Rense is a Nazi scumbag

[OP ED]

Hi pengs.

when i literally worked as a janitor, which, alas, i do not anymore [except for cleaning up my own spaces], i was very peaceful with my job. no one to bother you while you're working and you can tell when you've accomplished something. fame and glamour are overrated.

[infamy is priceless]

(insert bender dance)

[Alaya]

Circle the wagons. He may be a Thelemite but he's our Thelemite.

[Penguin]

I know what you mean...Ive worked similar jobs. Was even a janitor for a little while. Chopping wood and such.

[barracuda]

"First they came for the rectal warts, and I did not speak out—because I was not a rectal wart..."

[Searcher08]

Circle the wagons. He may be a Thelemite but he's our Thelemite.

Werd.

and that was an excellent response, Op Ed

(I imagine that someone somewhere is pounding his tiny manfists on a table in rage )

[lightningBugout]

I recognize the impulse to defend "one of our own," a denizen of the RI township. But. For starters, I and many others here are very fond of the ballsy work Mr. Constantine has done. And while the janitor dis is essentially subhuman, perhaps AC's overall concern about satanism and cults could also be recognized here? Forget OP ED for a sec (no offense to u bro) and try to recall -- trying to figure out how the F to get your average american to recognize elite occultism in the first place is a huge, huge, huge quandary. And "good" satanists defending their cause has a way of screwing up the mix prematurely. So at the very least, even though he has taken a round shot below the belt, consider that AC's provocation may be rooted in a problematic that is dire. That's all.


PS. Thanks for being a good janitor OE. We had one at my elementary school named Mr. Washington and he was such such such a great guy. I used to go back and visit him when I was in high school. Someone has to clean it all up, no? Not to mention you're probably union, right? I wonder what Plato had to say about the utility of the cleaning class? Presumably something somewhat reverent...

[Searcher08]

lbo,

I found that some people of a more academic bent seemed to be able to approach this subject better when presented in a much more conservative, formal and academic style than Alex Constantine's approach.

For me, I found the investigation done by British born academic Anthony C. Sutton to be very difficult to argue against.

Simple questions, like
Who did George Bush personally pick to join Skull and Bones at Yale have what I thought was quite an interesting answer.

The book is a great read and I unhesitatingly recommend it to everyone here - a free copy is here at lulu:

http://www.lulu.com/content/387984

[OP ED]

I recognize the impulse to defend "one of our own," a denizen of the RI township. But. For starters, I and many others here are very fond of the ballsy work Mr. Constantine has done. And while the janitor dis is essentially subhuman, perhaps AC's overall concern about satanism and cults could also be recognized here? Forget OP ED for a sec (no offense to u bro) and try to recall -- trying to figure out how the F to get your average american to recognize elite occultism in the first place is a huge, huge, huge quandary. And "good" satanists defending their cause has a way of screwing up the mix prematurely. So at the very least, even though he has taken a round shot below the belt, consider that AC's provocation may be rooted in a problematic that is dire. That's all.

All the more reason not to rely on secondhand hearsay and report it as unblemished fact or to spread silly internet insinuations. my suggestion was that this is merely PAR for the course for mr. constantine, and is why i considered him useless before he deigned to notice me. i've been cleaning up his sloppy work for years.

At least when he talks about strangers on the internet he has the integrity to label it as secondhand hearsay, and i don't doubt that this point isn't lost on his more careful readers.

"here is a person on the internet that doesn't like me: must be because he's evil"

great logic there alex....

[then we wonder why the mainsteam isn't so accepting]

[Jeff]

I'd recommend proceeding directly to Sara Scott:

Here Be Dragons: Researching the Unbelievable, Hearing the Unthinkable. A Feminist Sociologist in Uncharted Territory

and

The Politics And Experience Of Ritual Abuse

[lightningBugout]

I'd recommend proceeding directly to Sara Scott:

Here Be Dragons: Researching the Unbelievable, Hearing the Unthinkable. A Feminist Sociologist in Uncharted Territory

and

The Politics And Experience Of Ritual Abuse

Wow thanks. How odd I've not read her work before. Thank you Jeff....

[OP ED]

and btw...

Ha ha. No offense OP ED. But is *is* funny....

No. No it is not funny.

It is not funny to have some dickhead on the internet tell thousands of people that you enjoy hurting vulnerable people. It is not funny to have someone tell thousands of people that you wish to undermine investigations of criminal activities of the worst kind. You'd think that'd be fucking obvious and yet it somehow isn't.

Not funny. Not funny. Not funny.

in case you were wondering.

[compared2what?]

and btw...

Ha ha. No offense OP ED. But is *is* funny....

No. No it is not funny.

It is not funny to have some dickhead on the internet tell thousands of people that you enjoy hurting vulnerable people. It is not funny to have someone tell thousands of people that you wish to undermine investigations of criminal activities of the worst kind. You'd think that'd be fucking obvious and yet it somehow isn't.

Not funny. Not funny. Not funny.

in case you were wondering.

It sure as fuck isn't. It is in fact beyond hella irresponsible reporting. It's also arguably defamatory, although the law is always fucking changing wrt that on the internet.

I just saw this for the first time, this moment. So, barracuda, I'll apologize to you via PM for the tone of my response on another....Well, never mind. I'll write to you.

lbo: That's just an unconscionable thing to be amused by, under any and every circumstance. If it were a true characterization, it would not be amusing. And if it were an untrue characterization, it would not be amusing.

Beyond that, it reflects very, very, very poorly on Alex Constantine's standards that he'd frontpage an item that so clearly implicates a person whom he doesn't know and didn't try to contact for a response as (at the very least) a dirty Satanic-Cult-Lover. In a format that suggests that the implication has news value. On the basis of a single anonymous source whom he describes as an "acquaintance" although the quote plainly demonstrates that said single anonymous source has absolutely no direct, pertinent or firsthand knowledge of his subject at all. And no apparent qualifications to speak credibly about him. Because that set-up ("Why? I've written about satanic cults.") really does not leave any room for doubt about what kind of satanic cult activity he's suggesting OP ED has enough of a personal investment in to feel animosity toward AC for having condemned it.

All personal issues aside, that's a very serious implication to make about anyone, when (or if) the only card you're holding is the word of an unnamed source who doesn't appear to be in a position to speak to its truth. Especially if you explicitly put it under the imprimatur of the parts of your CV that emphasize your impeccable credibility and impressive track record. And also supply enough identifying details that there's some potential that your readers will either recognize or make a point of discovering whom you're implicating. IOW, when there's some potential that you're putting your subject at risk for and possibly in danger of facing very serious reprisals by making a very public implication that you (apparently) have no good-faith or reliable reason at all to believe is true.

That's atrocious behavior. Irresponsible. Unreliable. And also unwise, assuming he does not have at least two reliable sources and is in a position to make a very persuasive and solid argument that he believed what he posted to be true based on the best information available to him at the time of writing. Which I don't see how he can if he didn't contact you, OP ED.

Although I'd have to check it with....you know, a real attorney, it's possible that if he didn't ask you for a response, given that a court would be very likely to rule that...

There. Now I've given this rectal wart a good reason to "hate. All in a day's work.

....met the criteria for malicious intent, it would be libelous even if it were true. Because the maxim "The truth is an absolute defense against libel" is not absolutely accurate. And there's no legal distinction between reporting a defamatory rumor as a rumor and reporting it as a fact.

That's all just detail, though. If all he has is what he says he has, it's fully self-discrediting wrt his adherence to reliable standards in itself. Because if that's the case, by his own admission, he sometimes doesn't adhere to them. How is the reader supposed to know when he does and when he doesn't?

I'm so, so sorry, OP ED. What he wrote was abusive. No one here should be supportive of that, in any form.

[compared2what?]

I recognize the impulse to defend "one of our own," a denizen of the RI township. But. For starters, I and many others here are very fond of the ballsy work Mr. Constantine has done. And while the janitor dis is essentially subhuman, perhaps AC's overall concern about satanism and cults could also be recognized here? Forget OP ED for a sec (no offense to u bro) and try to recall -- trying to figure out how the F to get your average american to recognize elite occultism in the first place is a huge, huge, huge quandary. And "good" satanists defending their cause has a way of screwing up the mix prematurely. So at the very least, even though he has taken a round shot below the belt, consider that AC's provocation may be rooted in a problematic that is dire. That's all.


PS. Thanks for being a good janitor OE. We had one at my elementary school named Mr. Washington and he was such such such a great guy. I used to go back and visit him when I was in high school. Someone has to clean it all up, no? Not to mention you're probably union, right? I wonder what Plato had to say about the utility of the cleaning class? Presumably something somewhat reverent...

No. No, no, no. LBO, the impulse is not to defend one of our own. The impulse is to call an irresponsible and cruel act of vengeance absolutely unacceptable. Because it is. Absolutely. Apart from which, it doesn't advance your cause. It damages it. The crimes alleged are very, very serious. By you, by other RA survivors, by Alex Constantine, by anyone. The stakes are too high to set your standards so low that you'd dump them at someone's feet just to win some perceived bitch-slap contest.

Please take the serious wrongs done to you seriously, if only for my sake. Because I do, even if you don't. And even if you can't, in fact, honey. To which I would be sympathetic, were it the case. It's manifestly a very heavy burden to bear. But never mind that. I know you can do whatever you seriously dedicate yourself to doing. That's why I want you to do it seriously.

Also: No. No, no, no, no, no.

[OP ED]

A couple of things before i leave this thread to rot for now:

c2w: thanks for your thoughts. i appreciate it.

barracuda: i know i said last nite that i don't care if you want to discuss the concerns you mentioned here, and do as you will because i don't really mind and i doubt it'll bear anything, but my own position as of sleeping on it is that i honestly don't really want to know who spread rumors about me.


(because i will never forgive them)

...

as to the blog post itself: i've been advised not to further comment on it at this time.

[lightningBugout]

To me, AC taking the time to comment on a regular poster on a blog different from his own is "funny." Because it reveals OP ED really got under his skin. And it reveals that mr C is much thinner-skinned than I had realized. My thinking so should not be filtered through my own history as I have shared it here.