclaim any connection with the Church of Satan. They have
(correctly) realized that Setianism and LaVey's conception of Satanism
are two completely different things, and that there is no reason for
either of us to see the other as "competition."
> Well, there's a very fundamental difference between those
> two situations: Locklin *did* a dangerous thing when he
> advertised persons/groups including a pedophile, human
> sacrifice, neo-nazism, and financial fraud, to a readership
> of all ages, including minors - without acknowledging his
> personal responsibility for it. In doing this he recklessly
> jeopardized legitimate Satanism, which was only then
> recovering from a decade of false accusations on
> *precisely* those grounds.
You allowed Egan to remain a Temple of Set member after he and his
lover resigned from NAMBLA. You have campaigned to promote Nick and
Zeena to the Council of Nine despite their frequent and loud fascist
and anti-Semitic statements... not to mention Dubin's work on "Charles
Manson Superstar." As with most "True Believers," your morality seems
to be applied rather selectively.
> As for Lilith and myself, we did *nothing* except to be
> surprise victims in a $3 million financial scam by an
> Army chaplain and his wife, which we both then and
> since have quite thoroughly detailed - which means
> that either you are too stupid to see the truth [which
> I doubt], or just unprincipled and malicious enough
> to keep trying to misrepresent that scam for your
> shabby little smear purposes.
Naah, I just like watching you jump up and down. It gives me a warm
feeling inside knowing how your gut aches every time you realize that
your obituary (assuming the San Francisco papers bother to write your
demise up) will give more space to your Presidio misadventure than to
your days as a Magister Templi in the Church of Satan... or to your
years as Grand High Poobah of the Temple of Set.
I also find it interesting that you whine so pompously about
people "endangering" Satanism. What exactly do you think YOU did with
your little moment of glory in the spotlight? Don't you realize that
you gave people around the world the chance to say "See... even the
above-ground Satanists are child molesters! Look at that Temple of Set
guy who diddled those toddlers on that Army base!" And don't you
realize that your silly attempts to "legitimize Satanism" by "going
public" while still a member of Uncle Sam's Army were the direct and
proximate cause of all the misery you and your wife suffered in 1987?
Never mind. You obviously don't get it.
> That you, as a spokesman for the "Church of Satan",
> would try to smear two innocent people with "SRA"
> propaganda, all the more when knowing that this
> plays right into the hands of fanatics who are trying
> to paint *all* of Satanism with that brush - just because
*ahem*
During the "Satanic Panic" of the 1980s, not ONE Church of Satan member
was ever embroiled in a "Satanic Ritual Abuse" witch hunt. This track
record has continued to date. In fact, there are only two public
Satanists I can think of who became embroiled in a "Satanic child
molestation" scandal... you and your charming wife, Pat Butch Sinclair
Wise "Lilith" Aquino.
Sorry, Mike: we feel no obligation to make YOU any more comfortable.
Everyone in the Church of Satan knows full well that, had the tables
been turned, you wouldn't miss an opportunity to pin the label "child
molester" on LaVey. By 1987, you had been pissing on the Church of
Satan for twelve years. All Anton LaVey did was return the favor.
> Anton LaVey hated me for refusing to go along with his
> financial prostitution of the Church, and because you
> thus hoped to suck up to him/Densley - is, in a word,
> nauseating. *And*, I think, glaringly evident to the
> readership here as well, whatever philosophical
> differences they and I may have during ongoing
> discussions.
What's glaringly evident is that YOU, thanks to your own stupidity, got
yourself and your wife in a really ugly situation. Thanks to your
rather sizeable inheritance, you were able to dig yourself out, but
your name has now gone down in history as "that Presidio guy." And
that, my good Doctor, is YOUR problem, not ours.
> >I take it, then, that you DON'T object to someone
> >sending copies of "Armies of the Night" to your
> >neighbors. Duly noted.
>
> Sometimes I can only shake my head at your
> naivete, even when you're doing your best to be
> a prick. In this case you have *no idea whatever*
> of the length, ferocity, and in this case sideshows
> of the Adams-Thompson/Presidio scam.
No, but I can imagine. I've gathered you had to move out of your
Leavenworth Street apartment because of harassment, threatening calls,
etc. I've also gathered you've got a new address... and I'm betting
none of your new neighbors ever received visits from government
investigators.
> As for "Armies of the Night", that was one of the
> most inaccurate and witchhunt-blatant
> newspaper articles of the Presidio scam, by a
> reporter who had already become famous for
> her unquestioning fanning of the flames from
> the moment the scam started [long before it
> occurred to the chaplain to try to make a fast
> $3 million by accusing us]. I sent a detailed
> refutation of it to the publisher, and none of
> its falsehoods ever reappeared in that paper.
I'm sure you still have a copy: perhaps your neighbors will be
interested in reading it.
> But in your Filanesque fashion you have indeed
> [and doubtless unintentionally] highlighted exactly
> how dangerous Locklin's FAQ was. At least until
No, I've highlighted that your "outing" of Locklin was done not to "set
the record straight," but as a clumsy attempt to intimidate him and to
stop him from criticizing you and your organization.
> I corresponded with him about this, it's entirely
> possible he was utterly clueless about what could
> result from those advertisements.
Would you mind telling us exactly how making the Church of Satan's PO
Box address known in the alt.satanism FAQ was feeding into the Satanic
Ritual Abuse hysteria? Some specifics would be nice...
Circe
Here we reiterate the important message Kevin gives us. Apparently the
Corporation of Satan will harass anyone if they do what Kevin is describing.
Since we know they harass everyone anyway it's kind of a joke. But I'll type
comments in capital letters with suggestions. The actual post follows this:
KEVIN SAID: What the CoS *does* object to, and rightly so, IMHO, is someone
presenting CoS ideas as their own, or trying to use our name and ideas to
legitimize their own claims.
AND WHAT ARE COS IDEAS? LAVEY'S RANTS AGAINST THE HERD, THE HERD, AND THE
HERD WHICH HE SO CONSTANTLY MADE HIS CONCERN EVEN THO HE DIDN'T NEED TO
CONCERN HIMSELF WITH THE HERD?
Kevin gives examples: Some examples of that would be:
* Egan registering "Churchofsatan.org" and claiming the "First Church of
Satan" is the "REAL Church of Satan." Egan had been working for years with
the "Ancient Brotherhood of Satan" and "Brimstone magazine." Why didn't he
register "Brimstonebrotherhood.com" or "ABoS.com?" Simple: it's because he
knew that he would get more hits for his website if he pretended to be the
Church of Satan.
"TEMPLE OF THE SATAN" WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT NAME AND FIT BETTER. OR "RADIO
SATAN." "FIRST SATANIC TEMPLE" WOULD BE GOOD.
* Egan taking the Active Membership Application, editing it very slightly,
and presenting it as his "Priesthood Application." (Notice a trend here...?)
ANY MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION TO ANY ORGANIZATION OR EVEN JOB WOULD BE SIMILAR.
WHEN YOU APPLY FOR A JOB, AREN'T THE APPLICATIONS SIMILAR? THIS IS BOGUS.
* Various other groups presenting their version of Satanism, said version
consisting of "Read Nietzsche, Rand, and London; quote the Nine Satanic
Statements and the Eleven Rules of the Earth; talk about how Satan is a
symbol, not an actual being; etc." All of these concepts are part of LaVey's
conception of Satanism.
THE RANDIANS ALSO READ NIETZSCHE, PARTS OF LONDON AND RAND; SO DO MANY OF
THE NEO FASCIST GROUPS OUT THERE SUCH AS THE NATIONAL VANGUARD, SO DO THE
LIBERTARIANS. THE THING TO DO IS TO FOOTNOTE ANTON LAVEY, OR PARAPHRASE SOME
OF WHAT HE SAID IF YOU HAVE TO; OR DO WHAT REDS DID AND SAY IT YOURSELF. OR
USE SOMEONE THAT SAID SIMILAR THINGS EARLIER, SUCH AS CROWLEY, OR
DZERZHINSKY (WHICH WE USED) OR CARDUCCI. AS FAR AS NOTIONS OF SATAN BEING A
SYMBOL, THIS IS HARDLY ORIGINAL WITH ANTON LAVEY. THE NINE STATEMENTS ARE
FINE BUT THE ELEVEL RULES OF THE EARTH ARE STUPID AS ARE THE SINS. WHAT?
SINS? RULES? SATANIC REDS DOES NOT SUGGEST READING RAND (WHO PERSONALLY WAS
A LOATHSOME TYRANT WITH HER OWN FRIENDS; SHE WAS THE VERY THING SHE CLAIMED
TO HATE) OR NIETZSCHE (WHO WAS A SYPHILLIC HALF ASSED MASON THAT WENT MAD
AND STRUGGLED WITH HIS OWN DUALISM FOR YEARS BEFORE HE FINALLY GOT IT
RIGHT). JACK LONDON, A SOCIALIST, WROTE SOME VERY GOOD TALES CENTERED AROUND
POLYNESIA. THESE WE WOULD RECOMMEND, BUT THE LAVEYANS AND THE NATIONAL
VANGUARD FASCISTS APPARENTLY NEVER HEARD OF THEM. WE DON'T RECOMMEND
ANYTHING THAT IS PRONE TO BE FASCISTIC.
If you need PRE-LAVEY information for your website, especially something
similar to the adversarial and freedom-loving Satan, just ask us for it. We
have it.
Here is a great example with a few beautiful lines updated:
To Satan all being, the first cause immense,
of matter and spirit, of reason and sense
In matter, yet sleepless like a wellspring,
of all phenomena and forms: the lord and king.
Here only lives Satan with power supreme:
Flame in the dark eye flashes with gleam,
Whether it languidly retreats and rebels,
or bright and audacious provokes and compels.
Which can to our fleeting life new strength impart,
which puts off our sorrows, to love gives a heart.
'Tis Satan that inspirest the song that does rise
in my bosom, O Satan: When that god it defies,
The cowl Luther cast off, and freedom he brought:
so cast off your fetters, be free, human thought!
And shine forth resplendent, encircled with flames,
arise matter, Satan the victory claims.
All hail to thee, Satan! Rebellion, all hail!
Hail, power of reason, Avenge and prevail!
It's rephrased from Carducci! From the HYMN TO SATAN! Powerful lines!
Borrow from our poem BAPHOMET and our article on Mendes.
Borrow from "Dark Force: Asat, Sat & Tan" or "LHP and RHP" article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Here is the entire post:
To: satanic...@egroups.com
From: satan...@my-deja.com
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 04:14:15 -0600
Reply-To: satan...@egroups.com
Subject: [satanicreds] IMPORTANT: RE COMMON ISSUES
This, imo, is an important post I made to Kevin Filan on this threat in
alt.satanism:
Re: Jesus of Borg and his magic coatail
It's important because it addresses THE ISSUES we all now face today and
issues we HAVE faced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
(beginning of original message)
Subject: Re: Jesus of Borg and his magic coatail
From: SVsite <tanija...@my-deja.com>
Date: 2000/11/09
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Tani said: Woah, Kevin. Let me set a record straight here before "revision"
takes over your mind. Something, if your memory serves you right, you will
realize you KNOW.
We have been around since the 1970's, and before I was involved, way way
before that - not with the Roots Western stuff - but the LHP Dark Doctrine -
and it is a real tradition - you can even learn it in a university today -
Kaiden took a class in it - it just confirmed what I put to paper. At the
time I wrote that, however, it was UNKNOWN STUFF.
Now, heh, if you recall, me and a gang of us - NONE COS MEMBERS, got on here
and severed the TOS from the COS for good. WE did that. The really bad
flames, all sent on discs and posted by somone, were written by many people,
mostly NOT ME. I got the "credit" however - for some odd reason.
Anyway......
None of us involved outside the cos ever joined OR WOULD join the cos. We
made it perfectly clear what we thought about Anton's writings, heh and his
cos. Brutally blunt about it. No mistake there, brutally blunt and we said
nothing then that we have not said ALL OVER AGAIN, right here online. OK?
Now, since I mailed a lot of that to Doc and HE didn't mind, heh - well,
figure it out.
HE incorporated OUR STUFF into the cos by titling Phil and I with Magistrate
Degrees and gave Vad a title right after he PUT that very same stuff on a
Website! OK? Did we ever USE these titles on serious things we published and
wrote? NO. However many people forked over a c note because they saw the
Dark Doctrines, RESEARCHED FURTHER INTO IT (just as you researched into
Santeria) and thought "wow, that's the cos."
Well, no wow - that's NOT the cos and I personally resent our knowledge
being USED to sucker c notes from people who subsequently get shit on all
over by know nothings with NO serious lhp tradition or even lhp creative NEW
stuff in mind. OK? That's simple enough.
We defended ONE THING Doc said about a dark force in nature. That is ALL we
did. This is an entirely different situation here, "all of us compared to
the TOS" - and the situations can't even BE compared. There is NO point of
comparison here! Michael Aquino was IN the cos, he worked FOR the cos, he
believed IN Anton LaVey and the cos. NONE OF US EVER DID, AND NEVER WOULD.
When asked with about 10 whining emails prefaced with "how much Doktor loved
me," to "go after Egan for TAKING the Dark Doctrines" I REFUSED. Therein set
the ICE, Kevin. OK? Now - that is the TRUTH!
As for Yachud (the poster, Jeff Gerber's friend, btw), heh, Marx and Lenin?
They are not gods, nor do their words determine what he or any one else
says, think, or DO "when in Rome," unless the person is a "personality cult
fetishist." I know Yachud: he is most definitely NOT that. He doesn't live
in that kind of paradigm or relate to it. For such people that he's flaming
to prattle on about how royal they are is pathetic. It's a joke. There is no
such thing as "class" in the USA. You can go from Borgie to Welfare in one
year. Low Class to Corporate Nobel in one year or vice versa. As a matter of
fact, however, I had the - privelege? - of knowing some REAL Barons and
Counts in the USA - the Reds chased them out. Phew. Compared to them my
eating manners with Fried Chicken are polite. They are me at my worst time
10. Yeah, we got along :) They didn't put on those "airs" that I despise so
much in the wannabe royalty types. None of that at all. They were are down
to earth and blunt as me. We got along.
See inside and yeah, I'm butting my face into someone else's post.
In article <4WoO5.4546$qr.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
raksh...@my-deja.com (Kevin Filan) wrote:
In article <8ucujl$n1k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, comrad...@my-deja.com says...
Yachud said: Funny. CoSers LOVE to kvetch about "ridng the coatail of
others" Yet, my Jesus of Borg himself is a redneck biker white trash freak
who married an ex tripper who happened to inherit some money. What is that,
but riding the coatails of others? Practise what you preach, Big Willy, and
earn your own money. Oh well. I guess gas jockey is the best ya go do.
Kevin said: I'm curious as to why you have issues with the Gidneys.
Tani said: Are you really curious? If I were Yachud, I'd charge $5.00 for
each specific question requiring a one sentence answer. LOTS of people have
issues with the Gidneys - I found that out big time when I was investigating
bs for Peggy. People that the Gidney's thought were friends (cause they were
polite) hated their guts instead. And the Gidneys have BIG issues with
Andre. One big happy family-NOT. I don't know why. I just collected the
data - I didn't bother to ASK - see, I wasn't interested! (Maybe I should
have at least READ the stuff before forwarding it.....oh well).
Kevin said: Seriously: Ygraine, Will and I started out on opposite sides of
a rather nasty flamewar before we ultimately reconciled our differences.
Tani said: Ho Lol. You trashed Ygraine 10 times worse than you EVER trashed
Nancy. I remember that. You out did Brendan the Flame Queen in his flames to
Lupo and Scratch - you even out did Casey the Mouth from HELL! You da MAN!
And yeah, I TRIED to outdo you "Hey YO Bitch..." that one. Back then. My
email to Jill started that way....I THOUGHT that the Panthers WERE Ygraine
and Willy! REALLY! I was also not online yet. I asked "is that the couple
with the store? They sell shirts or something?" And I was told yes. And
so......
Kevin said: So I'm not saying that I can't understand someone disagreeing
with them. But I'm wondering what happened to make you so adamantly
anti-Gidney? And I'm also curious, again, as to why "Comrade Yehudi" would
use a bourgeois insult like "redneck biker white trash" ... Marx and Engels
are rolling in their graves, methinks.
Tani said: Lemme tell ya what Jason Yuschenko knows about us HARD Left
leaning pro labor types: shsh, it's a secret! 1. we ain't liberals, hell no.
2. we work as a collective and cooperate within a FANATICAL framework of US
and THEM. Failure to cooperate results in TOTAL disownership, you become
personna non grata COMPLETELY; even if you are FAMILY. It's very bad! Such
outcasts DIE PAUPERS! 3. we know how to get rich in a capitalist dog eat dog
society, sometimes using a pyramidal structure. 4. we get into "the right
places" and commence to preach and foster "individualistic" ideas amongst
those in the "THEM" group to keep them at each others throats while we get
ahead. In case you didn't know it, Lenin was a millionaire that rode around
in a Rolls Royce. His backers were BILLIONAIRS! OK? What we clearly see is
that if the idiot individualists were ever to "do as we do" and
collectivise, the whole fucking place would turn to HELL - like a 3rd world
country where everything is done via bribes. Like gang warfare. And
so.......we see that Left leaning programs such as we as an org advocate -
which Roosevelt favored, are good for EVERYONE, hence also good for the
Self. High paying jobs means well off people, people that can afford fun and
leisure, HAPPY people, and so forth, figure it out. HAPPY people seldom turn
to religion except in the most casual manner. Thing were very good in the
50's 60's here. THEN they turned to shit as programs were eroded and the
workers were stuck between corporate WELFARE BUMS and "low class" welfare
BUMS. The quality of life, for the most part, is quite low. And so we think
ahead using foresight. Do you think that Communism would have benefited
Lenin or ANY of his backers? Like Armin Hammer? Hey, come on! But they
advocated it for a better world TO COME. :) And there really is no set way
to achieve it. Marx was an expert in CAPITALISM. Everything he ever said
about it was on the mark and prophetic! But he was NOT an expert in
Communism. He never, eg, imagined that 90% peasant based huge countries
would go Communist; but that's what happened. And Lenin never imagined he'd
have to practice capitalism (NEP). They played it the way it happened: it
was never DONE before, you see. It was truly an experiment. Khrushchev put
an end to it, btw - by reinstating state capitalism.
Kevin said: As to "riding the coattails of others:" I would honestly have no
problem with Tani & Co. setting up their own "Order of the Dark Doctrines."
Tani said: Um, "Tani and Company" already HAD something going before Doc
gave Magistrate titles away. That's the highest title you can have except
for HP. Why such a HIGH title? But we already HAD something going: it's
called the Lodge, Kevin :) And that's where I learned all of what's in Roots
1, 2, Set, Real Wicca and other things western. OK? It was "Company" that
asked "Tani and" to GIVE THIS TO GILMORE for the COS. This is widely known.
There is no way in hell you can say that we ride (the HILARITY of it) the
coatails of LaVey. The mere idea is HILARIOUS. What LaVey? 9 statements? I
will give him the CREDIT of honestly coming up with the name SATAN to define
human decency that WE ALREADY DO practice *amongst ourselves* (refer to US
and THEM above) - and of openly equating that with the dark force in nature.
I give him credit for NOTHING ELSE. I have always thought, openly so, that
anyone that thinks his other stuff is "profound" is a culturally illiterate
moron. NO LODGE takes the man seriously, NO THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE takes the
man seriously. He is a JOKER and had no problem being CALLED The Joker or
Maestro. I'll give Anton LaVey credit for THAT - ONLY THAT! And that's not a
small thing since it took balls to go SATAN SATAN all over the place - of
course, doors were open for him then. THEN.
Kevin said: At this point their philosophy owes precious little to Anton
LaVey's *Satanic Bible,* much as Aquino's Setianism bears more resemblance
to Arthur C. Clarke than to Anton LaVey. That's not an insult, just a simple
statement of fact: most objective observers would see little in common
between LaVey's ideas and most of Tani's ideas.
Tani said: Don't mix up "my personal ideas" or "things I wrote to piss
people off" with the Dark Doctrines - they are not the same things. What I
wrote about "COS versus TOS" is accurate - do you disagree? Doc agreed - he
saw it before I ever gave it to anyone to post. I mailed it to him. I'd
never speak or do an exegesis for COS without showing him first. I don't
care WHAT revision you heard, but that never saw a newsgroup until Doc saw
it and liked it. Unfortunately, I'm not anal retentive and may not have
saved ALL THAT correspondence! Point is, I'd NEVER deam to speak "for you,"
eg, "kevin's ideas on Santeria," without ASKING you if I stated it right:
I'd show you first. The stuff on "Neter" is from books, real ones, real
history and from things Gilmore gave me that he got from TOS directly.
The Dark Doctrine is actually very short and precise - and can be pictorally
shown in 2 pages. Most observers UNFORTUNATELY saw Vad's website and thought
that WAS the cos's stance. THAT is the problem. And why did they think this
when before, no one would think it? Because of those damned VERY HIGH
titles! THAT is why. Simple? Very simple. There is a lot to read on Vad's
website, Kevin - and most of these people didn't stop there, they went and
got books referred to on there and read - and that's a LOT OF STUFF. Compare
all those university textbooks, science books, psychology and neurology
books - compare that to, um, Doc's writings. NO CONTEST! But, here is the
clincher, read all that first, and THEN read Doc's SB - then due to
intertextualization, the SB takes on a much heavier meaning and MOST
DEFINITELY DOES agree with what is now being called "Dark Doctrine" - a
phrase NOW defining "Vad's web stuff PLUS ALL THOSE BOOKS REFERENCES!" Get
it? The people who have not read "ALL that stuff" - but ONLY read Doc's
stuff - well, they are ignorant, arrogant, and just plain inversionist:
wailing wannabes. OK? I will agree that Ygraine's IQ is probably Barton's IQ
squared. Barton is an idiot; Phil trashed her idiocy - THEN Doc made him a
Magister. WHY? But I agree with the Yachud and MANY others (that she thinks
are her friends still) that Ygraine is pretentious in the extreme. She
respects people who have walked all over her (I posted it, her own words).
Some people hate that. Yachud hates it. Ergo...? But I'm speaking for him. I
have no idea if that's why he "doesn't like" her. But, why do you care? Are
you her paid agent?
Kevin said: Once the Setians quit pretending to be the "Real and Improved
Church of Satan" and started doing their own thing, it was better for all
concerned. I suspect the same will hold true for Tani & Co.
Tani said: No, more like once the COS is shown to have nothing to do with
any of this stuff that so many intelligent and LHP people think it has to do
with, it will be MUCH better for us. And "US" is not Tani and Co. I resent
you making ME into someone else's "cult of personality" as if you can't seem
to think "outside" that paradigm. It's not about ME, Kevin and it never was.
May as well call it Damasio's fans. Or Padme Sambhava's Cult. It's quite
simply the science and the LHP gang. OK? If I quote YOU and people love it,
does that make it MY THING? I'm quoting YOUR WORDS. This is what we all
detest and I detest it the most. I KNOW what kinds of people think that way.
And I despise them. Always have.
Kevin said: IMPORTANT HERE: What the CoS *does* object to, and rightly so,
IMHO, is someone presenting CoS ideas as their own, or trying to use our
name and ideas to legitimize their own claims. Some examples of that would
be:
Tani said: Neither I nor any of us from the lodges EVER did that. We don't
recognize that the COS has any ideas, Kevin, and WE NEVER DID. 9 statements.
That's it. This is NO secret - how can this POSSIBLY be a secret? For years
we have maintained this position! Because we separated the TOS from the CoS
by what seemed like a "defense" of Anton, (seemed like!) doesn't mean the
REST of what you are inferring! But it was they who asked me to give stuff
to Gilmore about western roots - and um, prior to that, after what Aquino
did, the "world" for the most part thought the COS no longer existed. OK?
Think about it. And don't fall for revisionism from the Council of Two.
Kevin continues IMPORTANT: * Egan registering "Churchofsatan.org" and
claiming the "First Church of Satan" is the "REAL Church of Satan." Egan had
been working for years with the "Ancient Brotherhood of Satan" and
"Brimstone magazine." Why didn't he register "Brimstonebrotherhood.com" or
"ABoS.com?" Simple: it's because he knew that he would get more hits for his
website if he pretended to be the Church of Satan.
Tani said: We AGREE and have told Egan this - that he should NOT connect his
organization - ESPECIALLY if he's using any of Vad's stuff (and he IS, tho
he may have looked it up and gotten it from university sources, he ADMITTED
he learned it from me), ... should not confuse this with the COS. We do NOT
want people to think "OOO, COS, ANTON" when they see the words "Dark Force
in Nature" EVEN IF ANTON SAID THAT. EVEN THO I GIVE HIM FULL CREDIT for
saying it! Yeah, I DO give him credit for saying that and CALLING IT
"Satan." I give him credit at the end of every post I make. It's one of the
ONLY things the man said that I respect and value (and it's PERSONAL - stuff
that heh, Gilmore knows NOTHING about because I never told him. It's a soft
spot I have had for Anton since the early 1970's.) Now, how can you not know
this, when this was well known to so many offline people? If Gilmore claims
to not have known that was the ONLY thing I respected: he's lying!
Kevin said IMPORTANT: * Egan taking the Active Membership Application,
editing it very slightly, and presenting it as his "Priesthood Application."
(Notice a trend here...?)
Tani said: Egan has openly stated that he did this due to "Peter Gilmore and
his storm troopers," to hound them. He told ME this too. People that know
Egan (Les Masters, eg) know this. Well, Peter Gilmore's "storm trooper"
email got outed on here after all; everyone has seen it otherwise. Still,
that's NOT a good reason to start an org and end up getting sincere LHP
people who join, who only later find out it's the "Get Peter Gilmore Org"
and NOT LHP at all except for some printed articles.
Kevin said: * Various other groups presenting their version of Satanism,
said version consisting of "Read Nietzsche, Rand, and London; quote the Nine
Satanic Statements and the Eleven Rules of the Earth; talk about how Satan
is a symbol, not an actual being; etc." All of these concepts are part of
LaVey's conception of Satanism.
Tani said: We (the current "we," not the lodge "we") don't think that's a
good idea either. Rand, Nietzsche and whoever have NOTHING TO DO with
Satanism which was historically LW, not just LHP in a very Pythagorean sense
of LHP! I'd condemn our own Roots 2 at this point in time because it's taken
the wrong way by the wrong people. MOST orgs agree that viewing Satan as an
actual being is Christian inversionism - but they do NOT get that from
Anton. They get that from Eastern stuff and from our stuff. They are quite
hip to inversionist christians and DO NOT LIKE THEM! I make all that very
clear in "Which Kinds of Satanists." Our take on "Might is Right" is on our
website - and it is rightly analyzed. I advise people to trash the 11 rules
shmules and whatever other crap and GET THEIR OWN STUFF up there. And the
orgs are listening. :)
Kevin said: I've said for years that I would welcome a group which came up
with a non-LaVeyan version of Satanism. The ONA was definitely promising,
although I think their forays into "White Power" politics were kinda silly.
Tani said: The ONA is one person - I believe Elizabeth Selwyn explained all
that. Her essay is on our website ( www.geocities.com/satanicreds/ )in "Is
Fascism Satanic," and was also published once in the young Black Flame. ONA
'translations' of Greek are pure bullshit, too. Like Anton's translations of
"Enochian..."
Kevin said: But most "Satanism" out there is just rehashed LaVeyanism, with
most of the words changed for the worse and misspelled to boot.
Tani said: Not any more. MOST orgs out there are definitely not versions of
LaVeyanism, even if they HONOR LaVey and are militantly in favor of the man
(but NOT in favor of the COS). MOST versions of Satanism are politically on
the side of the Wiccans and Pagans. And politics, my friend, IS real life.
Now, Barton's essay against Wiccans, suggesting sick and twisted S&M rituals
to "cure" them, needs to be shown widely to ANY ORGS that have a problem
straightening out this "political agenda" with Wiccans and Pagans. Also
Barton needs to publicly RETRACT her statement that the COS gets its
tradition from Pythagoreans and Masons. It most certainly does not: NOT ANY
MORE! Now, YOU TELL ME where people GOT that idea, eh? From Barton? From
Anton? YEAH? Not from me who was, prior to the Magistra title which was an
open contradiction to all those who knew me, OPENLY HOSTILE to the Cos and
all the utter fakery and fraud involved from its inception. I'm not Michael
Aquino: I NEVER WAS A DUPE.
Kevin said: Peace
Tani said: Indeed!
Kevin: Kevin Filan
Tani: TJ
"Kevin Filan" <raksh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:92eq2i$ov7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Silver
>It's rephrased from Carducci! From the HYMN TO SATAN! Powerful >lines!
Do any recordings of this work exist at all? Where might I get hold of one?
der...@my-deja.com
of sour-grapes.
-Bren Derlin
SVsite
Look in alphabetical list either under Hymn or Carducci.
TJ
In article <92f3hu$mjk$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>,
--
Visit #satanmuse the Official Chatroom of
Satanic Reds and HrVad's Dark Doctrine Web Site!
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
Satanic Reds is a Council Member Org.
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
SLAVA NAM! SLAVA SATANYE! SLAVA CHYERNOMU PLAMYENI! SLAVA YA!
Ludvig Prinn
>
>Tanya Lysenko
>2804 West 6th Street
>Lehigh Acres, FL 33971
>
>PO Box
>Lehigh Acres, FL 33971
>
>Tani Jantsang
>December 13, 1950
>
>(941)368-7071 (listed under "Obed Marsh" a Lovecraftian pseudonym)
You left out the PO Box in Lehigh Acres. It's PO Box 85, according to the web
site.
Oh, BTW, happy birthday Tani!
_____________________________________
"Trauma is the engine of Initiation" - Lud
"You are a sickening, twisted THING - NOT a person, NOT HUMAN!"--Metadromos
"You MONSTER! DIE! DIE!" -- Mina Pell
Ludvig Prinn
Worker of Miracles
http://embark.to/Ludvig
SVsite
it! LMAO.
Wrong birthday. ?? Where'd that come from?
The PO Box is on there 85. But the zip is 33970.
Wrong name - but HOO WEE. That.
Where is the PO Box number left off? I just looked - it's there.
In article <20001228202715...@ng-mk1.aol.com>,
ludvi...@aol.commonsense (Ludvig Prinn) wrote:
> >Say, is this you, Tani?
> >
> You left out the PO Box in Lehigh Acres. It's PO Box 85, according to
the web
> site.
>
> Oh, BTW, happy birthday Tani!
Thank you, but you are a few months late. What website is the number
missing on?
>
> _____________________________________
> "Trauma is the engine of Initiation" - Lud
>
> "You are a sickening, twisted THING - NOT a person, NOT HUMAN!"--
Metadromos
>
> "You MONSTER! DIE! DIE!" -- Mina Pell
>
> Ludvig Prinn
> Worker of Miracles
> http://embark.to/Ludvig
>
--
6&7
Thank you. But is an audio recording of its performance available?
6&7
- wolf -
news:N%x26.139860$IP1.4...@news1.giganews.com...
> >You WHINE like a fucking victim. Then you HIDE behind .gov on your
> >job? You can't hide forever, you slandering son of a bitch. You think
> >people might NOT want to do something *really awful* to you for that?
> >
> >In person, you'd be minus a few teeth.
>
> What, is poodles gonna kick my ass? I have seen the lad, not much
> chance of that.
Since it's pretty evident who Lupo is talking about here, let me reply.
I wouldn't be too surprised if we met and you left such a non-impression on
me I totally forgot about it. So, please refresh my memory, because I don't
recall meeting you. Where did we meet? Were you too chicken to say hi?
- wolf -
Ludvig Prinn
>it! LMAO.
Heh.
You might want to talk to the Lee County Tax Assessor concerning that. The
following web page clearly shows a HOUSE there, along with floor plans.
<A
HREF="http://www.property-appraiser.lee.fl.us/scripts/pao/PropertyQuery.DL
L?FolioID=10321345&format=table&bldgdetail=ON">Online Parcel Inquiry - Lee
County Property App…</A>
Just thought you might want to set the country straight on that one.
>What website is the number missing on?
On Lupo's post.
IX Corp
Ludvig Prinn <ludvi...@aol.commonsense> wrote:
>>Say, is this you, Tani?
>>
>>Tanya Lysenko
>>2804 West 6th Street
>>Lehigh Acres, FL 33971
>>
>>PO Box
>>Lehigh Acres, FL 33971
>>
>>Tani Jantsang
>>December 13, 1950
>>
>>(941)368-7071 (listed under "Obed Marsh" a Lovecraftian pseudonym)
>
>You left out the PO Box in Lehigh Acres. It's PO Box 85, according to the web
>site.
Oh yeah. One can always check such things via the mailboxes.
>Oh, BTW, happy birthday Tani!
Indeedy!
Someone ought to have a looksie at Deja to see how crabby she was on the
13th...
IX Corp
- wolf - <wo...@mail-spamproof.dk> wrote:
>"IX Corp" <i...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
>news:N%x26.139860$IP1.4...@news1.giganews.com...
>> >You WHINE like a fucking victim. Then you HIDE behind .gov on your
>> >job? You can't hide forever, you slandering son of a bitch. You think
>> >people might NOT want to do something *really awful* to you for that?
>> >
>> >In person, you'd be minus a few teeth.
>>
>> What, is poodles gonna kick my ass? I have seen the lad, not much
>> chance of that.
>
>Since it's pretty evident who Lupo is talking about here, let me reply.
Sorry man, the shoe fits.
>I wouldn't be too surprised if we met and you left such a non-impression on
>me I totally forgot about it. So, please refresh my memory, because I don't
>recall meeting you. Where did we meet? Were you too chicken to say hi?
There was someone looking rather like you at Michael Moynihan's book
signing at the Covered Wagon. I didn't introduce myself to you for reasons
which should be obvious. Incidentally, while we're confessing, I always
assumed you stirred up the knuckleheads at CHUD which adorned his
concert. Right or wrong?
SVsite
right? Guess so. It's not my concern, or so I thought I said that.
Typo. OWNED. Past tense. :) I'm not talking to any tax collectors.
Obed Marsh is a non-person, right? This info was obtained by a back
search on a phone number. And? I can list my phone number and use ANY
address - or even use a PO box. But who is Obed Marsh? Is that Phil?
And you think that Aquino is WRONG to think that Lupo is dangerous?
Aquino is right. Lupo uses his government job to hide behind, he
gathers info about people, and people that have done business with
people, and he stirs up trouble.
As for anyone being the victim of husband abuse - BS! What started
that vicious flame war with the white devil gang kids years ago, so bad
that I DID go to the FBI (and had to sign and give them my WHOLE
information, btw)? Scratch started it by bringing up his SICK S and M
practices and bragging about his arsenal of guns in threatening tones.
Scratch and Lupo were ALWAYS thick as brothers. What, TOS didn't know
that? You should have listened to the white devil gang kids, kids or
not, inner city or not, they WERE RIGHT. Scratch's wife also took
information I DID NOT write, NEVER wrote, and emailed institutes like
the NIH and gave them my name, claiming I wrote such things. They did
do stuff like that.
There may be no internet laws, but there are U. S. Laws - and people
that own or buy and sell property should be FREE not to have the
details of such things plastered on a SATANIC website BY SATANISTS.
Pat Robertson, here we come. That they did this on ORDERS from the
CULT OF COS - is a fact proven by Gilmore's email and other emails we
have that he wrote. HE ORDERS people by means of "suggesting,
appealing to committment and warnings about loyalty." HE DID IT, HE
HAS FULL RESPONSIBILITY. That is my story, that is what I KNOW until
convinced otherwise - PROVEN otherwise.
The TOS didn't out Lupo. People already knew who he was. And there's
no way in hell that Scratch is/was the abuse victim of a woman. NO WAY
IN HELL, just pull up his "macho" posts for proof. Then again.......
If the woman pulled a gun on him, she'd be in jail. I would believe
100%, due to the hateful violent shit he wrote me simply because I
defended the "DARK FORCE" that HE tortured Don Webb's wife. PULL UP
HIS POSTS - it's all there.
NM.
In article <20001229203659...@ng-cv1.aol.com>,
--
Ludvig Prinn
>> >it! LMAO.
>
>right?
Yet since you own it, you'd be one of the first people notified should a house
suddenly appear on your "empty lot", correct?
>It's not my concern, or so I thought I said that.
>Typo. OWNED. Past tense.
Yet you're listed as the current owner.
>Obed Marsh is a non-person, right?
Obed Marsh was a sea-captain in several Cthulhu-Mythos stories featuring
coastal cities with secret cults in league with the forces of darkness.
>But who is Obed Marsh?
See above. Obed Marsh is the registered user of the phone at the house on the
"empty lot" which you do in fact still own. A commonsense estimate would say
that whoever registered the phone either had bad credit or a bad record with
the phone company and had to use a pseudonym (and pay a substantial deposit) to
get the phone turned on. Any phone company will do this.
>And you think that Aquino is WRONG to think that Lupo is dangerous?
Everyone is dangerous.
>Lupo uses his government job to hide behind, he
>gathers info about people, and people that have done business with
>people, and he stirs up trouble.
Any good hunter does the same. You may wish to discover first why he hunted
you.
>As for anyone being the victim of husband abuse - BS!
Okay, you're slipping here.
I never said that you were the victim of husband abuse. I also never expressed
any opinion on Aquino's position on Lupo. You're assigning too many opinions to
me when I'm only here for the beer.
>Scratch started it by bringing up his SICK S and M
>practices and bragging about his arsenal of guns in threatening tones.
Ain't nothing wrong with SMBD. It's not my thing, but who's to say what two or
more consenting adults are permitted to do? As for guns and making threatening
noises, let she without sin cast the first stone.
>There may be no internet laws, but there are U. S. Laws - and people
>that own or buy and sell property should be FREE not to have the
>details of such things plastered on a SATANIC website BY SATANISTS.
What on Earth made you think America was the "land of the free"? That's just
something they say in the song.
America is a stolen land, ruled by thieves. Only the most vicious and ruthless
individuals ever attain true power here. Whining about it just puts you on the
menu.
>That they did this on ORDERS from the
>CULT OF COS - is a fact proven by Gilmore's email and other emails we
>have that he wrote.
What the hell are you talking about? None of this has anything to do with me?
>The TOS didn't out Lupo.
I never claimed they did. I already had a fairly complete file on Lupo long
before this whole mess fell out of the sky.
Lupo's not the only hunter here.
>And there's
>no way in hell that Scratch is/was the abuse victim of a woman.
Have you met him, to say this? Have you met her?
People present themselves differently online. This much is a known fact.
>I would believe
>100%, due to the hateful violent shit he wrote me simply because I
>defended the "DARK FORCE" that HE tortured Don Webb's wife.
Are you honestly asserting that "violent writing" (whatever that's supposed to
mean), equals a history of perpetrating spousal abuse?
Maybe he just doesn't like you.
RaginCain
"Ludvig Prinn" <ludvi...@aol.commonsense> wrote in message
news:20001230003256...@ng-mf1.aol.com...
> A commonsense estimate would say
> that whoever registered the phone either had bad credit or a bad record
with
> the phone company and had to use a pseudonym (and pay a substantial
deposit) to
> get the phone turned on.
You are so full of shit, your eyeballs are brown.
My telephone number is listed in the phone directory under my CAT'S name,
and the phone company knows it. It has been that way for 20 years, same
phone number, same address (different cat). You want an unlisted phone
number, but you want your friends to be able to call you when they don't
have your number memorized? That's the way to do it. I know many people
who have their dog's name listed in the directory.
Of course, all our phone bills come to us in our REAL name.
Grow up.
Just_Passin_Thru
RaginCain
Sure do!
"Just_Passin_Thru" <xe...@NOSPAM.ziplip.com> wrote in message
news:3A4D8B71...@NOSPAM.ziplip.com...
SVsite
ludvi...@aol.commonsense (Ludvig Prinn) wrote:
> >> >That is in fact the street address for an empty lot - and yes, I
own
> >> >it! LMAO.
> >
> >Well, there didn't used to be. People do buy things and then build,
> >right?
>
> Yet since you own it, you'd be one of the first people notified
should a house
> suddenly appear on your "empty lot", correct?
>
> >It's not my concern, or so I thought I said that.
> >Typo. OWNED. Past tense.
>
> Yet you're listed as the current owner.
ME? It doesn't look that way to me.
>
> >Obed Marsh is a non-person, right?
>
> Obed Marsh was a sea-captain in several Cthulhu-Mythos stories
featuring
> coastal cities with secret cults in league with the forces of
darkness.
>
> >But who is Obed Marsh?
>
> See above. Obed Marsh is the registered user of the phone at the
house on the
> "empty lot" which you do in fact still own. A commonsense estimate
would say
> that whoever registered the phone either had bad credit or a bad
record with
> the phone company and had to use a pseudonym (and pay a substantial
deposit) to
> get the phone turned on. Any phone company will do this.
Ym, ok
>
> >And you think that Aquino is WRONG to think that Lupo is dangerous?
>
> Everyone is dangerous.
>
> >Lupo uses his government job to hide behind, he
> >gathers info about people, and people that have done business with
> >people, and he stirs up trouble.
>
> Any good hunter does the same. You may wish to discover first why he
hunted
> you.
Because 15 year old kids in the white devil gang trashed him, and he
thought it was ME.
>
> >As for anyone being the victim of husband abuse - BS!
>
> Okay, you're slipping here.
Scratch, his post about Don Webb. I changed the subject. no no. wife
abuse is the man hitting the wife. husband abuse is the woman hitting
the husband.
>
> I never said that you were the victim of husband abuse. I also never
expressed
> any opinion on Aquino's position on Lupo. You're assigning too many
opinions to
> me when I'm only here for the beer.
eewwww, VODKA, SAMBUKA, AMORETTA, and CREME DE CACAO - equal amounts
(1/2 shot maybe) in cup of coffee. WAY TO GO.
>
> >Scratch started it by bringing up his SICK S and M
> >practices and bragging about his arsenal of guns in threatening
tones.
>
> Ain't nothing wrong with SMBD. It's not my thing, but who's to say
what two or
> more consenting adults are permitted to do? As for guns and making
threatening
> noises, let she without sin cast the first stone.
>
> >There may be no internet laws, but there are U. S. Laws - and people
> >that own or buy and sell property should be FREE not to have the
> >details of such things plastered on a SATANIC website BY SATANISTS.
>
> What on Earth made you think America was the "land of the free"?
That's just
> something they say in the song.
>
> America is a stolen land, ruled by thieves. Only the most vicious and
ruthless
> individuals ever attain true power here. Whining about it just puts
you on the
> menu.
Remember, people can "hide" secrets (ahem) where they know the enemy
will find them and use them - and get into BIG trouble - maybe.
Because? They're disinfo.
>
> >That they did this on ORDERS from the
> >CULT OF COS - is a fact proven by Gilmore's email and other emails we
> >have that he wrote.
>
> What the hell are you talking about? None of this has anything to do
with me?
oh, I thought I saw you on that thread.
>
> >The TOS didn't out Lupo.
>
> I never claimed they did. I already had a fairly complete file on
Lupo long
> before this whole mess fell out of the sky.
>
> Lupo's not the only hunter here.
>
> >And there's
> >no way in hell that Scratch is/was the abuse victim of a woman.
>
> Have you met him, to say this? Have you met her?
>
> People present themselves differently online. This much is a known
fact.
>
> >I would believe
> >100%, due to the hateful violent shit he wrote me simply because I
> >defended the "DARK FORCE" that HE tortured Don Webb's wife.
>
> Are you honestly asserting that "violent writing" (whatever that's
supposed to
> mean), equals a history of perpetrating spousal abuse?
>
> Maybe he just doesn't like you.
Had nothing to do with that.
Chow down. Drink up. HAPPY NEW YEAR!
TJ, er, TD LYSENKO of the SUPREME SOVIET. I fuckin love it.
>
> _____________________________________
> "Trauma is the engine of Initiation" - Lud
>
> "You are a sickening, twisted THING - NOT a person, NOT HUMAN!"--
Metadromos
>
> "You MONSTER! DIE! DIE!" -- Mina Pell
>
> Ludvig Prinn
> Worker of Miracles
> http://embark.to/Ludvig
>
--
IX Corp
SVsite <tanija...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >Lupo uses his government job to hide behind, he
>> >gathers info about people, and people that have done business with
>> >people, and he stirs up trouble.
>>
>> Any good hunter does the same. You may wish to discover first why he
>hunted
>> you.
>
>Because 15 year old kids in the white devil gang trashed him, and he
>thought it was ME.
No, Brother Lupo posted that because you posted his personal information.
It's a really simple equation.
While I'm at it, have another drink. Mmmmmmm. Vodka.
-Lupo
"We must free ourselves from the prison of public education and politics."
-Epicurus, 300B.C.E. <i...@pentagon.io.com>
SVsite
That was REALLY you? It doesn't look like the picture on your website
at all. OH. SO! that's where you work? HAAAAAAAAAAA!
In article <f7z36.150649$IP1.5...@news1.giganews.com>,
i...@fnord.io.com (IX Corp) wrote:
>
> No, Brother Lupo posted that because you posted his personal
information.
> It's a really simple equation.
>
> While I'm at it, have another drink. Mmmmmmm. Vodka.
>
> -Lupo
> "We must free ourselves from the prison of public education and
politics."
> -Epicurus, 300B.C.E.
<i...@pentagon.io.com>
>
>
--
- wolf -
> Where did we meet? Were you too chicken to say hi?
>
> There was someone looking rather like you at Michael Moynihan's book
> signing at the Covered Wagon. I didn't introduce myself to you for reasons
> which should be obvious. Incidentally, while we're confessing, I always
> assumed you stirred up the knuckleheads at CHUD which adorned his
> concert. Right or wrong?
I don't remember the name of the place, but I do recall being at such a book
signing. What were those "obvious" reasons, Lupo, beyond my suggestion
above?
Also, what is the CHUD? I didn't stir up anyone, so even if you did see me
(assuming we're talking about a concert we both attended), apparently you
saw someone else that you thought was me. So, to answer that question:
you're wrong.
- wolf -
Mr. Scratch
Ah, Tani my dear. Well, I'm not going to get into another long-standing
argument with you...you got one thing right last time we did this: it was
a huge waste of valuable time for me. However, there are a few things I
want to correct here, just for the sake of accuracy.
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, SVsite wrote:
> As for anyone being the victim of husband abuse - BS!
[...]
> Scratch started it by bringing up his SICK S and M
> practices and bragging about his arsenal of guns in threatening tones.
Just a note; if you'll recall, I've already told you, S&M isn't my bag.
I know you hate to hear this because you have this whole theory built up
around klippoths and S&M, but the truth is, I'm pretty vanilla in the
sack. What really gets me off is a chick who's all hot and bothered, and
wants it now; the whole gig about having someone in handcuffs and being
spanked, like they're being forced, is kind of a mild turn-off. Besides,
I don't like props.
As for the guns; I keep 'em for target practice, sometimes hunting, but
mostly for sheer gadget coolnessry. The fact that they are also useful
for self-defense is a big plus, but that isn't the main reason I have 'em.
Now, if your flying monkeys don't like the possibilities of having to deal
with someone who's got guns, then they shouldn't threaten to kill that
person. It's that simple. Actually, they should thank me for doing them
the courtesy of warning them (which I did *after* their threats entered
the argument). Imagine how sad it would have been had ol' Karl Mac rolled
up on my porch with his samurai sword, having not known that the old adage
about bringing a knife to a gunfight might apply to his situation.
[...]
> And there's no way in hell that Scratch is/was the abuse victim of a
> woman. NO WAY IN HELL, just pull up his "macho" posts for proof.
Posts are not proof of anything. I know I've got a reputation as a
meanhearted skewering bastard here on a.s., at least by those who've
elected to pick a fight with me, but in actual life I'm pretty laid back,
even quiet. Now, it's true I have no qualms about physical altercations
involving aggressive strangers, but I don't hit my good friends or people
I love, no matter what they do.
Besides, in the years following my situation, I've discovered that the
"macho" qualities of a man don't even apply when he is the focus of acts
of domestic violence. A good example is my friend and former employer,
JD. JD runs a concert-security/bar-bouncer company, employing some pretty
rough characters. JD himself is about 6'2", and I've seen him pick up a
guy nearly my size, and hurl him through the air with his arms and legs
flying. Compared to this guy, "macho" I am not.
Nonetheless,the girlfriend he had before he got hitched was a positive
violence freak, and would not only punch him in the face on regular
occasions, but one night broke a ceramic lamp over his face while he
slept. JD never did anything about it, but patch up the wounds with
bandages if they were serious. He stuck with her, though, until the day
she smashed her car through his living room.
If this guy can be the target of this sort of abuse, you can rest assured
that I can.
> Then again.......
>
> If the woman pulled a gun on him, she'd be in jail.
Only if someone told the cops. Think I'd call the cops to get her locked
up? They only keep 'em in overnight y'know, and then she'd be home again,
worse than ever. Ferget it. I'd rather go to jail myself.
> NM.
Mr. Scratch
SVsite
on paper, was told they were posts from the internet. And well? In
pen, on the side, was written "who is talking" on there. I read some
of it - not much of it. My arms, back then, were in such a state that
turning pages hurt. So. What the WD gang wrote and responded to I saw
none of. So whoever you wrote to - well? I never even saw it. When I
finally saw print outs so bad that the jaw fell off, I went to the
Feds. Outed everyone, of course including myself. And? It stopped.
If you didn't write that - then fine. OK. I have no way to prove it.
I saw Aquino and Lilith slandering the shit out of me in printed out
pieces of paper. Disinfo News asked me about this - they remember the
WD gang flame war. Aquino has no clue what I'm even talking about. So
then, he didn't post it. OK.
In article <Pine.GSU.4.21.010101...@garcia.efn.org>,
"Mr. Scratch" <scr...@efn.org> wrote:
>
> Ah, Tani my dear. Well, I'm not going to get into another long-
standing
> argument with you...you got one thing right last time we did this: it
was
> a huge waste of valuable time for me. However, there are a few
things I
> want to correct here, just for the sake of accuracy.
Well, you got into it with the WD gang. Not with me. Long standing
argument with a bunch of people - whose posts, and what they were
answering, I never even saw! I wrote a few things - subject
headings "Dark Force" or "All Things" and well, it ended up posted as
an article, but it was separate answers to many things. It ended up
on Vad's website as an article. But it was in fact many answers on the
SUBJECT of "Dark Force" or "All Thing" to many people. I don't write
articles like that. I went to read them, when online, saw some stuff
up there that, oh oh, is not in my original hard copy, oh oh.
Someone's been editing eh? I tried to fix that, but it's just so
much. I saw some stuff that - I have to try to remember what the fuck
I was talking about and to whom: rust? Ah, I remember, oxidation.
These are my posts, given to a person on a disc to individually answer -
since I thought that you could "dial up and send" each portion to the
right person, like the old telex. Those were posted by Peggy for me -
and obviously edited a tad... like in Neter. There are no flames in
my hard copy. But I found flames in the one on Vad's. I showed
disinfo news this, since they did ask.
>
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, SVsite wrote:
>
> > As for anyone being the victim of husband abuse - BS!
>
> [...]
>
> > Scratch started it by bringing up his SICK S and M
> > practices and bragging about his arsenal of guns in threatening
tones.
> Just a note; if you'll recall, I've already told you, S&M isn't my
bag.
Well, um - no, you didn't tell me. You told the WD gang. I saw some
SICK SHIT in the end. You didn't write it? OK. You didn't write it.
Scratch, I have NO IDEA what you are into. I know you are married to
Kerry - NOW - on here.
> I know you hate to hear this because you have this whole theory built
up
> around klippoths and S&M,
? I do? No, I don't. I wrote something based on an article someone
outside this sphere wrote, an article in a book, but I don't think you
ever saw that - it is the ONLY thing I ever wrote on it! - but I don't
think that ever found its way on this newsgroup. I do believe that you
got into that with the WD's. You DO realize they were a gang of inner
city kids? They own up to all of it, btw.
but the truth is, I'm pretty vanilla in the
> sack. What really gets me off is a chick who's all hot and bothered,
and
> wants it now; the whole gig about having someone in handcuffs and
being
> spanked, like they're being forced, is kind of a mild turn-off.
Besides,
> I don't like props.
That's nice. I'm glad you have a happy marriage, too. If you didn't
write that stuff, then fine. I have NO WAY to prove you did - no
headers - I didn't even know what a header was back then.
>
> As for the guns; I keep 'em for target practice, sometimes hunting,
but
> mostly for sheer gadget coolnessry. The fact that they are also
useful
> for self-defense is a big plus, but that isn't the main reason I
have 'em.
> Now, if your flying monkeys don't like the possibilities of having to
deal
> with someone who's got guns, then they shouldn't threaten to kill that
> person.
Well, I saw all that, and when I saw it I took it to the Feds. You
think I did not freak out when I saw some of those flames? I couldn't
believe it. BTW, we have the "we are the flying monkeys" website. :)
It's double over time: http://home13.inet.tele.dk/wolf/vc/
Les Masters is the KING of the flying monkeys.
It's that simple. Actually, they should thank me for doing them
> the courtesy of warning them (which I did *after* their threats
entered
> the argument). Imagine how sad it would have been had ol' Karl Mac
rolled
> up on my porch with his samurai sword, having not known that the old
adage
> about bringing a knife to a gunfight might apply to his situation.
>
> [...]
I have no clue what that's about. But it sounds funny. Hmmm. the
Minister of the Sinister with a sword? He wrote threats? I can't
believe that! NO WAY! Nah...the WD gang - yes. Saw some of it.
>
Now, it's true I have no qualms about physical altercations
> involving aggressive strangers, but I don't hit my good friends or
people
> I love, no matter what they do.
Ok. Then what I saw was a pack of lies.
>
> she smashed her car through his living room.
Somehow, that elicites a bust out laughing - but no, it's not really
funny at all.
>
> If this guy can be the target of this sort of abuse, you can rest
assured
> that I can.
>
> > Then again.......
> >
> > If the woman pulled a gun on him, she'd be in jail.
>
> Only if someone told the cops. Think I'd call the cops to get her
locked
> up? They only keep 'em in overnight y'know, and then she'd be home
again,
> worse than ever. Ferget it. I'd rather go to jail myself.
>
> > NM.
>
> Mr. Scratch
>
Take care. It's a damned shame what happened - unless that was not
your posts either. You wrote all that pro TOS stuff? I think I posted
elsewhere, they should have let it slide. But they aren't wrong to
consider your buddy dangerous. Aquino was Military Intel.
TJ
GUlLLOTlNA
had before he got hitched was a positive violence freak, and would not only
punch him in the face on regular occasions, but one night broke a ceramic lamp
over his face while he slept. JD never did anything about it, but patch up the
wounds with
bandages if they were serious. He stuck with her, though, until the day she
smashed her car through his living room.>>
WHAT are you serious!? LOL......you guys need to find some -new women-,
wherever it is you live. Yikes!
>They only keep 'em in overnight y'know, and then she'd be home again, worse
than ever. >>
Should have used those guns in self-defense, I say.
L.
IX Corp
>news:PIc36.145654$IP1.4...@news1.giganews.com...
>> Where did we meet? Were you too chicken to say hi?
>>
>> There was someone looking rather like you at Michael Moynihan's book
>> signing at the Covered Wagon. I didn't introduce myself to you for reasons
>> which should be obvious. Incidentally, while we're confessing, I always
>> assumed you stirred up the knuckleheads at CHUD which adorned his
>> concert. Right or wrong?
>
>I don't remember the name of the place, but I do recall being at such a book
>signing. What were those "obvious" reasons, Lupo, beyond my suggestion
>above?
Well, fact of the matter is, beyond being somewhat annoying, you ain't
very interesting, dude. I introduced myself and my date to Michael and
Annabel and left to do something more worthwhile. I would have liked to
hang out with them some more, but I had other plans.
Don't flatter yourself with delusions of scariness. You're kinda shrimpy
lookin' if you ask me.
-Lupo
"As for Gary Bauer -- good heavens, what a walking embryo! It's no wonder
he has so fanatical a preoccupation with the unborn." -Camile Paglia
<i...@fnord.io.com>
SVsite
a lot of black guys.
In article <GIl76.215792$DG3.5...@news2.giganews.com>,
--
Jacqueline Davis
>Don't know who you saw, but Ole is kinda tall and athletic built. Like
>a lot of black guys.
>
According to the pic and description that Ole himself put on his website, he is
not -at all- tall, and most certainly isn't black.
As for an athletic build? I have no idea, but his picture on his website does
suggest so.
--JD
IX Corp
Jacqueline Davis <jacque...@aol.com> wrote:
>Ms Jantsang wrote:
>
>>Don't know who you saw, but Ole is kinda tall and athletic built. Like
>>a lot of black guys.
>>
>
>According to the pic and description that Ole himself put on his website, he is
>not -at all- tall, and most certainly isn't black.
Ole Wolf is pretty short for a Dane. Actually, Ole Wolf is pretty short
for a chinaman.
Not that I am one to talk: my (Danish, coincidentally) date was taller
than both Ole Wolf and my own self.
>As for an athletic build? I have no idea, but his picture on his website does
>suggest so.
Well, he wasn't heavy. I suppose he could have been concealing a rippley
Bruce-Lee physique as he slouched against the pole in the middle of the
room and scowled at passers by, but it doesn't seem likely. I'd seen him
at some other local function as well, but I forget where.
In any case, I still figure it was him and his ilk who have sic-ed the
numskulls at the SPLC and CHUD on Mr. Moynihan. Oh well, it seems to have
been good for his career in any case.
-Lupo
"je fermai les yeaux, comme un homme ivre, à la pensée d'avoir un tel
etre pour enemi, et je repris, avec tristesse, mon chemin, à travers les
dédales des rues." -Lautreamont <i...@fnord.io.com>
Daimonic
> In any case, I still figure it was him and his ilk who have sic-ed the
> numskulls at the SPLC and CHUD on Mr. Moynihan. Oh well, it seems to have
> been good for his career in any case.
What happened with this? U mean CHUD that
housing shit in SF?
Jason Yuschenko
(I never met Wolf and co. or Moynihan in Cali)
IX Corp
Daimonic <j...@kobzari-tchortovoi.org> wrote:
>
>> In any case, I still figure it was him and his ilk who have sic-ed the
>> numskulls at the SPLC and CHUD on Mr. Moynihan. Oh well, it seems to have
>> been good for his career in any case.
>
>
>What happened with this? U mean CHUD that
>housing shit in SF?
"Coalition for HUman Dignity."
As with most antifascists, the cure is worse than the alleged disease.
They shut down Michael's concert in San Francisco and (I think) Seattle.
SPLC has published something written by one of these ninnies tarring Mr.
Moynihan as one of the most dangerous fascists in the country. Patently
absurd, of course. The real fascists today are well funded fuzzy-hat
wearing scuzzbuckets like CHUD using strong arm tactics to silence artists
whose perceived message they do not approve of.
>(I never met Wolf and co. or Moynihan in Cali)
Only met him briefly & online. Clever fellow. Annabel's a fantastic
violinist as well, from what I've heard of her work in Amber Asylum.
I was really pissed I couldn't hear the live performance.
SVsite
Is this like the guy what swears Phil was in his unit in Viet Nam? Oh
dear. Nope. Not Phil.
In article <cWI76.18408$n5.3...@news6.giganews.com>,
--
.
> He told you, he doesn't even know what CHUD is. Heh, neither did I.
> Is this like the guy what swears Phil was in his unit in Viet Nam? Oh
> dear. Nope. Not Phil.
Because phil never lies, right? Phil is not a charlatan, right? Phil's
research is more valid than everyone elses because...umm...
because...
Well theres got to be SOME reason you believe everything he says. Are you
in love or something?
-----.
Daimonic
> In article <t5tepj6...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Daimonic <j...@kobzari-tchortovoi.org> wrote:
> >
> >> In any case, I still figure it was him and his ilk who have sic-ed the
> >> numskulls at the SPLC and CHUD on Mr. Moynihan. Oh well, it seems to
have
> >> been good for his career in any case.
> >
> >
> >What happened with this? U mean CHUD that
> >housing shit in SF?
>
> "Coalition for HUman Dignity."
> As with most antifascists, the cure is worse than the alleged disease.
> They shut down Michael's concert in San Francisco and (I think) Seattle.
> SPLC has published something written by one of these ninnies tarring Mr.
> Moynihan as one of the most dangerous fascists in the country. Patently
> absurd, of course. The real fascists today are well funded fuzzy-hat
> wearing scuzzbuckets like CHUD using strong arm tactics to silence artists
> whose perceived message they do not approve of.
I could go on for hours about "antifascists". The only
thing worse then a (quasi legal) bully is a self-righteous one. Ironic, how
we piss away our freedoms out here
in "fights" to "save" em.
Jason Yuschenko
Daimonic
Phil is her husband.
How'd u 2 get on this thread?
ah well, Not much more to say on west coast
"antifascists" I suppose.
Regards
Jason Yuschenko
Daimonic
He never accused me of anything in the first place.
I asked mostly because we have a common experience
of Cali and bullshit that is almost unique to here.
He said he had a "sense" Wolf had a beef with
Moynihan, I wasn't even asking about that. I'm
not a "fan" of Moynihan, but it pisses me off that
an "antifascist" element interferes with ppls' performances
out here if they find them offensive.
They become that which they hate by doing so. And
they will label anyone as "fascist" who does not follow
almost a prescribed "politically correct" formula.
Jason Yuschenko
.
SVsite
notion and true statement that we must MURDER ALL that would deprive us
of our peace. Yup. Either that, or lose the peace. I'm a tad tired
of those that, in the name of peace, have let fascists arise. But
then, I'm biased being a godless Bolshie and all, lmao. I'd murder all
the priests - and forever rid the earth of religion. I'd weed out via
eugenics all those who, and blah blah blah, ya know. Hehehehehe.
And if a person would come to murder me, I'd murder him/her first.
And? You can't argue it, it's circular. In murdering the murderer,
you become a murderer. So what.
Yawn. 20,000,000 dead people is a statistic. One dead person is a
tragedy.
TJ
That's POOK? MY POOK? OH, I should have bothered to ask him about his
stint into Freemasonry. But I forgot. Didn't go too well, eh? NM I
posted this on your message. IDGAF if he sees it.
In article <t5vfk01...@corp.supernews.com>,
--
Daimonic
nothing to do with the actual movement of fascism.
I'd shoot one of both if they were on my property.
You'd have to see this to believe it, it's crazy.
LOL change subject, I'm gonna be down there soon.
Jason Yuschenko