Mitch Horowitz, Who Inspires You Satan or Jesus? |508|

Yo Dog, put this in the music consciousness thread! Fucking love it!
Yeah... My wife discovered genre "cowpunk" in something she was reading and it came up on Spotify.
I used to drop lots of music and videos back in the glory days of stolenhistory.org before it took a shit and came back haunted.
Looks like someone is running the media consciousness threads with their own unending playlist and tastes, so I'll probably refrain from being too much of a loose cannon. My lack of political correctness knows no bounds!
 
Yeah... My wife discovered genre "cowpunk" in something she was reading and it came up on Spotify.
I used to drop lots of music and videos back in the glory days of stolenhistory.org before it took a shit and came back haunted.
Looks like someone is running the media consciousness threads with their own unending playlist and tastes, so I'll probably refrain from being too much of a loose cannon. My lack of political correctness knows no bounds!

Likewise, I think being politically correct is akin to suffering from polio while aspiring to being a poll vaulter. Such an individual might look like they have all the tools for the task, but somehow it doesn’t add up on game day! Good music, man! Keep posting it! I always look forward to your posts!
 
agreed. Acknowledged. but this has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

the cases I hear the most from "do what thou wilt" satanists are cases of actual satanic abuse:
- mcmartin preschool -- not satanic panic, real satanic abuse / crimes
- west memphis three -- not satanic panic, real satanic abuse / crimes
- colonel michael aquino -- not satanic panic, real satanic abuse / crimes
I won't claim it does not happen, but did it occur to the degree we were led to believe..?
I am saying we know how it was before this phenomenon and the aftermath the society was completely depleted of its street life, kids running around , hellions ...like they should. To me my old neighborhood's a sad empty place with out the kids . I don't think I'd want to go back there.
These knee jerk fearful reactions, where males are all seen as a potential predator is real bummer, man I love people., i hate this stuff.
 
Last edited:
I won't claim it does not happen, but did it occur to the degree we were led to believe..?
I am saying we know how it was before this phenomenon and the aftermath the society was completely depleted of its street life, kids running around , hellions ...like they should. To me my old neighborhood's a sad empty place with out the kids . I don't think I'd want to go back there.
These knee jerk fearful reactions, where males are all seen as a potential predator is real bummer, man I love people., i hate this stuff.

This "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" was a ripoff of what Nietzsche said in his not to popular book, "The Gay Science." I am paraphrasing, but Nietzsche, who I think from my "all too involved"(I am mocking his book, All Too Human) studies of his material while living in completely derelict, fruitless conditions, said something on the lines of: do whatever you will, as you will anyhow. If people cannot see that Nietzsche was a hard core materialist, they simply have not read enough of his work.

Ironically, in my youth, which was the late 80's into the 90's, you didn't see people flipping through "The Gay Science" at coffee shops. Certainly, there were people experimenting with multiple forms of sexual activities from time immemorial, but instead, everybody had a pocket rendition of "Beyond Good and Evil," by the same author. Furthermore, Nietzsche's book really had nothing to do with being gay, whatsoever, despite it's title. In his time, gay simple meant happy. In the 90's, it was "cool" to be seen reading "Beyond Good and Evil." You might have got a hot blow job from a woman with excessive eyeliner for just or holding that book. However, Nobody was reading "The Gay Science."

Now, I think that reading "The Gay Science" could lead to a similar outcome, no pun intended, by any number of transgender, trans-human, or questioning people throughout the world. So I encourage us all to resurrect that Nietzsche, posthumously.
 
This "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" was a ripoff of what Nietzsche said in his not to popular book, "The Gay Science." I am paraphrasing, but Nietzsche, who I think from my "all too involved"(I am mocking his book, All Too Human) studies of his material while living in completely derelict, fruitless conditions, said something on the lines of: do whatever you will, as you will anyhow. If people cannot see that Nietzsche was a hard core materialist, they simply have not read enough of his work.

Ironically, in my youth, which was the late 80's into the 90's, you didn't see people flipping through "The Gay Science" at coffee shops. Certainly, there were people experimenting with multiple forms of sexual activities from time immemorial, but instead, everybody had a pocket rendition of "Beyond Good and Evil," by the same author. Furthermore, Nietzsche's book really had nothing to do with being gay, whatsoever, despite it's title. In his time, gay simple meant happy. In the 90's, it was "cool" to be seen reading "Beyond Good and Evil." You might have got a hot blow job from a woman with excessive eyeliner for just or holding that book. However, Nobody was reading "The Gay Science."

Now, I think that reading "The Gay Science" could lead to a similar outcome, no pun intended, by any number of transgender, trans-human, or questioning people throughout the world. So I encourage us all to resurrect that Nietzsche, posthumously.
Don't see what it's got to with my comment ..lol, but a good read non the less,
 
It's quite interesting and surprising that a person who has significant expertise on esoteric traditions, and also has long experience on spiritual practises, ends up calling himself a Satanist. I would have never guessed his affiliation from this insightful dialog between him and Richard Smoley:
 
It's quite interesting and surprising that a person who has significant expertise on esoteric traditions, and also has long experience on spiritual practises, ends up calling himself a Satanist. I would have never guessed his affiliation from this insightful dialog between him and Richard Smoley:

agreed... this seems to be tricky territory... it leaves a lot of room for " do what thou wilt deception" by occultists... and it's made worse by fundy-leaning christians who are more than a little bit complicit in the whole mess.
 
I won't claim it does not happen, but did it occur to the degree we were led to believe..?
I am saying we know how it was before this phenomenon and the aftermath the society was completely depleted of its street life, kids running around , hellions ...like they should. To me my old neighborhood's a sad empty place with out the kids . I don't think I'd want to go back there.
These knee jerk fearful reactions, where males are all seen as a potential predator is real bummer, man I love people., i hate this stuff.
I get it. I just think we have to get it's close to the ground level truth as possible before we start building the thing back up... maybe that's naive on my part.

but letting mitch bullshit people about michael aquino is a non-starter IMO.
 
It's clowns! EVIL CLOWNS

Read "The Trickster and the Paranormal" by George P. Hansen. It should be essential reading for anyone on this forum.

SOOO many things clicked for me and fell into place when I read that book. The importance of the boundary and the nature of structure itself and why the Trickster archetype is a liminal figure, or a boundary crosser. Jesus, the devil, bugs bunny, etc... all forms of Tricksters. Why do clowns wear the black and white stripes or high contrast patterns on their clothes? Why the gender blurring? All symbols of being a boundary crosser - someone who is not confined by structure but moves outside of it. Why is the jester the only one who can speak truth to power? Why is Joe Rogan, a comedian somewhat performing this function of the court Jester? It all makes a lot more sense when you think in terms of structure and boundaries.
 
Last edited:
It's quite interesting and surprising that a person who has significant expertise on esoteric traditions, and also has long experience on spiritual practises, ends up calling himself a Satanist. I would have never guessed his affiliation from this insightful dialog between him and Richard Smoley:

Thanks for the link... checking it out now.

For me, the main issue I have with him or anyone identifying as a Satanist is that Satanism is associated with malevolence or the desire to destroy a person (or worse a child) strictly for the sake of destruction itself. I get that this destructive force or destructive impulse serves a function. Satan as the archetypal accuser is the one who challenges and attempts to tear down and that due to the polar nature of things, tearing down is a crucial part of the process of creating and building up. Nevertheless, it would seem to me that the unfettered malevolent impulse to destroy - especially to destroy a person or soul - originates from a person who has in some way been destroyed themselves. Why would someone want to identify with this a label (Satanism) that has been associated with this malevolence unless they also carry deep wounds which fuel their desire to destroy others? The desire to build up and create and come together (love) is greater than the desire to destroy and tear down and isolate... and that is why there is something instead of nothing.

This is the reason we cannot trust Mitch... because he has chosen to identify with a label of malevolence and destruction, so why would we assume he is not lying or deceiving as these are tools of the trade for malevolence and destruction.

He doesn't SEEM malevolent based on a hearing him talk for a short time, but he chooses to associate with symbols that are associated with malevolence.

It is the same hesitation anyone would have in trusting someone who adorned themselves with swastikas. Although the swastika is a very old symbol, it was recently associated with a kind of terrifying malevolence and so anyone who tries to use the symbol for its original value and ignores its association with malevolence will fall under immediate suspicion by most.
 
Last edited:
I get it. I just think we have to get it's close to the ground level truth as possible before we start building the thing back up... maybe that's naive on my part.

but letting mitch bullshit people about michael aquino is a non-starter IMO.
Actually not familiar with him (Aquino) ..I'll take your word for it , he's a super asshole...point taken....never the less - Mitch makes some good points , none which come to mind at the moment ( just believe me)..
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Welcome to the Forum, Fregate! This place is awesome.
Since I just finished posting something on the subject in another thread, I’d like to offer a relative crash course on “Satan” as I understand it.

Satan is the type of spirit in our universe which thrives most when good doers do bad things.
(This is not a judgement on those people.)

imagine for instance a “Satanist” who is practicing but isn’t harming anyone, the spirit we know as “Satan” may have little or no inclination to further motivate them. Especially when it’s finite spiritual energy could be better spent on a human who’s in a shakey enough place to consider doing real damage.
Therefore, “Satan” would see Mitch as just one of his hoes who works a few nights a week and brings back money for shoes and dinner and maybe a watch every now and then. Whereas young angry corruptible kids like Aquino would be the top prize.
 
Last edited:
Actually not familiar with him (Aquino) ..I'll take your word for it , he's a super asshole...point taken....never the less - Mitch makes some good points , none which come to mind at the moment ( just believe me)..

haha... yeah, he's a very smart, likable guy. I'd call him of frenemy but I don't think the feeling is mutual :)
 
hi... welcome... thx for this great post.

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.

noted. did not know. thx.

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').

agreed... a little disingenuous... not a lot disingenuous where you can totally nail him, but a little. not to stereotype, but this seems to be a common tactic with do what thou wilt satanists.


No need to turn to black magic if you're struggling.

agreed... that's my read of the data as well.


Mitch's whitewashing of LaVey, and Aquino, is a yuuuge load of BS

I agree and I was a little disappointed that folks fell for his pseudo-intellectual BS
 
I have no idea who is right about Aquino, but I think it might be useful if Alex had some conversations with him offline to try to come to a joint opinion - after all I am quite sure Mitch does not want to excuse paedophilia!
David

My thought on this when I was listening to this episode was that Alex might counter with something like, "I have certainly found information about Aquino that leads me to believe that he was involved with child sexual abuse" and give access to that information.
 
Conviction rates in the uk for child abuse and satanic ritual abuse are pitiful. In most cases those who get caught get meaningless sentences if they even get convicted. Bear in mind 12 years for example normally means they are out within 6-7.
How about (with some obvious case by case differentiations) child rape means life. Period.

Also i think it is about fucking time that intelligence agencies stop using minors as blackmail material and it be made highly illegal that they not pass on information for prosecution. The recent and ongoing cases of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell have brought the issue to the forefront though it has been going on for years. I can think of so many reasons why it should be highly illegal but ask yourself this. What kind of ally instigates, aids, abbets and allows the continuation of child rape and satanic ritual abuse in their 'ally's' country? They do it in their own countries too. All Western intelligence agencies are involved in one way or another (imo).
 
Also i think it is about fucking time that intelligence agencies stop using minors as blackmail material and it be made highly illegal that they not pass on information for prosecution. The recent and ongoing cases of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell have brought the issue to the forefront though it has been going on for years. I can think of so many reasons why it should be highly illegal but ask yourself this. What kind of ally instigates, aids, abbets and allows the continuation of child rape and satanic ritual abuse in their 'ally's' country? They do it in their own countries too. All Western intelligence agencies are involved in one way or another (imo).

great point! and no one ever brings this up... where's the storming of the capitol on this one?

one way to look at it is that you and I and all american citizens complicit in this evil because we allow it to persist.
 
Back
Top