Jay Dyer, What’s the Endgame for Atheists? |352|

I'm so sick of seeing this argument. Children aren't adults. It's odd that this even needs to be said these days but thats the sick society we live in. Children do not have the cognitive capacity to understand sex, much less how societal norms and expectations should or could impact their own "sexuality" or gender.

I've raised two children, and when I hear of parents letting 5, 6 and 8 year olds (sometimes 3 year olds!) determine their own gender I just cannot even believe it. As a society we are throwing out the life works of giants like Piaget and what we understand about emotional development thanks to the work of Erickson. The fact is, we live in a post fact world. Facts are meaningless. Academia has become a shadow of the quest for intellectual evolution that it set out to be.

We are a society that worships science, but denies the truths elucidated by science itself!

I think there's a difference between what I said and letting children determine their own gender? But if we're going to brainwash children into beliefs like Dyer's we can let them know it's okay if they have crushes on kids of the same gender. I had crushes on girls when I was 5 and I didn't think of it as dangerous nor did any adult I "confessed" to. There were no thoughts about having sex, at the time IIRC I was still half-convinced storks brought new babies.

If anything the problem is kooky fundamenalists like Dyer - I can't imagine what would happen if he had a child who confessed an innocent crush to a child of [the same] gender. Probably send the poor kid to some loony camp to be brainwashed via torturous anti-scientific conversion therapy or some other such nonsense.

We are saturated by false headlines in media, in which if you read the actual study, it says nothing that is asserted in the headline! But here's the rub, not only do most people not read the damn article, they don't ever read the studies cited. Even worse, the average person is ill equipped to even know how to read and understand these studies and then, they're placed behind paywalls!

If that's not evidence of blatant manipulation of the public, I don't know what is. Most people aren't aware that studies must be replicated to be validated scientifically. Most don't know that the vast majority of studies published in the past few decades have never been replicated! They see the headline and believe the headline is truth!

Agreed in part, though not sure what this has to do with my post?

For that matter, the vast majority of people have no clue who Piaget or Erickson even are, much less even the vaguest notion of child development theory. So here you have supposedly grown adults running around treating children like they're little mini adults, when that is not only wrong from a scientific viewpoint, it's incredibly morally corrupt. We fail children in the biggest way by expecting them to have the cognitive and emotional ability of a 25 year old. This is pure, unadulterated insanity!

Well I'm not convinced Piaget or Erickson are the final word on these matters. But as I pointed out if we can fill children's heads with religious nonsense like the idea they'll burn in Hell for eternity that's far more dangerous IMO than simply letting them know it's okay to have certain subjective feelings outside what religious fundamentalist will say is more than acceptable.

And don't even get me started on the issue of free speech. Free speech must be as near absolute as possible. When you silence anyone, no matter how lofty your moral standing for doing so, you inevitably silence yourself. And don't give me the slippery slope fallacy bullshit, because history has born out time after time the truth of that slippery slope.

My concern was that slippery slopes run in the other direction, starting with criminalizing "hate speech" and curtailing more and more speech.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shiva: not bad, just a little strange for an institution whose whole basis is studying and acknowledging only a material universe. The image of Shiva was also displayed on the Empire State Building as a series of images meant to bring awareness to endangered animals. Again, odd choice, but yeah, without any other context it seems like nothing.

And the show, again, without context seems like just another zombie show. I disagree, but...whatever.

Seems to me like one can make context out anything, just need someone to believe the narrative. My own "research" - which AFAICTell seems as good as that of conspiracy theorists - reveals the possibility that people like Dyer are agents of the Demiurge for example.

And finally Lucifer: I'm aware this was a comic and IIRC it's based on Lucifer being a separate entity from Satan and he's rebelling against Satan.

Actually the comic is rebelling against the idea of just kow towing to the idea that "God" has a Plan, that people should blindly follow. But, on the flip side, it shows Lucifer's own natural selfishness and vanity.

I'd recommend it for people to read, even if not especially teenagers. Might inoculate them against easy indoctrination to religious fundamentalism.

I knew these few things would be cherry picked out of everything else. Hey, it's our tendency to downplay things, especially if we think there is a possibility they could represent something foul.

But I looked up Aquino, and mentioned Alex should interview him in a subsequent post?

You might claim we are more evolved. I don't think we are. Not to romanticize people of the past, they certainly weren't saints, but I think the argument can be made that the vast majority of what is acceptable in western society today would not have been in the past. Except for perhaps the Romans, and we all know what happened to them.

IIRC the Roman Empire's fall had little to do with moral issues - I believe a disease spread by mosquitoes may have been what actually weakened it enough for Rome to fall.

Regarding the past comparatively the world seems more rational - thanks in part to secularism - and more in line with an ideal of human rights than any other time. I believer Steven Pinker wrote about this - that we live in one of the least violent, least oppressive times in history.
 
I think there's a difference between what I said and letting children determine their own gender? But if we're going to brainwash children into beliefs like Dyer's we can let them know it's okay if they have crushes on kids of the same gender. I had crushes on girls when I was 5 and I didn't think of it as dangerous nor did any adult I "confessed" to. There were no thoughts about having sex, at the time IIRC I was still half-convinced storks brought new babies.

If anything the problem is kooky fundamenalists like Dyer - I can't imagine what would happen if he had a child who confessed an innocent crush to a child of another gender. Probably send the poor kid to some loony camp to be brainwashed via torturous anti-scientific conversion therapy or some other such nonsense.



Agreed in part, though not sure what this has to do with my post?



Well I'm not convinced Piaget or Erickson are the final word on these matters. But as I pointed out if we can fill children's heads with religious nonsense like the idea they'll burn in Hell for eternity that's far more dangerous IMO than simply letting them know it's okay to have certain subjective feelings outside what religious fundamentalist will say is more than acceptable.



My concern was that slippery slopes run in the other direction, starting with criminalizing "hate speech" and curtailing more and more speech.
I agree with most of what you've said here.

But, I'm not so sure Dyer is a fundamentalist in the way you think he is. I cannot say I've ever come across any works of his saying anything like what you believe he believes, but I could be wrong.

And I will say, Dyer can certainly come off as arrogant, but I think that's just him not communicating his thoughts very well. I found often times when I think "what an arrogant ass", he then clarifies his statement and it's like "oh, ok. I see what he's trying to say". At the very least, I respect him because he is obviously well educated and seems dedicated to furthering his own education, even though "proper" schooling is over for him. I respect people who not only seek knowledge, but attempt to put that knowledge to use in a practical way in life. I also respect that he has come to his beliefs by the seeking of knowledge. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he says, but at least he attempts to come to an informed decision, and I respect that.

Lastly, I respect him because he is willing to put himself out there with a view that contradicts society at large, and is willing to not only stay strong in his beliefs, but is willing to engage in dialogue about them.

Forgive me if I've lost the plot of your post at this point. But I guess I misinterpreted what you said. However, the one problem I do have is that we as a society place the breadth of sex education in the hands of the school system. I'm ok with teaching the nuts and bolts, but sexual morality really shouldn't be the domain of the school system. We have to allow parents the right to teach their children what they think is right.

Ideally, parents would teach their children not only their own beliefs, but also that other beliefs exist and how to form a dialogue so as to come to an understanding as opposed to grandstanding. But that's an ideal, which is hardly realistic. Ultimately though, I think it's wrong how far governments have gone to control what parents can and cannot do as it concerns the welfare of their own children.

Ontario for instance just passed legislation that children can be removed from parents if the parents don't believe in the acceptance of homosexuality or transgenderism. That's just crazy to me.

There's no easy answer here. I hate the idea of a child hating themselves because they feel something that is considered morally wrong in their society. But at the same time, we shouldn't be infringing on the rights of the parents to raise their children as they see fit.

At the end of the day, I rule in favor of less government and more personal freedom. Including the right to believe homosexuality is wrong. My position has always been that one should be allowed to live their life in the way they choose, as long as it is doing no harm to others. Contrary to popular opinion, words are not violence. No one has ever been killed by an ugly thought. It's when those thoughts are put into action that it becomes a problem. Just so long as whatever distasteful view you hold is not put into action with the intent to harm, I think you have a right to those views.
 
Seems to me like one can make context out anything, just need someone to believe the narrative. My own "research" - which AFAICTell seems as good as that of conspiracy theorists - reveals the possibility that people like Dyer are agents of the Demiurge for example.



Actually the comic is rebelling against the idea of just kow towing to the idea that "God" has a Plan, that people should blindly follow. But, on the flip side, it shows Lucifer's own natural selfishness and vanity.

I'd recommend it for people to read, even if not especially teenagers. Might inoculate them against easy indoctrination to religious fundamentalism.



But I looked up Aquino, and mentioned Alex should interview him in a subsequent post?



IIRC the Roman Empire's fall had little to do with moral issues - I believe a disease spread by mosquitoes may have been what actually weakened it enough for Rome to fall.

Regarding the past comparatively the world seems more rational - thanks in part to secularism - and more in line with an ideal of human rights than any other time. I believer Steven Pinker wrote about this - that we live in one of the least violent, least oppressive times in history.


Hmmm. I dunno. The Romans started out despising the Etruscans for their decadence and loose morality, only to fall into the same mode of being before their own fall. Also, Camille Paglia has noted the same tendency for the quick and extreme loosening of morality before the fall of civilizations:

That also doesn't take into account that in a bid to "save" Rome, Augustus attempted to outlaw infidelity and essentially tried to put into law that every Roman couple have children. He went so far as to banish his own daughter Julia because of her promiscuity.

I also think that the idea that we are somehow morally superior and "more rational" is merely humans being humans. Every civilization thought they were the epitome of human evolution. I do not hold this view. We may be different from civilizations if the past, but I think that's merely a function of advanced technology as opposed to the ability for humans to think rationally. Moreover, there's a decent amount of evidence pointing to the idea that perhaps our technology isn't as advanced as we think it is.

In addition, just because a society becomes more rational, we cannot ignore the fact that something is lost when a society ignores the spiritual aspect. I think our society is heavily out of balance. I fear we have lost just as much, if not more, than we've supposedly gained.

Thats the myth of progress.
 
Last edited:
Here's what I got searching for Presidio Satanic Abuse:

A book on Amazon entitled Extreme Prejudice: The Presidio "Satanic Abuse" Scam.

Here's a summary from another site:

Lt. Colonel Michael Aquino reveals and documents the $74 million fraudulent “Satanic Ritual Abuse” scandal at the San Francisco Presidio.



Apparently this dude was posting on Above Top Secret just a few years back - maybe he still does?


Also a letter of his critical of SRA on Skeptic Files.

Maybe Alex could interview the guy? I'd be curious to see how he responds to whatever supposed evidence against him exists.
just to be clear... this is the guy you're talking about:
aquinopicfromgeraldo1.png


Back in the 1980s, U.S. Army Lt. Col. Michael Aquino reportedly faced child molestation charges but officials never charged him. Aquino, an admitted Satanist, founded the Temple of Set in 1975 and also served at The National Security Agency (NSA) with top level security clearance.
 
He has also come out saying that gender is not determined by genetics. At which point people dug up an old episode from Bill Nye The Science Guy where he was explaining that gender was determined by the XY chromosomes. Netflix deleted that episode from their menu.
without getting into meaningless political squabbles we can at least acknowledge that this kind of silliness seems to reinforce the point of this episode... i.e. there are forces trying to shape culture in ways, and for reasons, we're not aware of.
 
That also doesn't take into account that in a bid to "save" Rome, Augustus attempted to outlaw infidelity and essentially tried to put into law that every Roman couple have children. He went so far as to banish his own daughter Julia because of her promiscuity.
thx for this tidbit.

I also think that the idea that we are somehow morally superior and "more rational" is merely humans being humans. Every civilization thought they were the epitome of human evolution.
nice :)
 
just to be clear... this is the guy you're talking about:

Back in the 1980s, U.S. Army Lt. Col. Michael Aquino reportedly faced child molestation charges but officials never charged him. Aquino, an admitted Satanist, founded the Temple of Set in 1975 and also served at The National Security Agency (NSA) with top level security clearance.

Okay, he's a Satanist. Is every Catholic a potential child molester too then?

Interview him and see if you can make a case against him, otherwise it's innocent until proven guilty.
 
Here's what I got searching for Presidio Satanic Abuse:

A book on Amazon entitled Extreme Prejudice: The Presidio "Satanic Abuse" Scam.

Here's a summary from another site:

Lt. Colonel Michael Aquino reveals and documents the $74 million fraudulent “Satanic Ritual Abuse” scandal at the San Francisco Presidio.



Apparently this dude was posting on Above Top Secret just a few years back - maybe he still does?


Also a letter of his critical of SRA on Skeptic Files.

Maybe Alex could interview the guy? I'd be curious to see how he responds to whatever supposed evidence against him exists.
just to be clear... this is the guy:
============================================
* * *

1967 – Michael Aquino began a two-year tour of duty in Vietnam, taking part in the infamous Phoenix Program. The Phoenix Program was an assassination/torture/terror operation that was initiated by the CIA, with the aim of ‘neutralizing’ the civilian infrastructure that supported the Viet Cong insurgency in South Vietnam. It was a terrifying ‘final solution’ that blatantly violated the Geneva Conventions. Targets for assassination included VC tax collectors, supply officers, political cadre, local military officials, and suspected sympathizers. However, ‘faulty intelligence’ more often than not led to the murder of innocent civilians, even young children. Sometimes orders were even given to kill US military personnel who were considered security risks. In 1971, William Colby, head of CIA in Vietnam at the time, later testified that the number killed was 20,857, while South Vietnamese government figures claimed it was 40,994 dead. This murderous psyop program had the effect of creating legions of cold-blooded psychopathic killers who would return home to the USA as completely different people than when they left. Many of them would become involved in satanism during or after their involvement in the Phoenix Program. And Michael Aquino was there to lead them into it. Soon after these killers started coming home, there began a steady rise in horrific serial murders with satanic undertones that centered around the southern California area (where Michael Aquino has always lived).

1980 – According to sworn testimony given before a US Senate in later years, MKULTRA mind-control victim Cathy O’Brien claimed that she was programmed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, in 1980 by Lt. Col. Michael Aquino of the US Army. She stated that Aquino used barbaric trauma techniques on both her daughter Kelly and herself that involved NASA technology. Cathy O’Brien claimed that she was a ‘presidential model’ Monarch sex slave, meaning that she was specially programmed to cater to the sexual perversions of the highest-ranking politicians in the USA. She stated that during her time as a sex slave (which started as a child), she serviced a number of well-known politicians, including both Bill and Hilary Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Governors Lamar Alexander and Richard Thornburgh, Bill Bennett, Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Robert Byrd (who she says was her handler) and Arlen Spector. O'Brien eventually gave testimony before the US Senate regarding the events she was forced to go through, and although she named her perpetrators, not one of them dared to challenge her or accuse her of slander.

1982 (September 5) – Twelve-year-old Johnny Gosch was abducted from a shopping mall parking lot in West Des Moines, Iowa, while doing his early-morning paper route, never to be seen again. Years later, during an interview with private investigator Ted Gunderson, child abductee and sex slave victim Paul Bonacci revealed that, as a child, he was directly involved in Gosch’s abduction, having acted as a lure to draw Gosch into the hands of his pedophile abductors. According to Bonacci, the abduction was ordered by Lt. Col. Michael Aquino, who later picked Gosch up at a farmhouse he was being held at and delivered him to a buyer in Colorado. For years, both boys were used for the pedophiliac pleasures of high-ranking government officials.

1985 – Allegations of ritual abuse at the Jubilation Day Care Center at Fort Bragg erupted when several children reported being sexually abused by a number of people at the day care center and several other locations, including at least two churches. Lt. Col. Michael Aquino was identified as having been present at one of those churches.

1986 (November) – Allegations emerged regarding sexual abuse being perpetrated at the US Army’s Presidio Child Development Center in San Francisco. Within a year, at least 60 victims were identified, all between the ages of three and seven. Victims told of being taken to private homes to be abused, and at least three houses were positively identified, one of them being Aquino’s. They also described being urinated and defecated upon, and being forced to ingest urine and feces. Irrefutable medical evidence documented the fact that these children were sexually abused, including five who had contracted chlamydia, and many others who showed clear signs of anal and genital trauma consistent with violent penetration. Even before the abuse was exposed, the children were exhibiting radical changes in behavior, including temper outbursts, sudden mood shifts, and poor impulse control. Both Lt. Col Michael Aquino and his satanist wife Lilith were positively identified by victims as two of the perpetrators. At least one victim was able to positively identify Aquino's home and describe with uncanny accuracy the distinctively satanic interior of the house. Only one person was ever charged for the abuse of one child, and these charges were dismissed three months later.

1987 (August 14) – As part of the Presidio investigation, a search warrant was served on the residence of Lt. Col. Michael Aquino and his wife Lilith, and numerous videotapes, photographs, photo albums, photographic negatives, cassette tapes, and address books were confiscated. Also observed during the search was what appeared to be a soundproof room that may have been used as a torture chamber.

1987 (November) – The US Army received allegations of child abuse at fifteen of its day care centers and several elementary schools. There were also at least two other cases at Air Force day care centers, and another one at a center run by the US Navy. In addition to these, a special team of experts were sent to Panama to help determine if as many as ten children at a Department of Defense elementary school were molested and possibly infected with AIDS. Another case also emerged in a US-run facility in West Germany. These cases occurred at some of the most esteemed military bases in the country, including Fort Dix, Fort Leavenworth, Fort Jackson, and West Point. In the West Point case alone, by the end of the year, fifty children were interviewed by investigators. There were reports of satanic acts, animal sacrifices, and cult-like behavior among the abusers. An investigation led by former US Attorney Rudolph Giuliani produced no federal grand jury indictments. His investigation concluded that only one or two children were abused, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

1988 (November 4) – The FBI raided the Franklin Credit Union in Omaha, Nebraska, run by a man named Lawrence King. In the process, they uncovered evidence relating to drug running, pedophilia, pornography, and satanic activity involving prominent individuals in the local community and beyond. Eighty children eventually came forward and identified many of those involved, including the chief of police (who impregnated one of the victims), a local newspaper publisher, a former vice squad officer, a judge, and others. The children described satanic ceremonies involving human and animal sacrifice. Evidence that came out showed that children were abducted from shopping mall parking lots and auctioned off in Las Vegas and Toronto. Airplanes owned by the DEA were often used to transport the children. Other children were removed from orphanages and foster homes and taken to Washington, DC to take part in sex orgies with dignitaries, congressmen, and other high-ranking public officials. A number of the child victims testified that George Bush Sr. was one of the people who was often seen at these parties. Photographs were being surreptitiously taken at these orgies by the child traffickers for blackmail purposes. There was also evidence of ties to mind-control programs being conducted at Offutt Air Force Base near Omaha, Nebraska, where the head of the Strategic Air Command (SAC) is located. Minot is an area that has satanic cults operating in it that have been directly tied to the Son of Sam and Manson murders, among others.

There was no follow-up investigation when these findings were made. The US national media didn’t report on the story. Local media only focused on discrediting the witnesses. The FBI and other enforcement officers harassed and discredited victims in the aftermath, causing all but two of them – Paul Bonacci and Alisha Owen – to recant their testimonies. The child victims, rather than the perpetrators, were thrown in prison. Alisha Owen spent more time in solitary confinement than any other woman in the history of the Nebraska penal system. She received a sentence of 9 to 25 years for allegedly committing perjury, which is ten years longer than the sentence that was given to Lawrence King for looting his Franklin Credit Union of $40 million. This heavy sentence imposed on Owen was meant to serve as a warning message to all other victims who might think of talking.

The key investigator in the case, Gary Caradori, was killed when his private plane mysteriously exploded in mid-air while en route to delivering evidence to Senator Loran Schmit. His briefcase went missing from the wreckage. This was the first of many deaths of people attempting to uncover this politically connected satanic cult/sex slave/drug trafficking ring. The Discovery Channel made a documentary about this case, entitled ‘Conspiracy of Silence’, but at the last moment, a group of unidentified US Congressmen paid them $500,000 to not air it, and all copies were destroyed (one copy survived). Republican senator John DeCamp, who was on the investigative committee, wrote a book exposing the case, titled, The Franklin Cover-Up.

In 1999 (see below), Paul Bonacci, who had been kept as a child sex slave by Lawrence King, positively identified Lt. Col. Michael Aquino as an associate of King, who he said was known to the children only as ‘the Colonel’. Rusty Nelson, King’s personal photographer, also identified Aquino as the man that he once saw King give a briefcase full of money and bearer bonds to, and who King had told him was involved in the Contra gun and cocaine trafficking operation being run by George Bush Sr. and Lt. Col. Oliver North.

1989 (May) – Lt. Col. Michael Aquino was again questioned in connection with child abuse investigations. This time, at least five children in three cities were making the accusations. The children had seen Aquino in newspaper and television coverage of the Presidio case and immediately recognized him as one of their abusers. The children were from Ukiah, Santa Rosa, and Fort Bragg.

1990 (August 31) – Lt. Col. Michael Aquino was processed out of the Army after being investigated for satanic ritual child abuse in the Presidio case.Although never formally charged, according to court documents, Aquino was ‘titled’ in a Report of Investigation by the Army’s Criminal Investigative Division (CID) for “indecent acts with a child, sodomy, conspiracy, kidnapping, and false swearing”. The child abuse charges remained against Aquino because, according to the CID, the evidence of alibi offered by Aquino “was not persuasive.” Aquino has since denied that he was ever processed out of the Army and even claims that he was selected as one of their first Space Intelligence Officers during this same year, and was stationed at Cheyenne Mountain for four years of active duty before retiring. There is no evidence that this is true.

1992 – (Although this entry isn’t directly connected to Michael Aquino, it directly relates to the cover up of events that he and his pedophile cronies have been involved in.) After being accused of molestation as a child by their daughter, Peter and Pamela Freyd established the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF). The original board members included doctors who were directly involved in MKULTRA mind-control programs, such as expert hypnotist Martin Orne and Dr. Louis Jolyin West, as well as many others who have been accused of child sexual abuse. One board member, Richard Ofshe, is an alleged expert on coercive persuasion techniques, and another, Margaret Singer, was a government expert on cults and cult tactics. Elizabeth Loftus is an expert on memory. The mandate of the FMSF has always been to discredit the recovered memories of people who report having been traumatically abused as children – usually by claiming that the child’s therapist has implanted false memories – and to develop legal defenses for protecting pedophiles in court. They have resorted to lies, intimidation, character assassination, legal tactics, and coercing victims to recant their claims and sue their therapists for large settlements. The FMSF has routinely argued in court cases that satanic ritual abuse (SRA) and multiple personality disorder (MPD) don’t exist, and the organization and its members have specifically targeted any therapists who claim that they do. This defense strategy, which has proven to be quite successful, has allowed victims of trauma-based mind-control and ritual abuse to be completely discredited, while allowing their perpetrators to continue their activities unimpeded.

At about the time that the FMSF was established, a number of mind-control and ritual abuse victims were starting to remember being involved in these events, and this threatened to expose the perpetrators, so it was important that a means to discredit them was put in place.

The False Memory Syndrome Foundation was created by known pedophiles and its board was fortified with CIA mind-control experts who cut their teeth on MKULTRA victims. Many of them are known to be closely associated with Michael Aquino. This organization of pedophiles and mind-control experts have been very instrumental in covering for Aquino and other pedophiles while destroying the lives and careers of their victims, the victim’s families, and their therapists, even long after these pedophiles performed their vile acts against them.

1995 – Diana Napolis was a Child Protection Services investigator in San Diego who was alarmed by the increasing number of children who were reporting satanic ritual abuse, starting as far back as the mid-1980s. Napolis went undercover online in 1995 and approached Aquino and several others who were associated with him, while also posting information and evidence relating to these crimes and these people’s involvement in them. In response, Aquino and his associates (several of them from the False Memory Syndrome Foundation) cyber-stalked Napolis for five years and finally tracked her down in 2000, thereby discovering her real identity. At this point, Napolis’ efforts to expose these people were defeated, with Aquino and associates using their power and influence to pose themselves as the victims and accusing her of cyber-stalking, as well as engaging in assassinating her character both online and through the media. Napolis was also targeted with directed-energy weapons (V2K) and set up to appear mentally unstable, with claims that she was stalking various celebrities. This resulted in her spending a year in jail and several more months in a mental facility, and eventually being forced to quit her job. The character assassination continued against her, with someone claiming to be Napolis posting insane ravings on the internet in order to make her appear crazy.

A reporter at the San Diego Union Tribune was working for Aquino and his cronies by painting Napolis in a bad light in news reports, accusing her of cyber-stalking, making threats, and acting crazy. Aquino was publicly complaining that she was causing serious problems for him and his fellow pedophiles. Nonetheless, the article at the first link below clearly reveals the one-sided reporting on this story by the San Diego Union Tribune and the fact that if anyone was being cyber-stalked, it was Napolis. The second link below is Napolis’ far more professional and believable response to the article:

http://www.uniontrib.com/news/uniontrib/sun/currents/news_mz1c24curio.html

http://www.konformist.com/2002/curio-tribune2.htm

The point of going after Napolis so publicly served several agendas. First, it was a public warning to anyone else who might attempt to expose the increasing satanic ritual abuse that was going on and the people behind it. Second, it acted to deflate the satanic ritual abuse scare that was mounting, making it appear to be nothing more than the ravings of delusional people. Third, it assured that stealing other people’s children using child protection services could continue. Fourth, (with the help of the FMSF) it made out children’s claims of molestation and satanic ritual abuse to be nothing more than false memories.

1999 (February 5) – In US District Court in Lincoln, Nebraska, a hearing was held in the matter of Paul A. Bonacci v. Lawrence E. King, a civil action in which Bonacci charged that he had been ritualistically abused by King as part of a nationwide pedophile ring that was linked to powerful political figures in Washington and to elements of the US military and intelligence agencies.

During the hearing, Noreen Gosch, whose twelve-year-old son Johnny had been abducted in 1982, provided the court with sworn testimony linking US Army Lt. Col. Michael Aquino to the nationwide pedophile ring. She stated:

“Well, then there was a man by the name of Michael Aquino. He was in the military. He had top Pentagon clearances. He was a pedophile. He was a Satanist. He's founded the Temple of Set. And he was a close friend of Anton LaVey. The two of them were very active in ritualistic sexual abuse. And they deferred funding from this government program to use [in] this experimentation on children.
Where they deliberately split off the personalities of these children into multiples, so that when they're questioned or put under oath or questioned under lie detector, that unless the operator knows how to question a multiple-personality disorder, they turn up with no evidence.
They used these kids to sexually compromise politicians or anyone else they wish to have control of. This sounds so far out and so bizarre I had trouble accepting it in the beginning myself until I was presented with the data. We have the proof. In black and white."

Paul Bonacci, who was a victim of this nationwide pedophile crime syndicate, subsequently identified Aquino as the man who ordered the kidnapping of Johnny Gosch.

Three weeks after the hearing, on February 27, Judge Warren K. Urbom ordered Lawrence King to pay $1 million in damages to Bonacci.

* * *

The question here isn't whether Michael Aquino is guilty of being one of the world's most despicable pedophiles and mind-control programmers ever to crawl out of a toilet, which the evidence makes quite clear. Rather, the question is whether there is a conspiracy against him by all of these people (including young children) making these allegations against him over the years, and for what reason? After all, this is exactly what he claims to be the case, and this is how he has attempted to excuse these many claims against him.

from: http://exposinginfragard.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/the-case-against-michael-aquino-satanic.html

=======
again, just to be clear, this is the guy you're talking about, right?
 
just to be clear... this is the guy:

again, just to be clear, this is the guy you're talking about, right?

Did you read his book that I posted about where he goes into the accusations against him?

I just said he's innocent until proven guilty. Your first tactic was to claim that him being a Satanist meant something, now you've found some conspiracy theory websites to justify your claim after I pointed out the glaringly obvious ad hominem.

Why not go to the original sources and see if you can make a real case? Interview him and see what he says in defense of himself.
 
^ What fresh hell is this?

"We want to help the poor because we're tired of looking at them, but you'll have to pay for it yourselves. Best of luck!

Hahaha

It's basically leftist libertarianism with a few tweaks, mostly advocating that the proletarians should set their own living standards based on the income of the entity and be self-sustainable, but I found this comment hilarious.
 
Hmmm. I dunno. The Romans started out despising the Etruscans for their decadence and loose morality, only to fall into the same mode of being before their own fall. Also, Camille Paglia has noted the same tendency for the quick and extreme loosening of morality before the fall of civilizations...

Ah, the moral of every Godzilla film ever. Frankly, if that is the case I am sure that the US are past the point of no-return... But France has been decadent for a while (it's literally the birthplace of the Decadent Movement and we know that they had been pushing the envelope for a couple centuries prior to that) and it still stands, shriveled from its former glory but very much alive... So, I would argue that this would mostly apply to larger countries and empires, where a coordination of heterogeneous groups is imperative.
 
Hmmm. I dunno. The Romans started out despising the Etruscans for their decadence and loose morality, only to fall into the same mode of being before their own fall. Also, Camille Paglia has noted the same tendency for the quick and extreme loosening of morality before the fall of civilizations:

Is there really a loosening of morality - it seems more people accept rape is wrong (even in marriage which IIRC some religious figure deny), that more people are willing to recognize their faith can't be legally imposed on the rest of us, people are less willing to knowingly conquer other nations - which religion justified - and drain their resources, enslave others (again many religion organizations accepted this), etc.

From my perspective it seems we are more moral than at any other point in history. I also don't know if decadence is inherently immoral - I mean if someone lives lavishly using money they earned is that immoral because higher taxes or a different trade structure would let that money go to someone else? I mean I understand the argument, and after a point I might agree, but this seems like the road to communist tyrannies. Other kinds of supposed decadence would, it seems to me, lead to religious fundamentalist tyrannies.

On the Camille clip I don't really get the argument even after watching the video - what exactly connects the loosening of morality and the trans movement or trans persons? Forcing children into thinking their trans would be bad, but are there an extreme number of cases?

People can be mistaken (even catastrophically) about something - gender transition for children might end up being one of those things - without being immoral. (Whether it is wrong I've no idea, from what I've read there are possibly some cases where it might be the least worst decision though without avenues like past-life regression as a possible treatment we won't know.)

That said AFAICTell Paglia isn't a scientist but she seems to try and pronounce what she believes about others' subjective evaluation. It's amusing to see various conservative outlets carry this clip given the evidence for a personal deity is - because it makes a metaphysical claim that applies universally - is a weaker form of subjective evidence (if it counts at all) than what someone - like a trans person - says about the reality of their own subjective boundary of experience (their own body).

She also, AFAICTell, doesn't really make the historical case connecting people's gender identification with historical collapses.

I suspect she dislikes trans persons because they upset her particular feminist beliefs - lots of feminists seem to hate the existence of any trans people. I suspect she thinks there's something special about women (the inversion of a misogynist that it seems radical fems share) and dislikes people born biologically male "invading" this special-ness. But truth here likely rests in biology and possible even parapsychology - Can souls be gendered so the soul ends up in the wrong body? Or would past life regression allows someone who is trans to accept their current biological orientation?).

That also doesn't take into account that in a bid to "save" Rome, Augustus attempted to outlaw infidelity and essentially tried to put into law that every Roman couple have children. He went so far as to banish his own daughter Julia because of her promiscuity.

My Roman history is rusty and was never honestly that developed but from what I recall the surface accusation of promiscuity was done as a cover for other political considerations - much like we alliances between religious fundamentalists and corporate powers.

If Augustus thought using laws to control people's behavior was going to save Rome my guess - which might change upon further research - is he fell for the idea of simple explanations over the complexity of rational ones? It reminds me of the silly pastors post 9/11 who blamed groups he didn't like for lifting "God's shield" from the US as an explanation for why 9/11 happened.

I also think that the idea that we are somehow morally superior and "more rational" is merely humans being humans. Every civilization thought they were the epitome of human evolution. I do not hold this view. We may be different from civilizations if the past, but I think that's merely a function of advanced technology as opposed to the ability for humans to think rationally.

Well if there is an objective morality, and slavery/war/genocide/subjugation are all bad, then it seems we are better off?

Moreover, there's a decent amount of evidence pointing to the idea that perhaps our technology isn't as advanced as we think it is.

Not sure what you mean? Do you mean alien encounters suggesting other civilizations are more advanced?

In addition, just because a society becomes more rational, we cannot ignore the fact that something is lost when a society ignores the spiritual aspect. I think our society is heavily out of balance. I fear we have lost just as much, if not more, than we've supposedly gained.

Thats the myth of progress.

Well IMO we aren't necessarily a more rational society, nor is spirituality necessarily irrational. But IMO the weakening of religious fundamentalism and its irrational recourse to Divine Command Theory (which IMO Plato disproved long ago) has made the world a better place. Unfortunately we've still got a chasm to cross, and that's the materialist fundamentalism that makes all human existence completely worthless but "skeptics" somehow have gotten into their head as a vehicle for humanism.

As for what we've lost I'd agree but we might differ on the exact losses - it does seem like the shamans killed off by colonization (partly supported by religious fundamentalism), rejection of the Gnostic Gospels, the esoteric movement of the Renaissance weakened by the alliance between mechanists & the Church, etc did hurt the human race and leave us where we are now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Given the number of gay children who kill themselves I would think the answer to your question in an obvious yes.
Not necessarily. I can imagine a gay child might absolutely hate to have this discussed in the classroom because it would almost inevitably unmask him/her, and some other children would then make that child's life a misery - children are not PC.

A far more low-key approach might be preferable. For example, a list of a few well chosen internet sites on a notice board might be far more helpful and discrete.
I figure if we accept children can be thought God hates them for masturbating or will send them to Hell for doubting its evidence-lacking existence we can teach them people of the same gender are attracted to one another.
Remember I am not a Christian! I think the problem is that these issues are not totally black and white. Just because we all want adults who are gay or lesbian to be free to follow that lifestyle, that does not mean that the homosexual and heterosexual lifestyles are totally equivalent, any more than life in a wheelchair is equivalent to a life without a wheelchair! What that means in practice, is that it is probably best to suggest to kids who think they may be homosexual (let alone transgender), that they wait a bit until their sexuality has settled down before acting on their impulses.

The problem nowadays, is that the political involvement in these issues means that everyone's 'rights' are totally maxed out, and I think that is a horrible mistake. If you look through history, societies have tended to oscillate from one extreme to the other on a whole range of sexual issues - it is like a pendulum - drive the pendulum one way, and it will swing back in the opposite direction.

David
 
Not necessarily. I can imagine a gay child might absolutely hate to have this discussed in the classroom because it would almost inevitably unmask him/her, and some other children would then make that child's life a misery - children are not PC.

A far more low-key approach might be preferable. For example, a list of a few well chosen internet sites on a notice board might be far more helpful and discrete.

Well I can see some places where a notice board might be better, but the example of the child seems like a "just so" story of a particular case.

I mean would we not discuss obesity and health because it might make the fat kid feel out of place? Heck I remember being the "Hindu kid" in Christian Texas who cringed when we discussed world history/religion. But as much as I'd like to have glossed over that stark difference I'd rather children be educated on the realities of the world like homosexuality even if it ticks off "conservatives".

I would think it's just as fine for grade school biology to discuss the reality of a fetus having brain waves & a heartbeat even if it tee'd off "liberals".

Children aren't tiny adults but I do think this coddling of children from reality can be more damaging than many suspect.

Remember I am not a Christian! I think the problem is that these issues are not totally black and white. Just because we all want adults who are gay or lesbian to be free to follow that lifestyle, that does not mean that the homosexual and heterosexual lifestyles are totally equivalent, any more than life in a wheelchair is equivalent to a life without a wheelchair! What that means in practice, is that it is probably best to suggest to kids who think they may be homosexual (let alone transgender), that they wait a bit until their sexuality has settled down before acting on their impulses.

You may not be Christian but it seems the indoctrination of religious influence on the culture has made you think there is something weird about homosexuality. From the stand point of someone who never had this influence I see nothing weird about it at all.

You seem to associate attraction with sex but IMO children's affection for each other isn't sexual. I recall day dreaming about how I would marry this girl in my pre-school class, and when I told my mom my plans she didn't treat it as some deviant thing - it's just innocent childhood crushes whether straight or gay.

I'm more with you on the transgender thing, at least in most cases, just because the research on this topic is still in its infancy and I wonder about the effect of past-life regressions on people who are trans - though on the flip side if past life regressions caused more people to be trans or gay I wouldn't have a problem with it....though if government should cover sex changes is another question, and I think the idea that someone who won't date a transperson as being a "bigot" is just irrational/unreasonable.

But I've never talked to anyone who was gay who managed to change into being straight (the validity of conversion therapy is in the gutter). There's silly articles where "lesbians" claim to fall in love with & marry men but this is just a mish-mash of what the word really means since these women admit they were always attracted to men but identified as lesbians as a political stance or some other misuse of the actual definition of "lesbian".

Nor have I found people who thought being gay as equivalent to forcibly making oneself unable to walk and thus forced to use a wheelchair. (Though, as an aside, I have talked to people who've abandoned conservative religious faith who do feel a sense of freedom akin to being able to walk.)

The problem nowadays, is that the political involvement in these issues means that everyone's 'rights' are totally maxed out, and I think that is a horrible mistake. If you look through history, societies have tended to oscillate from one extreme to the other on a whole range of sexual issues - it is like a pendulum - drive the pendulum one way, and it will swing back in the opposite direction.

There seems to be a steady movement toward rationality in these matters? Age of consent has risen and governmental interference over consenting adults has diminished. Additionally ideas like marital rape are more accepted as immoral - really in general it seems the idea of consent in sexual matters is on the rise globally?
 
The False Memory Syndrome Foundation was created by known pedophiles and its board was fortified with CIA mind-control experts who cut their teeth on MKULTRA victims. Many of them are known to be closely associated with Michael Aquino. This organization of pedophiles and mind-control experts have been very instrumental in covering for Aquino and other pedophiles while destroying the lives and careers of their victims, the victim’s families, and their therapists, even long after these pedophiles performed their vile acts against them.

I would just like to mention that under my first reading I thought it was implied that False Memory Syndrome was invented by this foundation when instead we've known about it since Freud. Freud proved you could both implant false memories as well as invent trauma and illness in a patient through the hypnotic state as there was a fiasco where, as he sought to prove his theories that all dysfunction was linked to sexuality, managed to discover a multitude of women who were violated by their fathers, uncles and grandfathers whom later were found under investigation to definitively not have been.
 
Well I can see some places where a notice board might be better, but the example of the child seems like a "just so" story of a particular case.
I am not sure which example you mean, but in general, being embarrassed in front of your peers is very scary when you are young - later you learn to laugh it off! I was excessively shy in front of girls for a number of years, and I would have loathed to have been in a class where this problem was discussed!
I mean would we not discuss obesity and health because it might make the fat kid feel out of place?
That is definitely not analogous, because the fat kid may be able to respond by slimming off. However, talking about such things might also stoke up anorexic feelings in other kids - I think subjects like this can be minefields.
Heck I remember being the "Hindu kid" in Christian Texas who cringed when we discussed world history/religion. But as much as I'd like to have glossed over that stark difference I'd rather children be educated on the realities of the world like homosexuality even if it ticks off "conservatives".

I would think it's just as fine for grade school biology to discuss the reality of a fetus having brain waves & a heartbeat even if it tee'd off "liberals".

Children aren't tiny adults but I do think this coddling of children from reality can be more damaging than many suspect.



You may not be Christian but it seems the indoctrination of religious influence on the culture has made you think there is something weird about homosexuality. From the stand point of someone who never had this influence I see nothing weird about it at all.
Actually I don't see homosexuality as weird at all, but I don't think people always get themselves sorted out over night about their brand new sexual feelings. Lot's of people talk about same-sex 'crushes' they had, often with teachers, but normally these things don't last. I think teaching kids about this stuff is trampling on eggshells.
You seem to associate attraction with sex but IMO children's affection for each other isn't sexual. I recall day dreaming about how I would marry this girl in my pre-school class, and when I told my mom my plans she didn't treat it as some deviant thing - it's just innocent childhood crushes whether straight or gay.
I don't know if that remark means that you are female (your profile doesn't say), but obviously you wouldn't call a child of that age 'deviant' almost whatever they said!
I'm more with you on the transgender thing, at least in most cases, just because the research on this topic is still in its infancy and I wonder about the effect of past-life regressions on people who are trans - though on the flip side if past life regressions caused more people to be trans or gay I wouldn't have a problem with it....though if government should cover sex changes is another question, and I think the idea that someone who won't date a transperson as being a "bigot" is just irrational/unreasonable.
Ideally I think trans-leaning people should realise that there are all sorts of ways (particularly nowadays) to live a less polarised life without going under the knife. Men can be nurses, or carers, or ballet dancers, women can be fighter pilots (but I don't really want anyone to be a fighter pilot!) etc etc. If we take the whole reincarnation concept seriously, the idea seems to be that we experience a succession of different lives - maybe it isn't desirable that one life bleeds into the next?
But I've never talked to anyone who was gay who managed to change into being straight (the validity of conversion therapy is in the gutter).
I totally agree. However, we are talking about kids close to puberty.
There's silly articles where "lesbians" claim to fall in love with & marry men but this is just a mish-mash of what the word really means since these women admit they were always attracted to men but identified as lesbians as a political stance or some other misuse of the actual definition of "lesbian".
Don't forget a proportion of people are bi-sexual.
Nor have I found people who thought being gay as equivalent to forcibly making oneself unable to walk and thus forced to use a wheelchair.
That sounds extreme, but I do think on average, life as a gay is probably less fulfilling than life as a straight - but beyond school years, that choice is not normally available - you are what you are.
(Though, as an aside, I have talked to people who've abandoned conservative religious faith who do feel a sense of freedom akin to being able to walk.)
I am sure many of the most assertive atheists were forged in conservative religion!
There seems to be a steady movement toward rationality in these matters? Age of consent has risen and governmental interference over consenting adults has diminished. Additionally ideas like marital rape are more accepted as immoral - really in general it seems the idea of consent in sexual matters is on the rise globally?
I basically agree, but I would like to see less political involvement. Take Trump for example. Anti-Trump rallies always have placards talking about homophobia, but as far as I am aware (on the other side of the pond) he hasn't said anything much about the subject, other than to take LGBT sections off the white-house website! It is the extremes in this debate that are really harmful.

David
 
Last edited:
I don't know if that remark means that you are female (your profile doesn't say), but obviously you wouldn't call a child of that age 'deviant' almost whatever they said!

Oh I thought everyone knew I was male at this point. Though I was born in a place many in the US consider to be a portal to Hell called New Jersey. :)
 
I think whenever you have a competitor in the metaphysical market you end up with some panic and the often expected dishonesty of the religious orthodoxy to tarnish the competitor's goods. For example there's at least famous one hoax perpetrated by some Hindus used to "justify" attacking Christians in India, I'll try to look it up.

That's probably true... I think it's valuable to view religions as memes in a darwinistic natural selection competition.

But my understanding is that there is a difference in how traditional Christians view Hinduism vs how Hindus view Jesus. Christians take one of the Ten Commandments "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" mix with Israel's history of being destroyed every time they fell into idol worship, combine with Jesus repeated demands for faith and loyalty from his disciples... bake for two millennia...sprinkle crusades, inquisitions, and an obscenely rich Vatican... and you get a traditionalist Christianity that is very xenophobic which views all other religions and gods as deceit, ignorant idolatry, and mortal threats to the eternal soul. Hindus on the other hand (so I've been told) will gladly say they believe in Jesus too and put an idol of Christ on the shelf next to figures of Shiva and other gods.

My guess is what happens is religion has a lot of baggage where insane/tyrannical orthodoxies are supported by local religion while outsider faiths - if they don't come at the point of a sword - will carry some mystical aspects which challenge local orthodoxy. That just makes market sense - you have to offer something the competitor doesn't.

And when to some extent this mystical dimension exposes the emperor of arbitrary Divine Command Theory has no clothes you get propaganda.

Totally agree with both statements.
 
Back
Top