Kevin Annett once performed an ‘Exorcism’ outside the Vatican and claimed he caused lightning to strike the Vatican dome and tornado’s to roar about Italy. When Annett published these Urgent Action Press Releases he made it seem as if the “Devil lurking within the very heart of the Roman Catholic Church” was reacting in pain to his very presence. Yet, this is a man who has denied the very existence of Jesus Christ; who himself instructed Peter on the founding of “The Church” and who exorcised a legion of demons into a herd of swine and resisted the temptations of Satan. Surely, without the help of the Holy Spirit (of whom Jesus warned that one should never deny) and the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ himself, no exorcism is possible. So how is it that this Christ denier can claim any kind of authority over demons, let alone Lucifer himself who presides over all spirits of the sky? Is it because he exhalts himself above the authority and judgement seat that is reserved for the King of Kings himself? Or is he just full of shit?
I conclude the latter, for if Annett were any kind of a priest his eschatology would certainly include the acknowledgement of the power of Christ. Come to think of it, this is a theme among Satanic Ritual Abuse screechers as of late; that they fail to address the problem or even define the problem they have come to roll so blithely off their tongues. That problem is Satan and the ‘ism’ that goes with him. Satan is certainly a problem for Kevin Annett, who has recently denied that the phenomenon of SRA is real and called it merely False Memory Syndrome. Yes, as above so below: How can you deny Christ and acknowledge the Devil most certainly exists. But more precisely than that, no one who has screamed “Google Christ Church Dot Com!”, or created a new word for the English dictionary (ie. Satanity), has made even a measly attempt to define just what is meant by Satanic Ritual Abuse. Scholars into the phenomenon of sporadic ‘Satanic Panics’ in the U.S., Canada and now the U.K. have done a fairly good job in explaining what is at the heart of these claims. Michael Nuccitelli, on his blog: Dark Psychology, describes the work done to understand SRA and those who practice it:
Regarding SRA and RA, from 1986 to 1989 Dr. Finkelhor devised and implemented a study in day care agencies nation wide. At the time, SRA was frequently covered by national media, involved in court room battles, and rampant throughout the country and abroad. It was Dr. Finkelhor and his colleagues who devised a methodology to assess whether RA and SRA were realistic criminal events or dramatic hoax. Their research was funded by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect and results were published in the book Nursery Crimes: Sexual Abuse in Day Care (Sage Publications, January, 1988) coauthored by Linda M. Williams Ph.D., and contributions by Nanci Burns.
In an executive summary of their findings, Dr. Finkelhor reported RA was defined as abuse involving supernatural symbols, activities, and religious themes. He estimated 13 % of children found to be abused in the study were actively victimized using elements of RA. Given the diversity and complexity of RA and SRA, Dr. Finkelhor and his colleagues moved to subdivide the cases into three discreet categories. Of the 13%, all had engaged in child abuse but their profiles and motivations were somewhat different. He and his team determined the perpetrators modus operandi entailed different themes.
A. True cult-based ritualism, B. Pseudo-ritualism, and C. Psychological ritualism. Although his initial research query for the national study was to determine if day care agencies were high risk environments for children, his results and categorization of SRA/RA were valuable. As a world renowned expert sociologist with impeccable credentials, Dr. Finkelhor introduced to the SRA/RA educated world the three faces of Satanic Ritual Abuse. Although criticized for his data collection, Dr. Finkelhor and his associates created specifically defined segments with a nomenclature describing their motivations.
I. His first category was defined as True Cult-Based Ritualism. This segment of SRA included children who were abused as fodder honoring a larger spiritual being. Because this segment engaged in spiritual pursuits, victimization involved others adding the goal of a social objective as well. Of the 13% of alleged RA episodes, this category of cult based involved perpetrators engaged in child victimization for spiritual, metaphysical, and/or religious based belief systems.
This segment of offenders included spiritual and paranormal components and occurred in a social group dynamic more than the other offenders. These assailants were not suffering from psychiatric illness or sexually motivated, but engaged in these heinous acts for religious/spiritual devotion.
II. The second category defined by Dr. Finkelhor was perpetrators engaged in what he defined as Psuedo-Ritualism. Of the three categories he subdivided, these assailants were true sociopaths and psychopaths motivated by the goal of sexual gratification and sadistic fantasy. For these deviant predators, their theatre of spiritual, paranormal, and religious portrayals were elements of planned intimidation tactics.
In addition to sexually abusing their pediatric victims physically, they likely experienced gratification from sadistic psychological victimization. As predator sociopaths victimize others void of remorse, they also implement tactics and strategies increasing the victim’s level of fear reducing their potential of disclosing the abuse to an adult or loved one.
III. The third and possibly easiest profile to conceptualize as a psychologist is Dr. Finkelhor’s category of perpetrators he defined as engaging in Psychological Ritualism. Unlike the perpetrator motivated by spiritual connection with social objectives or the sociopath seeking sexual gratification, this segment of ritual abuse perpetrators are engaged in the throws of a severe psychiatric illness(s) fueling their distorted motivations to abuse children.
Although not as sociopathic as the other two groups, these individuals are still just as dangerous, volatile, and highly unpredictable given their psychotic episodes. According to Dr. Finkelhor, he surmised their psychiatric disabilities were either dictated by an obsessive compulsive condition and/or a thought disordered delusional process.
The three faces of Satanic Ritual Abuse conceptualized by Dr. Finkelhor created a brief moment of clarity for some experts working in the field attempting to grasp the mind and motivations of the adult predator. Although his initial query was to assess risk potential for children attending day care agencies, he and his team became part of the enormous controversy fostered the supporters and detractors of whether SRA and RA were contemporary forms of victimization. Almost 25 years have passed since he and his colleagues began investigating child sexual abuse and risk potential at day care agencies. Despite the passage of time, his extrapolation of the three faces of Satanic Ritual Abuse still to this day remains as relevant as ever.
At the heart of the alleged Hampstead SRA case are two children, P and Q, whose description of events certainly appear to fall into the first category, as described by Dr. Finkelhor; True cult-based ritualism. They describe the parents and teachers dancing with baby skulls and shoes made from baby skins and the rituals of cutting and drinking blood. What is lacking from the childrens’ story is the invocation of any kind of deity, such as those demons or astral deities who are known to grant wishes when certain things are done. This brings me to the subject of motivation. If the SRA adults in the Hampstead case were doing the rituals the children describe, then what is the payoff? What would motivate such a large group of individuals to do such horrific things if it wasn’t for some kind of reward? Certainly people can be sick and twisted, but then wouldn’t the second or third categories described by Dr. Finkelhor be more appropriate? Or is it possible that the children were part of a PSYOPS used to manipulate public consensus and thereby shape public policy? Did Kevin Annett let slip a kernel of truth about False Memory Syndrome with regards to the Hampstead case totally contradicting his earlier and very damaging claims surrounding the ‘elusive’ Ninth Circle Cult?
But does that mean that Satanic Ritual Abuse doesn’t exist? According to ReligiousTolerance.org the answer is yes and no. Certainly there are elements of Satanism in some abuse cases but not to the extent of an International ring, or intergenerational cult that permeates through an entire community without detection. I don’t know if I agree with all of their assertions.
One of the most interesting cases I’ve found ‘proving’ SRA, is that of Lt. Col. (ret) Michael Aquino who wrote an extensive introduction to a whitepaper on Psychological Warfare. In this paper he writes:
Within the U.S. military, PSYOP has habitually been relegated to a back-seat as a “force multiplier”. The principal strategic decisions are made in consideration of traditional political and military interests and goals. Only then is PSYOP invited to the table, to help achieve already-agreed-upon missions more efficiently. MindWar reverses this sequence. Psychological means for achieving victory – essentially through convincing the enemy that he really wants to bring his national policies into harmony with ours – are fashioned in support of basic political goals. The use of “ordinary” military force (bombs, bullets, etc.) is regarded as a “last resort” in circumstances wherein MindWar by itself fails.
Aquino has been accused of abduction, torture, ritual abuse and murder of children. He is a self-proclaimed occultist and Satanist and member of the Temple of Set. From Wikipedia:
The Temple was founded by members of the Church of Satan, who left that organization in 1975 because of administrative and philosophical disagreements with its founder Anton Szandor LaVey. Michael Aquino had joined the Church of Satan in 1969 and had risen rapidly in the Church’s hierarchy. Aquino has stated that he believed LaVey to not be merely a charismatic leader but to have been actually appointed by Satan himself (referring to this charismatic authority as the “Infernal Mandate”) to found the Church.After the split of 1975, Aquino believed LaVey had lost the mandate, which the “Prince of Darkness” then transferred to Aquino and a new organization, the Temple of Set.
According to the website, theforbiddenknowledge.com, Aquino was at the heart of a military pedophile ring:
Aquino, Satan and the U.S. military
Throughout much of the 1980s, Aquino was at the center of a controversy involving the Pentagon’s acquiescence to outright Satanic practices inside the military services. Aquino was also a prime suspect in a series of pedophile scandals involving the sexual abuse of hundreds of children, including the children of military personnel serving at the Presidio U.S. Army station in the San Francisco Bay Area. Furthermore, even as Aquino was being investigated by Army Criminal Investigation Division officers for involvement in the pedophile cases, he was retaining highest-level security clearances, and was involved in pioneering work in military psychological operations (“psy-ops”).
On August 14, 1987, San Francisco police raided Aquino’s Russian Hill home, which he shared with his wife Lilith. The raid was in response to allegations that the house had been the scene of a brutal rape of a four-year-old girl. The principal suspect in the rape, a Baptist minister named Gary Hambright, was indicted in September 1987 on charges that he committed “lewd and lascivious acts” with six boys and four girls, ranging in age from three to seven years, during September-October 1986. At the time of the alleged sex crimes, Hambright was employed at a child care center on the U.S. Army base at Presidio. At the time of Hambright’s indictment, the San Francisco police charged that he was involved in at least 58 separate incidents of child sexual abuse.
According to an article in the October 30, 1987 San Francisco Examiner, one of the victims had identified Aquino and his wife as participants in the child rape. According to the victim, the Aquinos had filmed scenes of the child being fondled by Hambright in a bathtub. The child’s description of the house, which was also the headquarters of Aquino’s Satanic Temple of Set, was so detailed, that police were able to obtain a search warrant. During the raid, they confiscated 38 videotapes, photo negatives, and other evidence that the home had been the hub of a pedophile ring, operating in and around U.S. military bases.
Aquino and his wife were never indicted in the incident. Aquino claimed that he had been in Washington at the time, enrolled in a year-long reserve officers course at the National Defense University, although he did admit that he made frequent visits back to the Bay Area and to his church/home. The public flap over the Hambright indictment did prompt the U.S. Army to transfer Aquino from the Presidio, where he was the deputy director of reserve training, to the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center in St. Louis.
On April 19, 1988, the ten-count indictment against Hambright was dropped by U.S. Attorney Joseph Russoniello, on the grounds that, while there was clear evidence of child abuse (six of the children contracted the venereal disease, chlamydia), there was insufficient evidence to link Hambright (or the Aquinos) to the crimes. Parents of several of the victims charged that Russoniello’s actions proved that “the Federal system has broken down in not being able to protect the rights of citizens age three to eight.”
Russoniello would later be implicated in efforts to cover up the links between the Nicaraguan Contras and South American cocaine-trafficking organizations, raising deeper questions about whether the decision not to prosecute Hambright and Aquino had “national security implications.”
Indeed, on April 22, 1989, the U.S. Army sent letters to the parents of at least 56 of the children believed to have been molested by Hambright, urging them to have their children tested for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), because Hambright, a former daycare center worker, was reported to be a carrier.
On May 13, 1989, the San Jose Mercury reported that Aquino and his wife had been recently questioned by Army investigators about charges of child molestation by the couple in two northern California counties, Sonoma and Mendocino. A 9-year-old girl in Santa Rosa, California, and an 11-year-old boy in Fort Bragg, also in California, separately identified Aquino as the rapist in a series of 1985 incidents, after they had seen him on television.
Indeed Aquino was not only the head of a Satanic Church, a Lt. Colonel and allegedly a child rapist with involvement in the Iran Contra affair. Added to that was his involvement in Psychological Operations with the military and his calling for an enhanced strategy of electronic manipulation of the human mind.
In a document entitled “Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars”, we see clearly that there are Powers That Be that are in agreement with Aquino that the MindWar (as he called it) is the key to complete and utter social control. And it should not surprise us that even a predominantly Christian military force has been made to accept Satanists into their ranks. While many Satanists denounce child abuse, torture or murder as part of their belief system, we know that there are always those who bend the rules. My question is why Kevin Annett and others like him who peddle the SRA victims stories, never seem to touch the issue of what has made the abuse claim Satanic in nature (ie. which of the three categories are most applicable)? It’s become a label that people gloss over, and roll their eyes, because it seems so outlandish but we are still expected to be in fear of. Yet, as we have seen with a high ranking member of the U.S. military who was a High Level Satanic priest, these things can and do happen.
I’m wondering why Annett would treat the Devil in the Vatican any different than the Devil in Hampstead? And why would he claim that a PsyOps (like the kind undertaken by the social engineers like Aquino and the elites mentioned in Silent Weapons) was responsible for SRA victims recollection of events and not an actual Satanic cult practicing child abuse etc….Perhaps the goal is to convince the world that the Devil doesn’t really exist, that way it can go on and anyone who speaks out about it is instantly discredited. Personally, I think he is merely a propagandist as described by Michael Aquino himself when he stated the following:
Correspondingly propagandists are assumed to be liars and hypocrites, willing to paint anything attractive colors to dupe the gullible. As Jacques Ellul puts it:
“The propagandist is not, and cannot be, a “believer”. Moreover he cannot believe in the ideology he must use in his propaganda. He is merely a man at the service of a party, a state, or some other organization, and his task is to insure the efficiency of that organization … If the propagandist has any political conviction he must put it aside in order to be able to use some popular mass ideology. He cannot even share that ideology, for he must use it as an object and manipulate it without the respect that he would have for it if he believed in it. He quickly acquires contempt for these popular images and beliefs…16
Unlike Ellul’s cynical propagandist, the MindWar operative must know that he speaks the truth, and he must be personally committed to it. What he says is only a part of MindWar; the rest – and the test of its effectiveness – lies in the conviction he projects to his audience, in the rapport he establishes with it. And this is nothing that can be easily faked, if in fact it can be faked at all. “Rapport”, which the Comprehensive Dictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms defines as “unconstrained relations of mutual confidence”, approaches the subliminal; some researchers have suggested that it is itself a subconscious and even perhaps even ESP-based “accent” to an overt exchange of information.
Ironic that a practicing Satanist should describe the very Reverend Kevin D. Annett with such precision.
The real victims in any of these cases are always the children and the debate over the validity of SRA claims is merely a post-script to the real issue of their suffering once their stories are brought to light. Society just can’t help but add to their abuse because the topic of Satanism is simply too sensational to resist. What is most sad is that there will always be those adults claiming to be ‘truth seekers’ who profit from their suffering using the banner:
FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN