Hi there from Switzerland, first time post. I'd like to give my take after the interview regarding Mitch's fairly recent orientation. I first came across his work due to my long-standing interest in Neville Goddard, many years before Mitch started writing about Neville. His writings on Neville are a decent introduction. Mitch loves him so much he has a face of Neville tattoed on his arm.
I know Neville's lectures (written and audio, having read/listened to most if not all of them) and writings inside and out. Basing himself on substantial erudition Neville viewed the Bible not as historical but symbolic foremost, but even so, Satan isn't discussed anywhere in any significant manner. Judas for instance is redeemed as the Revealer, but not a word anywhere about the virtues of Satan, in those dozens upon dozens of lectures. You might ask why. So Mitch is a now a walking contradiction. Colonel Aquino and Neville Goddard are irreconcilable opposites and don't belong in the same conversation.
A little disingenuously Mitch in the interview appeared to lump Neville together with those new agers who are stuck in naive ideas and practices and unable to help those who are really struggling. Besides it is a mistake to lump Neville together with the New Age movement. If you must pigeonhole him, he's a Christian cabbalist. A Christian mystic. He's squarely in the Christian tradition (sorry if that hurt any feelings, Mitch's or others'). Many years ago I was a struggling and depressed lad in Paris, France yet found my first serious job, in New York no less, after reading a book about angels and very simply asking the angels to help me, then forgetting about ever asking such a thing, until it happened and I realized , even latter, how surreal landing that opportunity really had been. I have a few other examples, applying later on some principles I learned from Neville, in circumstances where I wasn't doing all that great and my inner conversations could be negative and shabby. No need to turn to black magic if you're struggling. Mitch seems to adhere fundamentally to Israel Regardie's assessment that Neville's stuff is too hard to apply for the common man. Which is a load of BS - Neville was all about the common man - and knew what he was doing.
Granted Neville was something of an old-world gentleman of good taste and the devil simply didn't fit in his world. And in the popular beliefs and also the theology of old, the devil was never to be even just mentioned. Ever since Mitch's "Satan's honor roll" article it has been a near constant barrage and I eventually unsubscribed from his Instagram. Satanists are not necessarily bad people but some satanists definitely are bad and dangerous people. As it happens I just heard on Sam Tripoli's podcast a guy describing LaVey whom he knew personally as "someone deeply haunted with black magic", and not a nice and innocuous guy. So Mitch's whitewashing of LaVey, and Aquino, is a yuuuge load of BS - and Alex called him on it superbly (I also appreciate Alex's short patience with pedantry).
Why chosing that course? Ambition perhaps, the exercise of "agency" as he would say? Satanism is fashionable, has quite the following among the rich and famous, maybe Mitch saw a market there ? Maybe America is missing some "national figure" on satanism. Anybody filled LaVey's spot yet ? Just wondering. Whatever the case, I'm pretty much done with him, as you might have guessed.