I couldn't find what you were referring to at min 42. but I do think Aquino was a worst-of-the-worst creep:
https://exposinginfragard.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-case-against-michael-aquino-satanic.html
For those who don’t know, Michael Aquino was a Psychological Warfare Specialist in the US Army from 1968 until 1990, when he was involuntarily discharged as a result of investigations into his involvement in the ritual sexual abuse of children at the Presidio Day Care Center in San Francisco. Throughout this same time, he has also been a devout satanist and self-confessed neo-Nazi. He joined Anton LaVey’s Church of Satan in 1969, staying until 1975 when he left to start his own Temple of Set, which has been in operation ever since.
Please note here that both psyops and satanism involve using many levels of deception and coercion to manipulate the perceptions of others for ulterior motives, so these are skills that Aquino is very familiar with and very comfortable in using. He is also an expert in propaganda and skilled in techniques for disseminating misinformation/disinformation, and using misdirection, confusion tactics, isolation techniques, and revisionism. Therefore, he will certainly use these skills to defend himself against the truth of his actions.
Michael Aquino explains that his name keeps coming up in pedophile-ring cases because he’s the victim of a conspiracy (a ‘black bag job’, as he calls it). He bases this on the fact that he’s a satanist and so people just automatically hate him because of it. Unfortunately for him, making such a bad choice in lifestyle and philosophy doesn’t excuse him from anything, although in his particular case it certainly
does lend weight to the allegations against him and even
invites them, so he shouldn’t really complain about it. He tends to keep his perceptions of all this bad publicity focused strictly on the Presidio child abuse case in which he was a central figure during the 1980s, since that’s the only one he’s ever had to legally defend himself against (so far). Even in this one isolated case, he only dares to focus on it as far as his own limited version of the facts go, and he totally avoids acknowledging the larger body of evidence that implicates him personally. Similarly, he totally overlooks the longer history of events he’s been implicated in by various sources who are far removed from one another and who couldn’t possibly be engaged in any sort of conspiracy against him.
Whatever the case, I’m not going to attempt to detail all of the evidence against Michael Aquino here, since there’s far too much of it for this short article. I merely want to put his claim of conspiracy into proper perspective, in order to show how absurd it really is.