Methodologies and Tactics of Satanists to Destroy

Reputations and Break Down Communications

Introduction

The nature of our ministry - that of delivering abuse victims from a very secretive and influential network of underground criminal organisations with people in high places - means, inevitably, that you become the target of rumour-mongering, gossip, and outright defamation. We know of many people, not of this ministry and including humanists concerned about the welfare of their fellow man, who have been falsely accused on trumped-up charges for crimes they never committed in order to get them out of the way when attempts at debunking their research work on these organisations have failed. Satan attacks on many levels and fronts, both overtly and subtlely. In the very extreme cases people 'disappear', vanishing without trace, or are apparently the victims of 'accidents' (road 'accidents' are the most common). Using state-of-the-art technology and having inside knowledge and control of computer systems and the information highway, through bribery, threats or placing their own people in key positions, the flow of information is not only controlled and monitored but not infrequently corrupted with a view to incriminating and blackmailing or threatening ministers into silence. Anyone who comes anywhere near disturbing the dark conspiracy (itself debunked by their own specially hired spin-artists) is usually set-upon most viciously.

The Purpose of this Article

The purpose of this short paper is to state the policy of this ministry with some examples from our past on how, and how not, to answer maliciously-minded critics. It is important to understand how these people use secular psychology to manipulate both those they are attacking and those whose ideas they are trying to influence their accusations with. Bear in mind that the most effective way to incriminate someone is not by means of outright lies - which most honest people can spot - but by a mixture of truth and lies with a preponderance of truth. Since the truths can usually easily be verified, giving the impression of reporting accuracy and impartiality, this lends credibility to the lies which are carefully sneaked in or to certain facts subtly twisted and emphasised out of all proportion. The written word is notoriously open to multiple interpretation because of its lack of emphasis and inflection. Thus the sentence, "You are a liar" can be understood differently depending what you wish to stress: (a) You are a liar; (b) You are a liar; (c) You are a liar; and (d) You are a liar, whilst sounding similar, do suggest different things.

Appreciating Change

I have been in the ministry for twenty years now and the landscape of both our theology and missionary drive has changed considerably. In the early years we were more or less ignored because what we taught, though strict and 'radical' (by liberal standards), did not rock any particular boats and because our presence was so tiny and we were virtually unheard of. In those days the only people we really upset were the Mormons for it would be true to say that we very much homed in on them as potential converts. And though we are still a very small group (only several thousand strong, unlike the early days when we were less than a hundred), our internet presence is large and has made a major impact, giving the (unpremeditated) impression (because we clearly state we are small) that we are larger than we really are (even this, ironically, has been used by critics to accuse us of dishonesty, as if an internet site's size ought somehow to be scaled down and made proportionate to the numbers of members). However, even that has not been the point of controversy that has provoked the recent backlashes: the greatest criticisms have really only come in the last five years since we began our deliverance ministry and we, as a result, inevitably came across the most wicked and depraved of all groups, the satanist covens whose survival depends on the utmost secrecy and whose criminal activities are therefore vigorously protected by all means. However, the earliest 'causes of complaint' were, and still are, the fact that we are 'small' and therefore 'unknown' in the sense we are not to be found in every town like the Lutherans or Pentecostals - much like the first Christians were viewed with suspicion amongst the Talmudists of Yah'shua's and the apostles' day.

The Earliest Critics and Their Modus Operandi

It is hard to say what exactly provoked the earliest backlashes but included in the list would almost certainly be our belief in the possibility of more revelation (with all its attendant risks, which we acknowledge), our challenge to all the 'traditional' credes but for the Apostolic, our acceptance of polyagmous minority groups in Africa (principally Kenya) and elsewhere, and our belief in a strict separation from worldly values and family-centredness in a world where family structures are not only being eroded but positively destroyed. There will always be people who have gripes and there will always be people who think they have a religious or polictial mandate from heaven or from that mythical and mystical entity called the 'state', to weed out 'suspicious', small and new groups. It's the way of human nature and it's always likely to be around. People don't like change, innovation or challenge as a rule (particularly not from a small minority) - anything that challenges the status quo or rocks the boat is always vigorously opposed by those who have an interest in the status quo and who accordingly derive status, power, wealth and prestige from it. They need not be a small élite like the Scribes and Pharisees but can include the broad masses who have been duped or brainwashed into supporting and idolising the élite.

Attack the Shepherd, Scatter the Sheep

The principal targets of such groups are invariably the leaders and, inevitably, their founders: "strike the shepherd and the sheep scatter" is the familiar addage. It is not long before groups whose doctrines are theologically disjunctive with the majority belief system to have their leaders critically (and supposedly 'objectively) psycho-analysed. To be sure, there is plenty of subject material for the psychologists amongst the Jones', Koresh's, Smith's, and others, not to mention the psycho-analysts themselves who more often than not are more disturbed than the objects of their criticism. When I left Mormonism I read a number of books and articles psycho-analysing the Mormon 'Prophet', Joseph Smith, such as by Jean Brodie, and each and every (usually contradory) conclusion of these historical 'analysts' was graded and heavily influenced by the school of psychological thought they adhered to. It is the same with the Muslim 'Prophet' who has been 'diagnosed' as epileptic amongst other things. They may all be interesting hyotheses, but hypotheses they remain, and people will always colour those they hate or fear in the strongest possible dye so as to divert the critical eye from themselves, in their consciences knowing (or denying/suppressing) the cosmic truth that "in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you" (Matt.7:2, NIV). Every critic must live with his or her conscience and answer to the Divine Judge.

Greater Complexity Than is Admitted

People are complex inner universes of multiple motivations and impulses which they barely understand themselves which is probably why Yah'shua counselled people to think twice before attacking the character of others. Yahweh's Torah states that if an accuser falsely accuses, then the accuser shall be judged and punished for the crime that he has accused his victim of. Little wonder that Yah'shua warned people to hestitate before judging.

It is possible to selectively isolate samples or incidents from anyone's life and assemble a theory about that person. But take the different groups of materials and try to make coherent sense between them is at best dicey and at worst futile if you don't even understand the workings of your own inner mind and heart. You just have to look at the analyses of Bibical characters by atheists to know that you can impute virtually what you like on anyone. Obviously someone who does not believe in prophetic visions is going to try to prove that such a person is mentally ill and delusional. We know the fate of believers in the former Soviet Union whose final destiny was often a psychiatric clinic. So people will 'anaylse' others based on all kinds of assumptions and belief systems and you will never find across-the-board agreement. In examining any critic's analysis of another person and religious movement it is therefore vital to find out just what his own belief system is, whether he actually lives it or is only acting it out (like the Pharisees of yesteryear) and therefore through what interpretive lens he is seeing the world. This is one reason why the evolutionay and humanistic proponents of 'higher' Biblical criticism rarely agree on anything and why there are as many theories as there are critics. That alone should make people stop short and question the objectivity of such analyses, and whether, indeed, ultimate objectivity is possible in an existentialist universe. And it is existentialist to the existentialist since their morality is not based on any absolute truth but on the shifting mores of humanistic society and thinking.

As Many Interpreters as Interpretations

Whoever you may be, you will inevitably intepret and come to conclusions about people and belief systems based on your private spiritual or intellectual lenses, itself a complicated thing based on hundreds of factors but including education, emotional perception and life experience. You may even find some of them very disturbed people indeed. Therefore as a basic rule one must know the assumptions upon which a critic's world-view is based. It is no accident, I feel, that our latest critic refuses to identify either himself (or herself) or his belief system, andf that he is supplying his information to a 'cult-watch' group run by a Jew (Rick Ross) who has classified all Messianic Jews as 'cultic' simply' because he believes that it is immoral to evangelise and recruit Jews to Christianity simply because he doesn't like Christianity (not that's bias in the extreme)! We know nothing about him. We are simply being asked to believe in his method of analysis and interpretation, presumably based on the fact that his verbage appears to be intellectual and sound.

Two Approaches to the Critics

We for our part approach all criticism from two angles. The first is the Biblical, which we maintain is absolute truth, and we use this against or in defence of those who also maintain they are 'Bible-believing Christians' or Messianic. Against the rest we use plain logic and demonstrate (as it is is easy to do) that all other judgments are relativistic and must therefore be seen within the context of the belief systems and intellectual and philosophical humanistic judgments of a pluralistic society which (though a contradiction of terms in my view) is nevertheless the one we live in in the West and must deal with. It is easy to demonstrate that the critics coming against us out of this milieu do not uphold, and are defective in, their own professed standards of morality and judgment. And using this system of 'morality' (if one can even call it that) it is possible to 'demonstrate' that we are 'defective' in our turn. The result, though, is to simply prove that everyone is defective and that for the system to survive, our mutual defectiveness must be accommodated or even embraced. And it is here the hypocrisy sets in because everyone knows, deep down, that they believe that theirs is the only system they believe and whilst they profess tolerance (in order to be politically correct on the surface) they would rather that the other belief systems were disproved and eliminated, and indeed set about doing this unconsciously and before long their real prejudice reveals itself as they become more and more overt. They are double-minded and hypcritical. We who believe in the absolute truth of Torah and the New Testament have a much easier task being single-minded and truthful since we don't play mind games like they are forced do in order to 'balance' the contradictions.

Thus we have this total contradiction in the neo-pagan liberal system we have which on the surface professes acceptance of Christianity provided that that Christianity does not claim to have exclusive truth (i.e. they only accept neo-pagan or neo-humanistic liberal 'Christianity'). What we have in reality are two categories of belief today in the liberal neo-pagan mindset, namely those who are all-inclusive (the 'good' guys - like New Age, Hinduism, Buddhism, liberal Christianity etc.) and those who are exclusive ( the 'bad' guys - Islam, Orthodox Judaism and conservative Christianity and Messianism). In the new paradigm the latter are, by psycho-gibberitic analytical claptrap, being classified as 'cultic', 'dangerous' and 'anti-social'. (I am not saying that orthodox Judaism and Islam are not potentially 'cultic'. Merely that they are defined as being so by the liberal mindset because they claim exclusive truth. The point is they are not the exclusive truth as they maintain).

It is important that we become aware of this trend and understand that the drive is to force people to accept that there is no such thing as absolute truth and to classify those who believe there is as dangerous cultists. That is the underlying current we must constantly keep in focus when answering critics for we need to know what their position is on the nature of truth. Most, I dare say, adhere to the occultic view that everyone is their own truth and that to claim exclusive truth (as Christ did) is in some way indicative of a cultic mentality. (Of course those who make this exclusivity claim in fact believe in lies may indeed be said to be cultic since by definition there can only be one absolute truth).

The Dishonesty of the 'Scientific' Priesthood

Now I am a graduate of Oxford University and I worked in a research laboratory for a year, preparing academinc papers along with my collegues. (If anyone wants to see mine, I have a copy of it here, and it is available in the Oxford University Biochemistry Department archives. It is entitled, Biochemical and Physiological Studies on Phenylalanine Ammonia-Lyase in Beta Vulgaris Leaf Discs. If you do read it, be warned - it is not exactly a Nevil Shute thriller and unless you are a dedicated academic who has an interest in the biochemistry of plant wounding, it will probably send you to sleep).

The theses of my fellow academics were carefully crafted in spotless English and in the expected academic style. But beneath the seeminlg unassailable and impeccable veneer of scholarship there lay a word that to the outside world is largely hidden. Squabbling, in-fighting, feuds between researchers, fiddling the data, ignoring data that contradicts cherised theoretical positions, stealing other people's work (plagiarism), and much else besides lies behind much of what was, and is, prepared in academia. The 'academic priesthood' has its own filthy hands. Moreover, you can only get funding for what the élite want you to study which means, amongst other things, that research critiquing Darwinism is always turned down, as was my proposal for a postgraduate thesis when I applied for a grant at Cambridge University. Likewise, try to publish anything challenging the evolutionary golden calf in an academic journel and you will never be heard. You might say that the secular priesthood has become its own mediaevel autocratic 'Roman Catholic theocracy'.

Many of the people in this ivory-towered world know this but the inner workings are largely shielded from the outside world. These academics, with their white laboratory robes (and remember, I used to wear them, including the fancy black ones with colourful capes and mortar boards of worldly prestige of the University itself), have become the modern atheistic priesthood to whom the ignorant masses (who are, incidentally, not taught much logic in school anymore) are supposed to admiringly bow down to and impeccably trust in every judgment relating to the known universe as centuries ago was expected of the Roman Catholic religio-political machine.

Things are not always whats they seem to be. We do, after all, have a century of propaganda experience behind us, refined and broadcast by fascists, communists, and various religionists. It's surprising, in fact, the more you dig, just how little truth there is, the facts being massaged and rearraged to promote the agenda or presidential reign of the day. And the art of political spin-doctoring, a phenomenon of the late 20th century, perfected in the USA and now imitated worldwide, is in full swing now. We live in a world of crafted illusion. But inevitably the crafters claim to be the puveyors of truth. Today's illusion-builders are undoubtedly the Illuminists and Satanists who have passed through the state schools of espionage and military warfare: they get the best kind of 'education' that both honesty and dishonesty can buy. Because their tools are supernatural (demonic), their lies are highly intelligently and skillfully crafted. So it takes experienced intellectuals (and not a small amount of bravery, when one's life at stake), who know about the invisible realm, to stay one step ahead of them and expose them.

Of course there are honest people (thank goodness) and those who would like to be (but who are duped for lack of data and/or analytical skills, but who can be re-edutaed with a little patience, willingness and investment in time). And with some basic truths under your belt, it is possible to expose much of the lying and deception that goes on these days. For those who believe in, and accept, divine inspiration, there is the spirit of discernment; for those who do not, there are basic principles of logic that can be applied. As believers we appeal to both as two separate but complimentary streams.

Examples from the Past

Throughout my two decades of ministry I have been accused by a good many people and have, naturally, taken steps to defend myself and our ministry in general. It is not always possible to ascertain the motives behind such attacks though some have been plain enough. We have, at various times, had associations with other ministries and tried to work together. One of our ministers was recruited by one such ministry and offered a poisition of leadership because of his experience andf their shared interest in a particular doctrinal field. In time, though, the terms of his appointment were quietly changed (without him always being informed) as the ministry evolved, and the initial freedom he had been given to express his own opinions (in a charitable spirit where there were difficulties) was at length curbed. He was expected not only eventually to slavishly agree with the one in charge but a demand was even made that he remove his very excellent webpage as a gesture of solidarity so that the public would not have to go to multiple sources, thereby supposedly making the public witness more effective.

When our minister tired of, and left after, this treatment, several followed with him, justly criticising the authoritarian and dishonest methodology of this ministry. Not long afterwards, our whole ministry came under 'scrutiny' with an appointee being delegated by him to check our historical claims, speak with former members, and even pry into our bank accounts and private lives. The accusation was levelled that we were a money scam and not at all living what we preached, and only interested in dishonestly obtaining funds. And even though not a shred of evidence was ever found, let alone published, to substantiate the claims, no apology was ever issued, leaving the gossip to multiply unchecked. This man's ministry has since flourished but at the expense of truth and honesty and my own reputation. He is in Yahweh's hands to do with as He pleases and we don't concern ourselves about him or his dishonest methods. He has his own conscience to live by.

Another man used to go around the various internet chatrooms claiming that all my academic qualifications were a fraud, that I had never been to Oxford University, and that my Masters Degree was bogus. I have sinced published all my certifications on the internet for all to see. This man never did offer an apology or retract his lying accusation and there are doubtless many, who do not want to investigate the truth, who still believe him and who are still spreading gossip.

Finally, a group of Lutherans banded together many years ago and accused me of being a pervert because we supported, amongst other things, the rights of Kenyan Christian polygamists to continue living their lifestyle in the face of opposition by the traditional denominations (Catholic and Anglican/Presbyterian, who ironically and hypocritically accommodate the practice thsemselves in this and other Third World countries on condition that their newly baptised polyagmous parishoners do not expand their families further - other violently split the families apart and cause much suffering and impoverishment). By selectively taking materials from our website out of context and selectively photocopying extracts from stolen letters quoted out of context, they attempted to convince my employer that I was a dangerous man who, by virtue of my position of responsibility as a school teacher, should be dismissed 'for the safety of the children'. Fortunately, by employer, who knew me well over many years, smelled a rat and simply dismissed the whole matter without further ado. It was an unpleasant and distatasteful experience but served the purpose of strengthening my resolution not to be intimidated by such dishonourable people. Only when I threatened the people concerned with legal action for harrassment did they finally desist, but not before one of them had threatened to come and beat me up. Amusingly, the day he was to set out on his wicked appointment, the kitchen of his house caught fire and was burned out, forcing him to remain at home and leave me to go home unmolested. The same people attempted to take me to court, have me deported from Norway, put me in prison, and have my children seized by Social Services. Needless to say they totally failed in their evil attempts, Yahweh warning me ina dvance in vision of their wicked designs.

I have been accused of many things since, which do not merit documenting or commenting on, because of their distasteful and malicious character and self-contradictory 'evidence'. Perhaps the worst rumour that was spread (by the man claiming I never went to Oxford University), without a shred of evidence (because there never was any) was that I had got an Australian hitch-hiker pregnant (who never existed, incidentally), dumped her, and that she had returned home and committed suicide after a severe bout of depression. The accuser, whom I have good reason now to believe is a satanist, then proceeded to tell everyone how he, a medical practicioner (actually, he has some New Age 'qualification' to be some sort of Chinese Taoist herbalist) had devoted his time consoling the distraught parents of the hapless girl and had devoted his life to getting me into prison. The spin was good, no names were ever given or evidence presented, those who did not care for evidence swallowed it, and the rest dismissed it for what it was: a vicious yarn with the sole purpose of defamation.

I fully expect a new wave of 'stories' to begin circulating following recent encounters with the satanist covens who have been spectacularly defeated. We recall the encounter by Elijah with the prophets of Baal at Mount Carmel, a scene similar to which has repeated itself in our day amongst us. The response of the main enemy of the prophet, Queen Jezebel, was to turn to a second strategy - the law of the land - which she sought to manipulate and twist to strike fear in Yahweh's servant. Though initially turning tail and fleeing, he at length returned and witnessed Jezebel's humiliating and gruesome death, which had been foretold by him. Whatever the strategem employed by the wicked, the result is the same. They will be exposed and destroyed by Yahweh Himself.

However, if you are not one who believes in God or the miraculous, as the majority in our neo-pagan culture do not, then obviously talk of the supernatural means little. In terms of the desired result, which is the truth about the activities of these covens who are the main instruments of persecution, accusation and criticism, it actually does not matter, since you don't have to believe in God and demons to be revolted, and acknowledge the barbarism and evil of, ritual torture, rape and murder which the covens habitually practice. Anyone caring to seriously investigate the claims we make will, if they can get past the spin-doctoring of these perverts, soon discover the reality, or make an early trip into the next world. We also have the testimonies of the victims themselves whom we have spent years helping, without cost, I might add, for we never charge for our services. It is not difficult to disprove the accusations that we are raking in money like some cultic groups because we provide all our written material and prayer services free and live very frugally. All tithes go to the local congregations since our people are too poor to support headquarters, and so we expect nothing of them.

continued in Part 2