Learning to Love the Great Satan?


I have been looking through the various sales figures on my books. Around 75 per cent of my on-line book sales in the past year have been in the United States. It may be that I live in a nation of cheapskates who’d rather trawl the Web for a stray pdf than put a few pounds in my pocket. Or it may be that I’m giving my Colonial readers exactly what they want.

Perhaps I should set my next one in Hicksville, SC, where two middle class English children visiting their aunt (only by marriage) are menaced by the Reverend Hezekiah Z. Bottleburger, after they discover he is a cannibal with friends in high places. Because every novel I’ve written seems to involve unpleasantness deep underground, I could have satanic rituals in a complex of ancient Aztecish tunnels. Needless to say, Richard and Jessica frustrate the Rev. Bottleburger and President Weevilstein in their plan to take over world for a conspiracy of reptilian bipeds from beyond the void, and a grateful American people beg forgiveness for their act of treason in 1776.

It would be Enid Blyton meets Philip K. Dick. I could probably write it in my sleep, and wake up to see the cash roll in.

21 thoughts on “Learning to Love the Great Satan?

  1. What is wrong with South Carolina?

    Do you have something against Charleston Sean?

    Still perhaps the fact that the State Governor is a lady (and of Indian ancestry) offends you.

    By the way Southern Baptists (I suppose the Rev. B. is supposed to be a Southern Baptist) are opposed to (not in favour of) cannibalism.

  2. Paul, I think Sean might be making light of the fact that the conspiracy theory that started the madness now engulfing Britain- Satanic Ritual Abuse- began among the Christian Right before being picked up by the Marxist Feminists (the strangest of bedfellows, it must be said).

    Talking of which, Theresa May has just given carte blanche to the NSPCC to do a full enquiry of the allegations. “Somebody” (the NSPCC and friends, again) are going to be given power over an enquiry into all sex everywhere for all time in Britain, so it’s a safe bet that before too long we’ll have official declarations that Ted Heath was running a satanic cannibal paedophile orgy club on the Morning Cloud.

    Interesting times, in the Chinese sense.

  3. Ian, not a challenge but an honest inquiry: Do you have a credible source for that “SRA began among the Christian Right” allegation? As I read that I found myself mentally nodding and then going, “Whoa! WAS it? I know it sounds right, but that could be just because everybody says so over and over.”

    If it was dreamt up by religionists, it sounds more like something from the Jehovahs or other barely-if-at-all “Christian” sects. Not that I want to get into “What is a Christian.” For that topic, interested people should start a whole different forum!

    • I don’t have a good source to hand, Julia, I could probably dig something up, but you’re probably looking at secondary and tertiary sources. This is something I’ve been following for decades, since before the internet.

      Broadly, it began as a fringe idea among Christian Right conspiracy theorists; an early manifestation was a book called The Satan Seller by Mike Warnke which was taken as confirmation of a massive amount of Satanism operating in hidden “rings” by parts of the Evangelical community looking for understanding of the rapid social changes around them in the wake of the 1960s. That was 1973.

      After that, you get Michelle Remembers and the therapy community buy into it, and then the Feminists got hold of it and brought it mainstream, and the next thing you know it was on Geraldo and Oprah. Yes, I’m being too simplistic, it’s a fairly complex web of people and groups synthesising the phenomenon.

      Talking of Oprah, here’s a particularly disturbing segment where the Jews get blamed–

      –which is just plain disturbing.

      • Ian, for the moment I’m getting an error message both above and at UT–it says “try back in 30 minutes.” So I haven’t seen it yet, but from what you say it sounds horrible.

        It’s not even a matter of secondary or tertiary sources. It’s just what I pick up from being alive and a native American–would it be more PC for me to say I’m a native of America? (and who gives a heck anyway)–in the 20th-21st C. in America. That’s why it seems credible right off the bat to blame it on Right-Wing Christian Nutters; that’s the default position today of practically everybody who’s not a Right-Wing Christian. Or so it sure seems. And when that little fact occurred to me, I thought I’d ask you.

        So I’ve never heard of this Mike Warnke. As for Geraldo and Oprah, I caught about 10 minutes’ worth of about 2 episodes of Sally Jessie back in the day, and that was all I could take. :>)! However, anybody who wasn’t troubled by the goings-on between say 1962 and 1976 would have had to be either brain-dead or a member, or at least a kinda-sorta-that’s-cool-wannabe, of the New Left. “That slum of a decade,” per John Updike, or so I hear, only I guess he meant it 180˚ from the way I take it.

        Anyway, thanks for the reply. I’ll watch the video if it starts working again as UT promises. :>)

        • Well, I’m a social liberal, so I think it was a fabulous couple of decades. That the liberalisation was infiltrated and consumed by the Left is just a sad reality that they’re good at that kind of thing, and we aren’t. A libertine reactionary era ought to be a gift to libertarians- I think Rothbard at least recognised this, but too few others did and there were insufficient Libertarian boots on the ground anyway, especially as Libertarians have a bad habit of standing around in suits talking about the gold standard while the world passes us by.

          I saw an interview with Grace Slick on youtube somewhere, and as she put it, “our parents went to Tupperware parties, we wanted something more than that”. The “something” was social freedoms that had become possible- like sexual freedom for instance. The Libertarian reaction to that should be, great, we can all do that, but you need a generally free society and economy for that to work coherently, and here’s why…

          Instead the authoritarian Left got hold of it and what’s the result? They’ve dragged it round to authoritarianism and this bizarre neo-puritanism again.

          But the 60s and 70s? Good in themselves.

          • Ian — I don’t want to spoil your fantasies of the Lovely Sixties, when Freedom Reigned Supreme for everybody to “Just Be” — and I have the impression that if you remember the ’60’s at all it is with that glow that memory gives to childhood.

            But I was not a child during the Sixties. I started college at the age of 18 & change in 1961. And I can attest through having experienced the Slum of a Decade, plus some more, that all was not roses.

            From 1961-1965 I attended The University of Chicago, located in Chicago in Hyde Park (as I’m sure everybody knows, given the Sith et cie.), which at that time was surrounded by dangerous neighbourhoods and which itself was not the safest of Chicago areas.

            Nevertheless. As entering First-year Students, my classmates and I could set down our belongings, including notebooks, books, and the expensive K-E or even Dietzgen slide-rule nearly anywhere on the Main Quad (at least), which was and is entirely open to anyone; and they would still be there when we came back after class an hour or three later.

            People understood. “You don’t have to know whose it is. You only have to know whose it isn’t. And if it’s not yours, Walk On By.”

            By Third-year, you daren’t leave so much as a Keenex lying around. And by that year, rape was no longer all-but-unheard-of on campus.

            Later in the decade, you had “sit-ins” where students disrupted classes and campus activities, and the alleged grownups — the professors and the Administrations — were cowed into submission (or perhaps their brains had fallen out) by these ill-behaved young snots who chanted “never trust anyone over thirty” and who also got up to violent pranks. Various arsons and bombings. The hoked-up confrontation of the “Days of Rage” New-Lefters who constructed a riot in order to engage and discredit the Chicago police, at the 1968 Democratic nominating convention, among other things. A baiting operation, and it worked. In 1970, this:

            “At 3:45 a.m. on Aug. 24, 1970, a bomb aimed at the University of Wisconsin’s Army Math Research Center exploded with such force that it damaged 25 buildings in addition to its target. The blast at the center, where work included research on the electronic targeting of peasants in Vietnam, injured five people and killed a young physicist who opposed the war in Indochina.”

            It was during the ’60’s that spoiled 4-year-olds of all ages were allowed to push things along in whatever direction they thought cool. We had former adults repeating such nauseous slogans as this one:

            “Don’t make a bad boy a thief. Lock your car.”

            Up until then, locking one’s car was the exception in America, not the norm.

            It’s not that there was no crime, but at least people understood that it was really not the Done Thing.

            This was the decade-and-a-half (or so) that saw the near-death of the concept of personal responsibility, respect for others, and honesty.

            In mid-decade, Johnson rammed through Medicare over the protests of the grownups in the country, and devised the Great Society.

            It’s not as if nobody ever slept around before the ’60’s, y’know. Anymore than my generation or yours invented sex. (Every generation thinks it did. Even mine. *g*)

            The selling of the street gang the Black Panthers as a peace-loving bunch simply wanting Equality For Blacks, and racial hucksterism generally … the rise of Identity Politics and all the lucrative “industries” that the con-men could dream up and the useless idiots [sic] support.

            And on and on and on.

            A slum of a decade, indeed.

      • Although you say “parts of the Evangelical community,” which brings me back to wondering again if it was mostly the more “mainstream” Evangelicals, or if it was more of the Holy-Roller sects, some of whom one might almost classify as quasi-Christian or even pseudo-Christian, although from a doctrinal standpoint I suppose they could be considered Christian heretics — anyway, I mentioned “people like” the Jehovahs, although I’m not quite sure what people that would be *g*. (Just a friendly tease of the Witnesses.) I don’t like painting the entire so-called “Christian Right” as nuts. It’s unfair, unjust, and untrue, and the Left just loves to do it. They, after all, put up the biggest squawk when the Left gets too obviously above itself, and we can’t have that. 😦

        • Just because we don’t like the Left doesn’t mean we should be too defensive of the Right. It’s pretty straightforward that a devout christian formation, in turmoil due to the 1960s and soaked in pre-millennialist thought and a literalist belief in Satan are going to be suckers in general for such ideas.

          One interesting aspect is that the focus on daycare centres seems to have played into a conservative distrust of women going out to work, leaving their children in the care of others. McMartin itself was started by a (obviously mentally disturbed) mother. The problem was the willingness to believe her bizarre allegations. But that was possible because belief in “your neigbours might be satanists” was already a belief that was in the air.

          • I’m not interested in defending the guilty, even if they are “Right” politically or Christian religiously.

            But I’m very interested in seeing that the “Christian Right” is not assumed guilty of Dreadful Things on the grounds that they are, after all, the “Christian Right.”

            It’s exactly the same thing as stating, or alleging, or “merely” implying that “the Jews were responsible for Communism” or “after all, the Jews are the moguls of world finance.”

            I will clip the full rant about McMartin, but I think that was one of the most downright disgusting, disgraceful, despicable events in the history of the country. Also very, very, very scary.

            There are people who love to make trouble, and you’re just as likely to find them in the Dem/librul/Progressive/Left contingent (whether Christian or not — the so-called Christians in this bunch might even be worse than the others) as in the Christian Right, or the Right generally. I live next door to one. Of course, I don’t KNOW that she’s a Dem, but the other regular poll-watcher in our district is a Republican for sure, so I’m pretty sure she is. Is she Christian? Almost certainly, at least nominally. She’s just the kind of person who could hoke up something like McMartin. She certainly did a number on us.

            And I’m aware of other cases too, all disgusting.

            • This problem seems to occur every time this issue is discussed. The cause of SRA, as with many social issues, was a coalition of people who are notionally left and notionally right. So depending which side you’re among, they will always want to say it was the fault of the other side.

              Nonetheless, there is a pretty clear originating formation in this, and it was among fundamentalist christians. Hence the Satanic angle. It’s worth bearing in mind that it was not, originally, about child abuse. It was about Satanic cults. The child abuse angle seeps in more and more as it progresses, and the sexual elements of that increase over time, so that originally for instance “grooming” just meant induction of the young into cult practises, gradually transforming into grooming into a sexualised form.

              Anyway, in asking from what social group the idea that Satan is abroad in the world may have come from, I recommend Jeff’s sermon.

  4. For once Sean Gabb and myself were on the same page – he was teasing, and so was I.

    As for Southern Baptists (to be serious for a minute) they, I believe, fail to see the difference between the things that are really are important (that one must not try to change) and things that really are not important – that one can (and sometimes should) change.

    However, the effort to explain this gave rise to the essays on the “Fundamentals” published in the early 1900s (against the “Social Gospel” – William James, Richard Ely and co). And that gave rise to the “Fundamentalist” movement which was captured by William Jennings Bryan and co in the 1920s (WJB made the terrible blunder of accepting the case of the eugenics people that Darwinism mandated their position, and therefore, as he rejected eugenics, he led an anti Darwin crusade).

    Today half of “fundamentalist” American Protestants do not believe in biological evolution (of course this means that half do) – a state of affairs that would have astonished the original authors of the essays on the “Fundamentals” (several of whom were evolutionary biologists). The “Fundamentals” do NOT include the story presented in the Book of Genesis (James McCosh showed why – back in the 19th century).

    Ironically the political opinions of WJB (pro proto Welfare State and so on) were much closer to those of the “Social Gospel” crowd than they were to the authors of the essays on the “Fundamentals”.

  5. Ian I do not think that Christians in South Carolina have played a leading role in falsely accusing people of child abuse – however I may be mistaken.

    As for Day Care Centres – they are wretched way of bringing up children. Some families are so poor that both parents need to work (or the families have broken up – or never existed in the first place) – so the children are dumped in Day Care Centres, but that is not something to be welcomed (not because of false charges of abuse – but because a Day Car Centre is a terrible way to bring up children).

    Obviously the decline of the family has been terrible in all sorts of ways – but it may well be that this decline (and the rise of the Under Class) has more to do with the Welfare State (called the “Great Society” in the United States) than it has to do with changing sexual attitudes. Indeed in the United States the destruction of the family (and of Civil Society generally) may have been the deliberate and premeditated aim of some of the activists who shaped the “Great Society” schemes (such as the infamous Cloward and Piven, and Saul Alinsky, and their army of “Community Organisers” – one of whom is now President of the United States).

    As for the 1960s this was when the left really got massively involved in the Civil Rights movement (effectively taking it over) – before the 1960s protests against lynching and so on was largely a Christian thing (often very conservative Christians).

    The role of Cumberland Presbyterians and Free Will Baptists (the sort of Baptist who founded Hillsdale Collage) in 19th and 20th century history is often overlooked.

    As for the Southern Baptists – they have (in recent decades – not in the 19th century) played a positive political role. However, some of their interests (such as women not being allowed to take the leading role in a Church service – due to the words of Saint Paul) leave me cold.

  6. Of course some forms of behaviour (random sexual activity, the abuse of drink and drugs, lazing about rather than productive work – and the rest of the things pushed in the 1960s, as they were pushed, on a far more limited scale, by certain intellectuals in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) do tend to lead to self destruction (the wages of sin are death – or as Kipling put it the “Gods of the Copybook Headings” will not be denied, although “the dog always returns to his vomit”) – but in a non Welfare State this is not a serious problem. People watch those who indulge in such things (and their children) die, staving and diseased, in the gutter, and either try to help them subject to them making a sincere effort to reform themselves (the Christian response) or just shudder, draw a valuable lesson, and move on. Such behaviour has always existed – but it does not tend to spread (due to the consequences for may many of those who over indulge although some, especially those from a wealthy background, get by – decedent rich people can, at least for a time, do all sorts of things that it would be fatal for the poor to copy).

    It was the COMBINATION of the preaching of decadence with the new Welfare State in the 1960s (and later) that was fatal. And it was intended to be fatal. The target for destruction being Civil Society (Civil Association), which the left choose to call “capitalism”. Someone like Clement Atlee (in the view of the Cultural Left) failed to see that to destroy “capitalism” and replace it with socialism, one must destroy the cultural foundations of “capitalism” – for example by spreading vice and welfare dependency. Indeed someone like Clement Atlee might (if this had been put to him) have had doubts about whether socialism (if this was the only way to bring it about) was really a good thing. However modern “Critical Theory” university academics do not allow doubt (or remorse) to influence their conduct.

    This is a vitally important point – someone like Clement Atlee or Ernest Bevin was a human being first a socialist second.

    Someone like H.G. Wells or G.B. Shaw (or Mr and Mrs Cloward, or Saul Alinsky, in the United States) was a socialist first – and a human being second (if at all).

    If socialism can only be created by cultural destruction someone like Clement Atlee (I believe) would have recoiled in horror – but someone like Francis Fox Piven would lean forward eagerly, eyes bright with the lust for power (and the lust for destruction).

  7. Americans had fun in the late 1940s and 1950s – the idea that most people were po faced Puritans before the 1960s is just not true. Sex was not invented in 1963.

    What the 1960s brought was a to make a cult of having fun – make it (especially in the sex and drugs area) an obsession, a political statement (Herbert Marcuse and all that). Not an aspect of life to be kept in proportion – but a “revolt against capitalist society”. As P.J. O.R’ puts it “we were very serious about our frivolity”. Ian will like this. they were actually very Po Faced (very Puritan) about it. How many people have you had random sex with today? Have you met your quota? What drugs have you used in public? Have you urinated and defecated in a shop entrance? If not – why not? And on and on…….

    Even in terrorism and rioting Americans followed the lead of French, German and Italian leftists. But (yes Ian) brought their own hard working sprit to these tasks. As Bill Ayers put it to Megan Kelly recently “why does everyone always go on about my bombings – there were THOUSANDS of bombings in the 1960s”. The American Communist movement (called the “peace movement” by the media and Hollywood, and in the history propaganda text books) was dedicated to killing as many people as possible – if a riot did not have a “body count” it was not a riot as far as they were concerned.. For example Detroit in 1967 had very HIGH living standards (blacks in Detroit lived much better than white people did in Britain) – but there had to be riot anyway, DESTROY-DESTROY-DESTROY (destroy everything).

    As the rioters chanted in so many American cities “burn baby burn” (sometimes this was meant literally – as there were children in the buildings they set light to). Oddly enough Hollywood and the history propaganda books do not mention this.

    And that sort of destructionism should not be celebrated. Nor was it even fun (not in the end) as the accounts of Tom Wolfe (who was there) make clear.

    The Communist movement was always violent (although the history propaganda books do not mention it – instead talking about “honourable men and women” “persecuted” by Joe McCarthy) – for example even in the late 1940s Ronald Reagan (as the leader of the anti Communist faction in the Screen Actors Guild) had to check his car (every day) for bombs and had to carry pistol at all times. But it was not till the 1960s that they got totally out of control.

    In 1919 the Black Flag “anarchists” as well as the Red Flag crowd were busy sending bombs that blew the faces off people But all the “education system” cares about is the supposedly wicked “Palmer Raids” (where the AG Mr Palmer, a moderate Democrat, ordered the rounding up and deportation of Reds – thus breaking the back of the terrorist movement).

    The Communists lost the fight (because they faced people as masculine as themselves – for example the Cong Hunters of Director Hoover’s FBI).

    So they wormed their way into the system – via the universities. Mr Holder (the head of the Justice Department) is an obvious example.

    As Gramsci argued long ago – control the “cultural superstructure” (such as schools and universities) and in the end you will control the “economic base” (thus turning Classical Marxism on its head – but I do not think Karl would have cared).

    “Who guards the guards?”

    What happens when the Cong Hunters get taken over by the Cong?

    Of course in Europe also many of the Communists of the 1960s are now senior officials – some have sincerely changed their opinions, others have not.

    However, unlike the United States, Europe does not really have a large movement of people OPPOSED to “Social Justice” and the idea that poverty is caused by “the rich” and “corporate capitalism”.

  8. Sean, regarding the book sales…… I cannot speak for anybody else, but I have bookmarked the relative Amazon pages in view to a purchase of both ‘The Break’ and ‘The Churchill Memorandum’.

    The thing is, I have a pile of non-fiction books still to get through, and a handful of others to buy (on the more ‘alternative right’ side of things, such as Revolution From Above by Kerry Bolton and a fictional work by Derek Turner). So just when I will actually make the order of all these is (as yet) unknown.

    However, it is on the ‘to do’ list and when I do buy your books, I plan on buying the paperbacks and not the Kindle – for one, because I don’t have one, and for two, although they can be read on a desktop computer, I just do not tend to read on-screen books the same as something in the hand.

    (Being a record collector, I am old fashioned too in a way – as I usually like to have the “item” I buy in my hand and not just some digital file).

    Another reason is that I presume that buying the paperback copy is going to be financially beneficial to yourself (compared to the kindle book) – unless the rest of the costs get swallowed up by the bookmaking and publishing or whatever and you don’t get to see any of it. …..In which case, I may as well opt for the Kindle/ebook.

      • To my shame, I am not a massive consumer of books. I tend to read articles more than books these days (particularly fictional books – as most of the books I do own are non-fictional).

        The last fictional book I bought (which was quite hard to find at the time) was “Invasion” by DC Alden. This is a story set in the future, about the government and the Islamic take-over of Britain as part of a wider caliphate sweeping Europe.

        However, it sadly sits on the shelf like a brick (as it is rather thick), just taunting me for never having/finding the time to read it.

        Seeing as I am getting fed up with endless articles, I am in the frame of mind to set aside some time away from the screen in order to read some ‘proper books’.

        If I do purchase your books, which is likely, one of the reasons for getting a physical copy is to try and support your writing of them. Going a bit further than a download, if you see what I mean.

        If one method of paperback is say £10 and the other, say, £15, I don’t mind buying the £15 one providing that the difference actually heads your way.

        If you’re not going to see the benefit of it, and it just gets soaked up in the system somehow, I may as well just get the cheaper one, but I shall take it at present that the regular priced paperback is advantageous to yourself.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s