Category Archives: Uncategorized

Ernest Hello on the Mediocre Man

Posted on by
1

Source: Ernest Hello, Life, Science, and Art, trans. by E. M. Walker (London: R. & T. Washbourne, 1912), 112–115.

Is the mediocre man silly, stupid, idiotic? Not in the least. The idiot is at one extreme of the world, the man of genius is at the other. The mediocre man is in the middle. I do not say that he occupies the center of the intellectual world, that would be quite another matter; he occupies a middle position.

The characteristic trait of the mediocre man is his deference for public opinion. He never really talks; he only repeats what others have said. He judges a man by his age, his position, his success, his income. He has the profoundest respect for those who have attained notoriety, no matter how, and for authors with a large circulation. 

The mediocre man may have certain special aptitudes; he may even have talent. But he is utterly wanting in intuition. He has no insight; he never will have any. He can learn; he cannot divine. Occasionally he allows an idea to penetrate into his mind, but he does not follow its various applications, and if it is stated in different terms, he denies its truth.

The mediocre man may, and often does, respect good people and men of talent. He fears and detests Saints and men of genius–he considers them exaggerated.

Of what use, he inquires, are the religious Orders, especially the contemplative Orders? He approves of the Sisters of St. Vincent de Paul because their work relates, partially at least, to the visible world. But the Carmelites, he says, what can be the good of them?

The mediocre man admires everything a little; he admires nothing warmly. If you confront him with his own thoughts, his own sentiments, expressed with enthusiasm, he will be displeased. He will declare that you are exaggerating. He prefers enemies, so long as they are cold, to friends who are warm. What he detests above all is enthusiasm. 

To escape the reproach of intolerance aimed by him at all who think with consistency and decision, you would have to take refuge in absolute doubt; but even then you must be careful not to call doubt by its name. He considers every affirmation insolent, because every affirmation excludes the contradictory proposition. You must represent it as a modest opinion, which respects the rights of the contrary opinion, and appears to affirm something while affirming nothing whatever. But if you are slightly friendly and slightly hostile to all things, he will consider you wise and reserved. The mediocre man says there is good and evil in all things, and that we must not be absolute in our judgments. If you strongly affirm the truth, the mediocre man will say that you have too much confidence in yourself.

The mediocre man regrets that the Christian religion has dogmas. He would like it to teach only ethics, and if you tell him that its code of morals comes from its dogmas as the consequences comes from the principle, he will answer that you exaggerate. If the word “exaggeration” did not exist, the mediocre man would invent it.

The mediocre man, in his distrust of all that is great, maintains that he values good sense before everything. But he has not the remotest idea what good sense is. He merely understands by that expression the negation of all that is lofty. 

The man of intelligence looks up to admire and to adore; the mediocre man looks up to mock. All that is above him seems to him ridiculous; the Infinite appears to him a void.

The mediocre man appears habitually modest. He cannot be humble, or he would cease to be mediocre. The humble man scorns all lies, even were they glorified by the whole earth, and he bows the knee before every truth.

The mediocre man is much more wicked than either he himself or anyone else imagines, because his coldness masks his wickedness. He never gets in a rage. He perpetrates innumerable little infamies, so petty that they do not appear to be infamous. And he is never afraid, for he relies on the vast multitude of those who resemble him.

When, however, a man mediocre by nature becomes a true and sincere Christian, he ceases absolutely to be mediocre. He may not, indeed, become a man of striking superiority, but he is rescued from mediocrity by the Hand that rules the world. THE MAN WHO LOVES IS NEVER MEDIOCRE.

Anachronistic Expletives…

Posted on by
Reply

The list below was compiled by Blanche Barton and Anton LaVey and published in The Cloven Hoof, Issue 129 (1997). I’m not posting the introductory and explanatory text, as I feel that would be a breech of copyright (I’m not sure the list below does that, and it is not my intention). I do think it’s a marvelous display of (almost all) Americanisms, though, many

“FOR THE LOVE OF MIKE!”
“ZOUNDS!”
“FOR PETE’S SAKE!”
“GADZOOKS!”
“FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!”
“CRIMINETLES!”
“LEAPING LIZARDS!”
“PISH! TOSH!”
“HELL’S BELLS!”
“SUFFERING SUCCOTASH!”
“CHEESE AND CRACKERS… (GOT ALL MUDDY!)”
“LAND’S SAKES!”
“ME OH MY!”
“WELL, BLOW ME DOWN!”
“WHAT THE HEY!”
“SON OF A GUN!”
“HAIL COLUMBIA!”
“WELL, I SWAN! ”
“SON OF A BEE HIVE!”
“SWEAR TO GOD!”
“HOT DOG!”
“GOL DANG IT!”
“I’LL BE BUTTERED!”
“GOSH DARN IT!”
“WHAT IN BLUE BLAZES!”
“DAG NAB IT!”
“WHAT THE SAM HILL!”
“DOGGONE IT!”
“WHAT THE DEUCE!”
“I’LL BE DOGGONED!”
“DOG MY CATS!”
“JIMINY CRICKETS!”
“GOOD GRIEF!”
“SHOOT!”
“HOLY cow!”
“FIDDLESTICKS!”
“BY GOLLY!”
“I’LL BE A MONKEY’S UNCLE!”
“GRIPES!”
“EGADS!”
“JEEZ!”
“YOU’RE FULL OF PRUNES!”
“BY GOLLY!”
“NONE OF YOUR BEESWAX!”
“BY GUM!”
“FOR CRIMINY SAKES!”
“BY JUPITER!”
“SHUCKS!”
“OMIGOSH!”
“WHAT THE (HECK!)”
“EXCUSE MY DUST!”
“DON’T STOP NOW!”
“BY HECK!”
“THIS’LL KILL YA!”
“YOU DON’T SAY!”
“OH, FUDGE!”
“GOOD GRIEF!”
“H-E-DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS!”
“GOOD HEAVENS!”
“LAND SAKES!”
“GO TO BLAZES!”
“SAKES ALIVE!”
“HEAVENS TO BETSY!”
“WELL, I’LL BE!”
“JUMPING JEHOSEPHAT!”
“GREAT SCOTT!”
“LORD LOVE A DUCK!”
“GREAT BALLS OF FIRE!”
“HOLY MOLEY!”
“GLORIOSKI!”
“SAINTS PRESERVE US!”
“LAND O GOSHEN!”
“GOOD GRAVY!”
“TARNATION!”
“CONSARN
“SHIVER ME TIMBERS!”
“YUMPING YIMMINY!”
“OY, VEH IZ MIR!”
“IF DAT DON’T TAKE DE CAKE!”
“SHUT MY MOUTH!”
“YIKES!”
“MAMA MIA!”
“THE CAT’S PAJAMAS!”
“THE MONKEY’S INSTEP!”
“S.O.B!”
“SON OF A SEA COOK!”
“SON OF A BISCUIT!”
“PSHAW!”
“BUSHWA!”
“ZUT ALORS!”
“AW, NERTZ!”
“OH, NUTS!”
“GOLLY!”
“GOLLY GEE!”
“HOLY MOSES!”
“BY JOVE!”
“GOSH ALMIGHTY!”
“GOODNESS GRACIOUS!”
“GOOD GRAVY!”
“BY GEORGE!”
“GREAT GUNS!”
“HOLY CATS!”
“CONFOUND IT!”
“GEE WHILLIKERS!”
“GEE WHIZ!”
“GODFREY DANIEL!”
“CUT IT OUT…YOU’RE
KILLIN’ ME!”
“GOOD HEAVENS!”
“HOLY SMOKE!”
“BY CRACKY!”
“MY STARS!”
“JUDAS PRIEST!”
“BLESS MY SOUL!”
“UPON MY WORD!”
“THE CAT’S MEOW!”
“JIMINY CHRISTMAS!”
“BLIMEY!”
“HONEST INJUN!”
“CARAMBA!”
“I’LL BE A DIRTY
SO AND SO!”
“I’LL BE DARNED!”
“HOW D’YE LIKE THAT!”
“WHADDA YA KNOW ABOUT THAT!”
“GIMME A BREAK!”
“HANG IT ALL!”
“AIN’T IT THE TRUTH!”
“SHADRACK, MESACH, AND A BILLY GOAT!”
“THREE CHEERS & A TIGER!”
“AW, FIGS!”
“FAN MY BROW!”
“TAN MY HIDE!”
“GREAT DAY IN THE MORNING!”
“GLORY BE!”
“HOLY MACKEREL!”
“HEAVENLY DAYS!”
“STUFF AND NONSENSE!”
“MY ACHING BACK!”
“FOR PITY’S SAKES!”
“WHADDA YA GONNA DO!”
“THAT’S TELLING ‘EM
“WELL, STRIKE ME PINK!”
“YOU DON’T SAY!”
“SEZ YOU!”
“SO’S YOUR OLD MAN!”
“YOUR MUDDER WEARS ARMY SHOES!”
“GO CHASE YOURSELF!”

FOREWORD – M’lle New York

Posted on by
Reply

What follows is found on the first page of the first issue of Vance Thompson and James Huneker’s M’lle New York magazine, in 1895. It is a glorious tirade of elitism against the “public”. I stumbled across V.T. while researching Max Stirner, who would certainly be an influence on Thompson (and Huneker!) a few years after the following was written.

My own Egoism tends to a type of elitism, rather than communitarian ideals, though some people tie their individualistic horse to the proverbial trough of humanity. I think it’s rather fetid water.

Wikipedia informs us:

From 1895 to 1899, (Vance Thompson) co-edited the periodical M’lle New York with Huneker. Described as “a highly idiosyncratic blend of serious analyses and presentations of European Symbolist literature and thought with buffoonery and incessant anti-philistinism”, it quickly became a manifesto for their cultural ideals.

In the following, Vance does not attack the poor, he slanders the UNDIFFERENTIATED mass. He set his journal to celebrate stratification, by scorning egalitarianism

 

FOREWORD

The mob—that glorious clientage of Shakespeare—is dead; it has become the “public.” It is not merely a juggle of words. This change goes to the root of things. Once the poet and the mob wrought together. Oh. this divine mob of the early centuries! It had a fine force of instinct; it was ignorant and it avowed it; and by this very avowal it attained a high state of intellectual receptivity and appreciation. The mob and Peter the Hermit made the crusades; the mob and Luther the Reformation; the mob and Shakespeare made the drama, as the mob and Villon made the French language—but the mob has become the public and the poet is its lickspittle. Poets? They are the helots—many of them the drunken helots—of the magazines. The public—

The public is made up of individuals who have opinions—they even pronounce opinions; they read the newspapers; they have a sullen and irreconcilable hate for the extraordinary; they believe in philanthropy (the most selfish of vices) and in education (the monstrous fetich of this thoughtless century): there are millions of them; they walk beneath the eternal stars and fondle each other; they are given in marriage and taken in adultery they beget children; they read the newspapers; they have opinions; they are the public. The public—

It corrupts the language it has inherited from the mob and the poets; it has debauched the stage to the level of Mr. Richard Watson Gilder’s poetry and looks upon the drama merely as a help to digestion, a peptic or aperiative; not content with having vulgarized literature and arts, it has begun to “popularize” science—your boot-maker has theories of the creation and your tailor argues the existence of God; counter jumpers play at atheism; lawyers and pedagogues are Mattered at reading in the Astor Library that Moses was only a “medicine man” and Christ a politician. The public—

This grotesque aggregation of foolish individuals pretends to literary taste; it has its painters, its playwrights, its authors; that part of it which reads the male blue-stocking, William Dean Howells, looks down upon that part of it which reads the female blue-stocking, Richard Harding Davis; that part which reads Richard Harding Davis looks down upon the part which reads Laura Jean Libby (why, in Heaven’s name?), and the readers of Miss Libby look down in turn upon the readers of the Police Gazette.

M’lle New York is not concerned with the public. Her only ambition is to disintegrate some small portion of the public into its original component parts—the aristocracies of birth, wit, learning and art and the joyously vulgar mob.

9.

Posted on by
Reply

Long slept Zarathustra; and not only the rosy dawn passed over his head, but also the morning. At last, however, his eyes opened, and amazedly he gazed into the forest and the stillness, amazedly he gazed into himself. Then he arose quickly, like a seafarer who all at once seeth the land; and he shouted for joy: for he saw a new truth. And he spake thus to his heart:

A light hath dawned upon me: I need companions – living ones; not dead companions and corpses, which I carry with me where I will.

But I need living companions, who will follow me because they want to follow themselves – and to the place where I will. A light hath dawned upon me. Not to the people is Zarathustra to speak, but to companions! Zarathustra shall not be the herd’s herdsman and hound!

To allure many from the herd – for that purpose have I come. The people and the herd must be angry with me: a robber shall Zarathustra be called by the herdsmen.

Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the good and just. Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the believers in the orthodox belief.

Behold the good and just! Whom do they hate most? Him who breaketh up their tables of values, the breaker, the lawbreaker: – he, however, is the creator.

Behold the believers of all beliefs! Whom do they hate most? Him who breaketh up their tables of values, the breaker, the law-breaker – he, however, is the creator.

Companions, the creator seeketh, not corpses – and not herds or believers either. Fellow-creators the creator seeketh – those who grave new values on new tables.

Companions, the creator seeketh, and fellow-reapers: for everything is ripe for the harvest with him. But he lacketh the hundred sickles: so he plucketh the ears of corn and is vexed.

Companions, the creator seeketh, and such as know how to whet their sickles. Destroyers, will they be called, and despisers of good and evil. But they are the reapers and rejoicers.

Fellow-creators, Zarathustra seeketh; fellow-reapers and fellow-rejoicers, Zarathustra seeketh: what hath he to do with herds and herdsmen and corpses!

And thou, my first companion, rest in peace! Well have I buried thee in thy hollow tree; well have I hid thee from the wolves.

But I part from thee; the time hath arrived. ‘Twixt rosy dawn and rosy dawn there came unto me a new truth.

I am not to be a herdsman, I am not to be a grave-digger. Not any more will I discourse unto the people; for the last time have I spoken unto the dead.

With the creators, the reapers, and the rejoicers will I associate: the rainbow will I show them, and all the stairs to the Superman.

To the lone-dwellers will I sing my song, and to the twain-dwellers; and unto him who hath still ears for the unheard, will I make the heart heavy with my happiness.

I make for my goal, I follow my course; over the loitering and tardy will I leap. Thus let my on-going be their down-going!

Aeschylus at Marathon. Are we Saved by Love or by Hate?

Posted on by
Reply

Aeschylus at Marathon.
Are we Saved by Love or by Hate ?

Once for all, let us clear our minds of cant. Let us rise to the noble honesty of the Greek attitude which faithfully reflected the sanity and the sanctity of Hate. Can we find a more faithful or more inspiring embodiment of this noble pagan position than in the beautiful, hate-breathing epitaph which Aeschylus wrote for himself? Here it is:

Athenian Aeschylus, Euphorion’s son,
Buried in Geta’s fields these lines declare ;
His deeds are registered at Marathon,
Known to the deep-haired Mede, who met him there.

We wish to offer a few observations on one phase of the opinions elicited by our Symposium. We desire to reason in the most patient manner possible with the most misguided beings who have ever obstructed human progress, we mean the well-meaning but deluded Tolstoyans. The Tolstoyans tell us that Love is the only remedy for social misery When the Tolstoyan stands before the victim of oppression and outrage, it is thus that he addresses the suffering man: “It is true that the oppressor has robbed you not only of the chance of a decent existence, but has condemned your wife to life-long starvation and your daughters to prostitution; nevertheless you are still more blessed than your murderer and exploiter because you have done no evil; and you must still love the instrument of your afflictions. You are far more prosperous than he is, although you are in this sorry light, because you have the approval of your conscience even while you are starving, and if you continue to love.him till you starve to death, you will be numbered with.the saints: in glory everlasting.” When the Tolstoyans, mock our miseries with such precious consolations (for I have but reduced their doctrines to their logical, conclusion) I am compelled to say to them that it is such unutterable imbecilities as these which drive us to despair of humanity. Against such stupidities omnipotence itself must contend in vain. While’ these, insanities meet us at every turn, progress, is all but impossible—our perpetual damnation is the only thing of which we can be certain. Tolstoyans tell us that social syncope exists because men do not love enough. We believe in the antithesis of this statement—we believe that, so far.as, it is not inherent in human nature, social misery exists because men do not hate enough. Love rarely inspires thought, and indeed its apostles tell us that with love no thought is necessary, that love is a substitute for thought. No apostle of Hate has ever talked such nonsense—it has never been alleged that Hate is- a substitute for thought, but we have abundant proof that profound hatred has inspired some of the most impressive streams-of thought, some of the most powerful intellects ‘of all time. Karl Marx, quoting George Sand, declares “On the eve bleach general reconstruction of society, the last word, of social science will ever be

“Combat or death ; bloody struggle or extinction,
“It is thus that the question is irresistibly put.”

H. M. Hyndman wrote: “It is precisely the hatred and disgust I feel for the misery, degradation and physical deterioration around me which had more influence in making and keeping me a Social Democrat than anything else.” William Morris, writing on “How I Became a Socialist,” says: “To sum up then, the study of history and the love and practice of art forced me into a hatred of [the existing] civilisation.”

In a world whose characteristics were prevailingly “lovely,” love would best become a man, but in a world whose leading features are to the last degree unlovely, hypocritical and hateful, hate is the only sentiment an honest man can entertain. Hence it follows that in this predominantly hateful world, men of hate leave their impress on every page of history, while men of love, with their pale and ineffectual negations, have their day and cease to be. Hannibal, Napoleon, Nelson, Danton, Mirabea, Byron, Attilla, Morris, Marx, Proudhon— these names stand as sublime coefficients of vast streams of Hate.

What are the greatest events in modern history, its most inspiring episodes? They are: Tell, Hampden, Milton, or Cromwell, hating and resisting the tyrant to the death; Nelson’s exploits with his middies, inspired to glorious deeds by their hatred of Napoleon and the French; Napoleon’s achievements with his Grenadiers, whose inspiring motive was hatred, first, of their own aristocracy, and then of the enemies of the Eagle Paris razing the Bastille, France liquidating eight centuries of misery, Patrick Henry exclaiming “If this be treason make the most of it”; the embattled farmers firing at the Bridge of Concord (Discord) rather the shot heard round the world, the shot of which Emerson wrote: “Their deed of blood all mankind praise, Even the serene reason says, It was well “done”; Victor Hugo pouring the vials of his hate upon Napoleon the Little. These are the inspirations of Hate and they are among the noblest chapters of human history.

The great Haters are the great Lovers. Love Which does not hate the hateful as prpfoundly as it loves the lovely is mere hyprocrisy. Let us seriously ask the question, Do the predominant characteristics of the present age attract or repel an honest soul—in- other words, is our present age hateful or the reverse? We ought to base our answer upon the opinions of those whose honesty, capacity and experience entitle them to pronounce judg- ment on this issue. We present a series of such opinions in the sonde VIA HELLOROSA (see below). Those whom we have quoted are not journalists, statesmen, or Doctors of Divinity—but perhaps are not less trustworthy on that account. We believe that a consideration of the unbought opinions of Hugo, Heine, Lemennais, etc., will convince any free mind that-the world has now reached the most murderous, most hypocritical, most hateful stage of social evolution known to history.- Shall we love or shall We hate this horrible epoch which has been cursed by the united execrations of Heine, Hugo, Marx, Proudhon, Nietzsche, Shaw, Tucker, Morris, Redbeard, and Wallace? Surely, not to hate in the profoundest possible manner, such an era, which presents an apotheosis of legitimised assassination and worshipped hypocrisy) is to confess oneself a defender of assassins and a devotee of prostitutes and pirates. When one considers the systematic slaughter of the young and helpless, when one ponders the malign influence of our boasted institutions upon thousands of young men and young women, robbing them, as it does, of their unreturning May time and condemning them to lives of unescapable ignorance, bitterness and vice, institutions which murder thousands to give to a few, luxuries as maleficent as the evils they rest upon, when one has circumnavigated this continent and sub-continent of misery, then one asks oneself the question, How can I sufficiently bate and curse this frightful epoch with which I am fatally contemporaneous?

Let us then, like Aeschylus of old, go forth to meet the Mede which threatens the self-realisation of the Free, with a spirit of Hate as unalterable as his own laws, and in a mariner that he will be able to appreciate. If time permit, let us give our enemy a decent burial on the field of our vindication, and if time do not permit we shall leave the dead to bury their dead. But on our field of Marathon we shall erect, with due libations, a trophy of accomplished Hate and Love—of Love for ourselves and our own, of Hate for all that threatens us and ours.

JOAN ERWIN MCCALL, Founder of the Religion of Hate.

WORD NERD :: my first urban dictionary definition :: offenditarian

Posted on by
1

UPDATE: A perfect example of the offenditarian at work: http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-coming-church-state-wars

… I was asked… what should be done about Muslim students at Catholic University demanding that the school provide them with prayer rooms, from which crucifixes and all other Catholic symbols that they found offensive had been removed.
After a nanosecond I replied, “Kick ’em out!”
…
Looking further into the matter, that was a rush to judgment.
For it seems that not a single Muslim student at CUA had gone to the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights to file a complaint.
That complaint was the work of John Banzhaf, a professor at GW, perennial litigant, and longtime contender for the title of National Pest.
In provocative language, Banzhaf told Fox News,
“It shouldn’t be too difficult to set aside a small room where Muslims can pray without having to stare up and be looked down upon by a cross of Jesus.
“They do have to pray five times a day, and to be sitting there trying to do Muslim prayers with a big cross looking down or a picture or Jesus or a picture of the pope is not very conducive to their religion.”

ORIG. POST BELOW

Thanks for your definition of offenditarian!

Editors reviewed your entry and have decided to publish it on urbandictionary.com.

It should appear on this page in the next few days:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=offenditarian

Urban Dictionary

—–

offenditarian

A portmanteau of “offended” and “humanitarian”. It describes someone who has made a lifestyle out of finding deep offense in most any situation. Usually offense is found “on behalf” of other people who represent a definable group that the offenditarian themselves are clearly not a part of.
This is usually to make a display of “solidarity”, an important word in the lexicon of offenditarians.
There is a strict hierarchy of human value, with handicapable African American lesbian female gendered womyn taking the top spot, and white cysgendered males being “worth” only 1/16th of the former.
The irony of offenditarianism is that if one becomes offended on behalf of someone higher on the value scale, the person higher up can use that to then become offended by the “patronizing,” “colonialist” mindset of the offenditarian.

“Why is that girl running down the street and screaming at the ice cream truck?”
“The driver is wearing all white, a trademark outfit of early 20th Century eugenicists.”
“Is the ice cream man a eugenicist?”
“No, but the girl is afraid someone might think he is, she is an offenditarian.”

Response from Massimo Introvigne

Posted on by
Reply

I will be writing a blog on Breivik and the misinformation of connecting him to the Church of Satan as an organization. Until then, I have recieved permission to post Dr. Introvigne‘s response to my previous letter.

Response from Massimo Introvigne:

Thank you for your comments. If you are in contact with (inter alia) Jim Lewis, he can easily confirm to you that in all my publications (including a 600-page manual of Satanism used in a number of Italian and French universities) I have never indulged in slander or defamation of the Church of Satan – my quarrels have been mostly with anti-cultists and moral entrepeneurs promoting moral panics about Satanism.. My text was posted a few hours before your postings at http://www.cesnur.org/2011/mi-oslo-en.html and may have included some factual mistakes I will be glad to correct.

These comments are:
1) “was first made publicly available on the Internet by Kevin Slaughter, an ordained minister in Anton LaVey (1930-1997)’s Church of Satan which, by the way, has a sizeable following in Norway” which I will change into “was first made largely available on the Internet by Kevin Slaughter, who found it on Stormfront.org, a white supremacist forum. Slaughter is an ordained minister in Anton LaVey (1930-1997)’s Church of Satan which, by the way, has a sizeable following in Norway”

2) “In a way, it is not surprising that Breivik had friends even in LaVey’s Church of Satan. The latter became popular in Scandinavia by flirting with right-wing extremists with an anti-immigration agenda and, rather than occultism, emphasized a “rationalist” approach to a celebration of freedom and capitalism largely based on the writings of the Russian-born American novelist Ayn Rand (1905-1982). Rand is listed by both LaVey and Breivik among their favorite authors (of course, this is not to suggest that the Church of Satan had anything to do with the Oslo tragedy).” (note last parenthesis). I will change it into “In a way. It is not surprising that Breivig caught the interest even of a member of LaVey’s Church of Satan, although there is no evidence of any direct contact etc.”

Best regards
Dr Massimo Introvigne

 

Again, I will be writing more on the topic, but even with Massimo’s proposed changes he is still “poisoning the well” when it comes to the assessment of Breivik’s motivations. There is no evidence that he was familiar with Satanism as codified by Anton LaVey and represented by the Church of Satan, and even though the parenthetical statement says just that, there is still an implication that the affiliation of someone who found a piece of evidence and produced it freely has an implication on the person who produced that evidence. It may be interesting or even ironic that a priest in the Church of Satan found and made available the manifesto to all comers as an act of “amateur investigation”, but only on a superficial level, as it would have been just as interesting had it been a professional clown or Russian cosmonaut.

An open letter to Massimo Introvigne….

Posted on by
4

The following letter has been e-mailed and facebook messaged to Introvigne, and I have made and inquiry by twitter as well.

——

Mr. Introvigne,
It appears to me that you have claimed, or it is being interpreted that you’ve stated that I received Breivik’s Manifesto from him, and that he was in direct contact with either myself or someone else from the Church of Satan.
On my personal blog where the manifesto was first posted, and all the original news reporting has made it clear that I found the manifesto on a forum (Stormfront.org) after the terrorist acts had taken place and that I have not ever been in contact with, nor even hear Breivik’s name before the Oslo terrorism.

See:http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/07/23/what_did_the_oslo_killer_want , the author was one of the first people I contacted after I found the manifesto, and he states “The manifesto… was posted on Stormfront.org, a white supremacist website, and discovered by American blogger Kevin I. Slaughter”.

You can see by the date stamps on my personal blog and by my twitter history when I found the document and tried contacting someone about it.

In http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=52474&pageid&pagename you state “In a way, it is not surprising that Breivik had friends even in LaVey’s Church of Satan.”

What information do you have that Breivik was in contact with myself or another member of the Church of Satan? I have revealed everything I have related to Breivik on my blog, where is your proof of this claim, being repeated time and again?

Thanks,
Kevin I. Slaughter

Massimo Introvigne has never contacted me….

Status

Reply

STATEMENT: It appears that Massimo Introvigne is fabricating and spreading unchecked rumors and making unfounded implications. It is being snatched up by various media online and off that are in turn interpreting his implications for their own ends.
It has clearly been stated that I have never heard of or communicated with Breivik before he committed his acts, and that I found the Manifesto while looking for information on a message board.
I am working to clarify what statements have been made by Introvigne and what has been embellished by the media.