Path: ultra.sonic.net!news From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nocTifer) Newsgroups: alt.satanism,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.culture.usenet,alt.usenet.newbies,alt.culture.internet Subject: Satanism and Reliable Information (was Dr. Aquino and "Satanist Terror") Date: 20 Jan 1999 10:38:54 -0800 Organization: Sonoma Interconnect,Santa Rosa,CA(us),http://www.sonic.net Lines: 137 Message-ID: <7857ru$cp9@bolt.sonic.net> References: <7808uu$1qh$1@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net> <19990118185826.24966.00005866@ngol03.aol.com> Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com NNTP-Posting-Host: bolt.sonic.net X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV) Xref: ultra.sonic.net alt.satanism:105888 alt.magick.tyagi:15471 alt.culture.usenet:46267 alt.culture.internet:35383 49990120 IIIom Hail Satan! "belial" : #> I don't think a FAQ should get too worked up putting #> warnings everywhere about what the author considers #> wrong with various groups, a FAQ is a impartial document, #> [if] it fails to be impartial, it should be called a Biased Answer #> Sheet for Common Questions. most files on esoteric material called "FAQ" are exactly that -- biased answer sheets for common questions. sometimes they don't even bother to stick to the common questions, instead becoming a propagandizing tract. xeper@aol.com (Xeper/Michael Aquino): # Realistically I think this depends upon the topic of the FAQ. # If it's on how to grow daisies or build ship models, it can # obviously be pretty casual. If it deals with something in which # an uninformed, trusting individual might come to harm, for # example parachuting or scuba diving, then it should contain # appropriate warning statements. that makes some sense. information files on cults should contain warnings that the organizations about which the file is concerned may be dangerous to the health of those who choose to follow up on the trail of the researcher. my partner has recently argued that it would be responsible to include such a warning when presenting the material in the TOKUS Archive, and I have decided that she is correct. # "Satanism" is a hot potato topic, referring to persons and # activities over a wide range, from the ethical & legitimate # to the potentially harmful & psychotic. It is also a topic which # is very much "forbidden fruit" attractive to young people. # So yes, I think any FAQ on the subject, appearing in a # forum like Usenet where persons of any age may read it, # should be extremely carefully worded and cautionary. do you think that the various FAQs that I posted recently (inclusive of your own) qualify? if some don't, which? #> Also, I presume from your comment regarding cautionary #> information that you would have had no objections to Lupo #> presenting your own involvement/accusations of pedophilia #> within his FAQ, because, after all it would have served as a #> cautionary note about the Temple of Set at the time #> (involvement with the organisation would tar members #> with your brush). does it relate to the subject of Satanism in any real way? # If Locklin had had any doubts concerning my integrity # re the Presidio scam or anything else, he would have been # well within his right to ask me about same, and similarly # to examine Temple of Set policies to see if they contained # anything sinister in that regard. [Whenever persons ask me, # I forward my summary of that episode to them, which they # are then welcome to verify independently as desired.] # As for the Temple of Set, a glance at the Information # Letter it sends to all interested persons (available on its # webpage: www.xeper.org) evidences that the Temple is # already cautionary about persons approaching it for the # wrong reasons. And it similarly rules out any involvement # or membership by minors. I have formed few opinions on the specific matter of your Presidio involvement, though I have reviewed many documents that have passed through alt.satanism and a few offline. it appears to me that, from what I have experienced myself and what has been described by even those who are antagonistic toward you who have a shred of integrity (I don't class the person "Curio" amongst these, naturally, based on my brief but revelatory interaction with hir), the ToS-SRA connection is as plausible as any other Satanic Panic scare fallout in which people in Setian/Satanist organizations happen to get caught in the media-slam with other innocents. this type of information does not deserve to be emphasized in articles or files dealing with the REALITIES of Satanism except as supplemental information (noting generalities) concerning the relationship between the SRA witchhunting subculture and the developing Satanist subculture. this includes the impact that it has upon the lives of those who get smeared or called into question upon being considered suspect of fictitious crimes by often paranoid and sometimes malicious individuals who predominantly take refuge in the bosom of fundamentalist Christian political organizations. resolving such a brief note with data concerning the ACTUAL facts as discovered by responsible governmental and journalistic agents would be the proper presentation for those who were in any way concerned with the overlap (and could be included in a single response to a question like "What is the difference between 'Satanic Ritual Abuse' and modern Satanism?"). #> somehow I suspect you would have insisted on #> cautionary information about every other group #> except your own. # As discussed above, not, I would not exclude the Temple # of Set *if* a warning of any sort were deserved. I frankly # think it is not, because if anything the Temple has been # hypersensitive to ethics during its lifetime.... # I believe I did mention elsewhere that many of the design # features of the National Eagle Scout Honor Society # found their way into the original Church of Satan (much # to Anton & Diane's mock-horror), as well as into the # Temple of Set. Is this a great country or what? the problem is that usually organizational bias creeps in to rivalrous subcultures, and it takes a peculiar neutrality to respectfully combine descriptions of a number without giving undue attention or unfair criticism to certain factions based upon the preferences of the writer. for this reason there are many instances where anthropologists or journalists who have little or no connection (or motivation to skew the data one way or another amongst the rivals, even if they have some *other* bias ;>) make the most reliable sources in an analysis of the field. those who are really interested in the whole subject will grab all the propaganda too and gradually sift the wheat from the chaff. blessed beast! nocTifer -- tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (emailed replies may be posted); cc me replies; http://www.abyss.com/tokus; http://www.luckymojo.com/mojocatSPELLS.html