The first degree of Satanism is the belief that there is no God. This disguise of the true purpose aim and origin serves extremely well to camouflage the real nature of Satanism. It goes without saying that few people would willingly enroll in a club which openly admitted that it served a demonic hierarchy which had been present on Earth since the very beginning of human history and was dedicated to the destruction of mankind by trapping him with his own sins. Instead Satanism is marketing as being an ironic statement rejection of religion and all the attendant evils which the dogmatic institution of the church has no doubt been behind. In fact it goes on further than merely being a rejection of Churchianity but stretched to a rejection of all forms of what it considers, ‘harmful superstition’ superstitions which have doubtless held back humanity to the dim shadows of the cave before the guiding light of illuminating science and master of the material world revealed itself.
Dr Alfred Kinsey, an ethnic Jew, who was well known as being responsible for the Western sexual revolution, was a paedophile pervert who would sexually stimulate infants to observe their sexual response. Alfred Kinsey was an atheist, which makes sense when you consider he spent his life sexually molesting children, that probably wouldn’t sit comfortably with the idea that there is a God or a part of the cosmos which is observing your actions and will hold you accountable. I suspect this is the case with a lot of atheists. They simply live immoral, evil or selfish lives, or have something within them which will not suffer the idea of being observed or judged by any eye but their own, a dirty secret perhaps, the wish to hide and remain in shadow. And so they deny the existence of God because the idea would put a crimp on their lifestyle choices.
The promotion of perverts and paedophiles in the media fits in with the Godless agenda, and Hollywood seethes with paedophile movie directors and secret cliques of self-empowered cliques of celebrities who banish superstition and God and molest children and take drugs in orgies.
The film Kinsey 2004 directed by openly gay paedophile apologist Bill Condon who also directed the two Twilight Saga films. Liam Neeson played Alfred Kinsey in the film which tries to show Kinsey as champion of female emancipation by showing that women have strong sexual desires and responses just as men do. It is a deeply distasteful example of Hollywood taking a paedophile pervert and rebadging him as some kind of great hero of mankind but this is all in a day’s work for the perverts at Hollywood, it’s in their interests to work day and night to ensure that they do all they can to rehabilitating the reputations of fellow perverts lest the day comes when someone knocks on their door investigating them for child sex offenses, and to show anyone who would seek modesty and restraint, as ranting hateful extremists like the character of Kinsey’s father in the film, who was a devout Christian, is shown as a hateful angry foil to Liam Neeson’s charming and empowering Kinsey.
The outer portico of Satanism, as expressed in the Satanic Bible, is all about having a good time, being accountable only to oneself, and consider organized religion with Christianity in particular, to be an oppressive force which wishes to curtail and impose limits on human expression.
Anton’s La Vey’s Satanic Bible is an atheistic document mired in despair and the threat of violence in the form of either justified revenge on someone, or the tolerance of sado-masochistic pleasure, as long as its consensual. Consent however is not the law and the law was made specifically to protect people from decisions which endangered them or from being exploited. A child for instance could easily surrender their consent to a paedophile since they are not informed enough to make a decision which would protect their own safety. A child could be induced with sweets, or even threatened, in order to give their consent. One expects within La Vey’s Satanic Bible that this would stand as a perfectly valid social transaction.
What one also notices about the Satanic Bible is that the enemies of Satanists are Christians, or more specifically that the enemies of Christians are Satanists. Christianity seems to be the sole preoccupation of the Satanic Bible, it has no philosophy or moral guidance of its own except that it opposes Christianity and every word in the Christian Bible is turned upside and down and deliberately contradicted.
In fact Anton La Vey contradicts himself and fundamentally cannot sustain any logical approach. On the one hand he advocates the destruction of moral codes, but on the other hand he criticizes the church and its members for their hypocrisy in breaking the moral codes they claim to uphold.
Anton La Vey was Jewish and the Bible is a Christian book. The Old Testament and the Pentateuch are no longer central to Judaism since the oral tradition of the Talmud has superseded it in authority. The Satanic Bible is a specifically anti-Christian book written by a Jew. It is a piece of propaganda designed to destabilize Christian morality and the Western world itself and as ridiculous as it is, it has been hugely successful.
Anton La Vey and the Satanic Bible, along with the OTO and Aleister Crowley, have been successfully and subtly marketed as icons of counter-culture. This approach results in great success in recruiting young people whose hearts are probably in the right place, but whose minds sadly have been mislaid somewhere. The deviousness about Satanism is that it claims to be a humanitarian religion, and vaunts itself as the only true religion whose ultimate authority and divine representative is man himself, since neither God, the angels or Satan himself really exist.
Satan itself, is merely a symbolic figurehead for the act of open rebellion against superstition and religious tyranny. The OTO works on a similar principle, except with much more focus on self fulfilment and hedonistic excess. In both organizations, in the early days of membership there is little or no suspicion that anything is being kept from the initiate, except that things soon start to occur in the initiate’s life, which, without anything being made explicit, will rapidly give them a new understanding, or at least, a three-quarters formed suspicion that things are not all they seem.
In his ‘lecture’ on The Principle of Satan in Thelema, Crowleytard Joshua Adam Sharp examines the meaning of Satan, and immediately launches into the spiel that Satan has been misrepresented by Christianity. This is somewhat ridiculous since Christianity and the Old Testament are the earliest sources of Satan, even the Talmud which Sharp uses as a support for his thesis, is much more recent than the Pentateuch. These Satanists and OTO Crowleyites often seem to have that same sharp and self righteous ranty way of speaking. This gentleman and another Crowleyite Mark Passio, exhibit this tone. They seem only one or two degrees away from shouting or abusing their audience.
Crowley discusses the Talmud and claims the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus was drawn from the Talmud, but the Talmud has no historical existence at this point, except perhaps as some unwritten oral tradition which is what is claimed of the Talmud in any case. Decorated British Major General, supporter of fascism and former disciple of Crowley JFC Fuller lists The Talmud as one of Crowley’s sources in his book Secret Wisdom of the Kabbalah. Joshua Sharp therefore turns to the Kabballah as his source. The Talmudic idea of Satan is that he is The Accuser of mankind, this fits in with the story of Job, that Satan is still an angel of heaven and that his work is to test humanity in order that God may punish and send to hell those that transgress his laws.
Now this is not a Christian view, this is a Judaic view. The God of hellfire and punishment is the Old Testament God from the Jewish tradition. The God of the Christians is the God which Jesus introduced mankind to, perhaps for the first time. A benign, all forgiving and loving God. A God which reaches out to sinners by sending his only son to save them from their own sin. It is not God which punishes man, it is sin which punishes man. Cause and effect. The mind of man remains in life and death, in order to retain individuality in death then one will take whatever is inside you with you. If one is full of evil, pain, resentment and guilt, then one will take this with you into death, unless your sin is expiated by turning to Jesus. As Jesus said: “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be white as snow.”
Anyone who would take the Talmud as a source for the theology and morality of their new religion, which is what Crowley in fact created, is creating a religion where murder, the sexual abuse of infants, and criminality of all kinds, are all tolerated. The Talmud is what I consider, the birth place of modern Western Satanism and the Occult movement which infected Europe with the return from Palestine of the Knights Templar, through to the incubation of the secret societies which emerged into the public eye in the 17th century and from that point on became the driving force of human civilization in the West and later, with colonization, of the whole world as we know it.
Crowley equates Satan with the Sun. For Crowley the Sun is what the Christians call Satan. This is an unfortunate misunderstanding. I believe Crowley’s reasoning is that because the Egyptian word for the Sun God is On, and that the letter O in Hebrew is called Ain meaning EYE and N in Hebrew is Nacash or ‘Snake’ and the word used for Satan in the Garden of Eden. that whenever there is a reference. We can see this misrepresentation in the Freemasonic symbolism of the Eye in the sun which is their representation for God. This might seem like tautological reasoning, and it may well be, however these symbols of O’s and eyes, and snakes are part of the secret hidden code which has always existed unsuspected by most, in the very letters and symbols of writing themselves.
Lon Milo Duquette, who is also known as Rabbi Lamed Ben Clifford and is apparently an actual Jewish Rabbi, also styles himself as a Kabbalah Cult leader Zerubabbel Institute of Philosophical Youth and there is a picture of him with a bunch of children dressed like Harry Potter witches. Looks like a paedophile ring waiting to be busted if you ask me but this man is clearly and proudly showing the link between Kabbalah and what would develop into witchcraft and its acceptance within the skein of modern Jewry, despite of course the Old Testament warning to ‘Not to suffer a witch to live.’ I am no advocate of burning witches but I’m pretty sure that in all those mediaeval tales of wicked witches eating children there is no smoke without fire.
Those that call themselves Jews are secretly Canaanite Phoenicians who infiltrated Judaism in the classical period. The Phoenicians practiced rites of child sacrifice and Phoenician is where we get our word Purple from, and is the origin of Royal Purple. The Purple relates to the purple urine of the Canaanite Phoenician Vampire bloodline which secretly rules the word. This story goes beyond the word Jews. Judaism is a smokescreen for something far worse which the Talmud hints about.
The world is falling into deliberately engineered chaos and sometimes it almost takes me with it. Everyday I check the news and immediately the chaos and evil enters my world. I check on the conspiracy forums and websites and the sheer force of evil and injustice assails me. Everything in the media seems to be sullied and connected in some way to this engineered chaos and evil.
For instance I did a simple internet search to see what satirist Chris Morris was up to because I used to like some of his work. This man was known for his TV shows and works of satire, in particular an episode of his TV show Brass Eye entitled ‘Paedo-geddon’ which seemed to be mocking the victims of paedophilia and making out that media fears were exaggerated and unfounded. At the time it didn’t really register as untoward but with retrospect it seems perhaps that something sinister was going on, and perhaps Morris was working as a media gate-keeper to some extent. I was interested to find that he attended Stonyhurst Jesuit public school in Lancashire. I wondered about this institution which so many famous alumni had also attended including JRR Tolkien.
I discovered that the headmaster of one of the prep schools which serve as feeder schools for Stonyhurst, Rory O’Brien was convicted in January 2000 on countless acts of child abuse who at the time was labelled ‘a serial abuser’ at Preston Crown Court. O’Brien who was suspended by the school and given early retirement was sentenced to three years in prison and it is said he would wake the students up in the middle of the night by shining a torch in their eyes.
However in May 2000 he was released on a technicality and had called on what appeared to be a whole pressure group of well-connected people to secure his release.
Amongst people called to his defence was a former mayor and Brendan O’Friel past governor at Strangeways prison during the time of the prison riots in the 90’s, which is oddly appropriate since he was defending a man with very strange-ways with children. John Travis, who was also a former headteacher said ‘I find it impossible to see how in any circumstances the allegations made could have any truth in them.’
The record of his offenses being quashed has only been recorded by the website freelibrary.com and no other record of this, or the original source which appeared in the Birmingham Post & Mail, is available.
Apparently ‘supporters of the former head packed the courtroom burst into applause when Lord Justice Rose quashed the convictions. The defence’s case was that the allegations ‘emanated from a desire for revenge’. Lawyers acting for ‘O’Brien also said they would be pushing for compensation.’
Mr Justice Christopher Rose, Mr Justice Klevan and Mr Justice Jackson were the judges which presided over the acquittal.
Christopher Rose is a member of the privy council and was a critic of the 2003 Sex offences act which protected children from abuse by adults, he was also appointed Chief Surveillance Commissioner, which he held until 2015.
Justice Klevan who died in 2001, had also been briefed to defend Fred and Rosemary West and one wonders if, had they not committed suicide, would Klevan have managed to get them off? Klevan received a knighthood in 1998.
The High court judges refused a retrial on the grounds that it would be ‘oppressive’ for Mr O’Brien. So an alleged perpetrator of acts of sexual molestation against innocent children, has now become a victim?
To a lesser degree the same thing happened in 1998 when a Roman Catholic priest who was a maths teacher at Stonyhurst College was sentenced to five years in prison had his sentence reduced to three years.
I suspect this is the standard pattern for high profile or protected paedophiles, the machinery of the secret state unleashes its army of Queen’s Counsellors and paedos with Knighthoods, gallantly rushing down upon those who would dare tarnish the reputation of their betters whose unnatural abuses against children seem to some kind of feudal ‘droit de seigneur’ for the British elite.
In the closing paragraph of the article Rory O’Brien said, “These last 18 months have been horrific for me but I have come through thanks to the love and prayers of my family and friends.” Well isn’t that a lovely end to this story. A happy ending for a predatory paedophile. What a fine country fit for heroes this is!
The television humourist and film maker Chris Morris was a student at Saint Mary’s during a period in which these offenses occurred and was requested to make a statement but he refused. Perhaps he felt this wouldn’t be in keeping with his television work since his Paedo-geddon episode of Brass Eye clearly sought to depict public concerns about paedophilia as hysterical.
It seems to me that Chris Morris may have a reputation as a satirist and enemy of the establishment but the contrary seems to be the case, indeed that on the one hand he sought to trivialize and ridicule child sexual abuse and also when given a concrete opportunity to actually make a witness statement which might have actually brought justice to those sexual deviant Jesuits preying on small children, he chose not to.
One of his former classmates commented:
“It is inexplicable how Chris Morris could turn a blind eye by refusing to condemn what went on, and then go on to laugh at the most emotive subject he could find when he knows first-hand the trauma it causes.”
Could it be that despite his appearance of ‘anti-establishment’ old Chris Morris is just one of the boys? And that his Brass Eye programme and the ‘Paedogeddon’ episode in 2001 was specifically devised as a means of discrediting criminal investigations into paedophilia taking place at that very time with operation Whiting? The episode was initially planned to be broadcast on 5th July 2001 but the air date would have coincided with the disappearance and murder of Danielle Jones, a 15 year old who was murdered by Stuart James Campbell, a man with a history of indecency assaulting underage children. Yeah Chris, so what were you saying about media hysteria again?
Strangely Chris Morris seems to have had an extraordinary ability to reel in some of the highest profile names in media and politics and one wonder if this, like Robert O’Brien, the former headmaster cleared of sexual assault, he has the same instant reach to all levels of the establishment and can call in any number of highly placed people to intercede for his cause.
The media backlash to the show was immense and some 3,000 people phoned-in to complain about the show. In this instance the press were perfectly correct and perhaps they realized what Morris was inadvertently doing.
The unfortunately named Ros Coward of The Guardian, in its previous lifetime as a voice of reason, before the dark times of the present day when the raving looney left has emerged from its incubation pod, said:
“What’s so dishonest about Channel 4’s defence of Brass Eye as a satire of a media forms is the implication that they (and the liberal left in general) have a better truth than the tabloids. They don’t.”
The episode seems to have been made in response to the ‘moral panic’ surrounding the Sarah Payne case of an eight year old being raped and murdered.
On 6th February 2001 Ron Whiting was charged with the murder of Sarah Payne and paintings made by Sarah indicate that she has been present in a Masonic lodge at some point since she draws a picture of a man standing between two pillars, wearing some kind of apron while standing on a black and white chequerboard floor.
Is this some connection to the Jesuits themselves? Is this possibly some kind of indication of their place within the Illuminati Satanic family?
Well done Brother Chris. You paid your dues.
Similarly from a period just prior to the overturned conviction of Mr Rory O’Brien comes a rather revolting article in The Spectator by Simon Caldwell in which he goes at great lengths to protest the innocence of several Jesuit priests who had been investigated by Operation Whiting which took place in 1999, the biggest ever investigation conducted into a Catholic institution in the UK. Operation Whiting? And then in 2001 a man named Ron Whiting apparently murdered a young girl in some kind of Masonically connected murder? Isn’t that something of a creepy coincidence? I no longer believe in coincidences so I have to assume there is some strange and malevolent Masonic symbolism at work.
Father George Earl a former head of Saint Mary’s along with another former head Raymond Turner, and a priest Father John Pearson were all charged with acts of gross indecency on a male under 14 and a girl of 9 years old.
The Spectator claims these charges of sexual abuse are motivated by ‘trawling’ or ‘begging bowl’ operations’, and ends with words which I daresay, future generations will view in quite the opposite manner to these imagined by paedophile apologist, Simon Caldwell:
“When future generation come to write our history, the epidemic of false allegations of child abuse against priests, teachers, social workers and doctors, is likely to emerge as a great scandal.”
May I suggest that what is more likely to emerge as a great scandal is the use of media operations like The Spectator, and indeed, what appears to be the whole instrument of the law, to do its utmost to defame victims and accuse them of lying about their abuse.
It is starting to appear that the words Catholic and ‘head teacher’ are a sure signaler of paedophilia. Catholic head teacher Peter Allott was jailed in 2016 for his stash of child porn described as ‘horrific’.
But what makes Jesuits and some Catholics this way? Well, we can assume that Catholic paedophiles are just like any paedophile in that they themselves were sexually abused at some point in their childhood. The psychology of how this repeating process works is a difficult area. Many homosexual men likewise reported sexual abuse at an early age and one can immediately state as self-evident that anyone who is an abuser of male children is automatically homosexual as well as being a paedophile of course. Incidents of child abuse involving men and minors statistically lean very heavily towards the abuse of male children, therefore we can technically include the majority of paedophile sexual abuse within the context of homosexuality.
This position becomes even clearer to me when we consider the work of homosexual lobbies themselves in trying to get the age of consent lowered. Peter Tatchell went infamously on record in 1997 in a letter to the Guardian stating that ‘several of my friends gay and straight, male and female had sex with adults from the ages of nine to thirteen. None of them feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.”
Of course, he went on to ‘clarify’ his comments on his own website, probably pursuant to an investigation by the vice squad and under legal advice, saying ‘I have never advocated the lowering of the age of consent.’ When in fact it was he who indeed succeeded in lowering the age of consent from 18 to the present 16.
According to website Whopkinsnews.com, Tatchell contrinuted to a chapter in a book entitled BOY or The Betrayal of Youth, compiled by PIE or the Paedophile Information Exchange, an organization which existed during the 70’s, likely some kind of strange fusion between Marxist subversion and 60’s ‘free love’ getting a bit carried away.
Tatchell wrote chapter 9 of the book entitled ‘Questioning ages of minority and ages of consent.’ Within the same book are chapters on incest and how to make paedophilia socially acceptable.
Several questions ought to immediately materialize in response to this. First of all why did Peter Tatchell as a child have so many friends who were having sex with adults? Did he perhaps, at an early age, move within the circle of paedophile rings? Was he, like his friends, all children or victims in common of some kind of network, the same type of which he would find himself involved in in later life. This somewhat makes me think of how Milo Yiannopoulos recounted to Joe Rogan that at the Hollywood parties he attended he would often see young children being given drugs and having sexual relations with older men. Yiannopoulos is a gay man, proudly so, yet if he as a gay man negotiating the gay scene can find himself rubbing shoulders with the drugging and abuse of young children then how close and how unsavoury bedfellows are homosexuals with paedophiles?
The second question which Tatchell’s letter ought to inspire, focusses on the phrase, ‘None of them feel they were abused.” These comments remind me of Yiannopoulos being ‘grateful’ to the Orthodox priest who abused him and apparently taught him how to give good blowjobs. These are two examples of rationalization. To a strong ego, nobody wants to feel that one had been a victim, or been abused, so one can just redefine the abuse and call it a formative homosexual experience and this seems to be more than a recurring trend, it seems to be the operating principles of homosexuality itself.
In 2016 Milo quite inexplicably took part in a pro-Trump art installation against globalization in which he bathed in a bathtub of pig’s blood. This is a pretty strange thing to want to do. Bathing in baked-beans for charity I can just about get my head around. It is the strangeness of using blood in art and protest which immediately assails most people as strange, unpleasant and no doubt extremely unhygienic. Milo has been on record claiming that he is ethnically Jewish. Lady Gaga also seems to have a penchant for blood as does Jewish Spirit Cooking artist Marina Abromovich. Abromovich is a common Ashkenazi Jewish surname since it a Patronym for Jewish people meaning ‘of Abraham’. So we have Milo bathing in pig’s blood, Lady Gaga with her hotel bathtub full of blood and Marina Abromovich.
The Guardian has played a highly dubious role in giving paedophilia advocacy the oxygen of publicity and one might wonder why. Why is there an editorial policy at the Guardian to champion paedophilia as a kind of human rights issue? It is very disturbing and signals perhaps, the slow bursting open of the egg of Marxist socialism which was kept cool during the 80’s under the onslaught of Thatcher, the right-wing press and the shambolic state of the Labour party, only to slowly crack open during the warming political climate of the mid to late 90’s onwards when the Labour beast finally started to emerge. That beast would be no better personified that in the guise of a man like Peter Mandelsohn. A man who seems to bridge the gap and may help us solve the mystery of what lies between, or what connects the Labour party and paedophilia. It seems to me that the Labour party and the paedophilia and homosexual rights groups, are different facets of some submerged, hidden and unknown, ‘other’ organization. But what could that organization be? This is another question for another time.