Theistic Satanism: Home > Popular > Witchhunt > Bungled undercover operation?
An SRA scaremonger's bungled undercover operation?
by Diane Vera
Copyright © 2003 by Diane Vera. All rights reserved.
Below is the mildly amusing tale of what appeared, at least at first glance, to be a bungled attempt at undercover information-gathering by SRA scaremonger William H. Kennedy. Or perhaps it was just an attempt to sell his CD? Indeed, the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to suspect that his posts to various email groups were primarily just a way to advertise his CD in the context of posts that wouldn't be immediately deleted as obvious junk mail.
William H. Kennedy has seen an earlier version of this article and denied all of the above. Below are both the original posts and his subsequent denials and other comments. Judge for yourself.
I found the following post in the Yahoo email group Seeking_Wicca:Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:19:13 -0000 From: "whksoul" <whksoul@y...> Subject: Question from a new Wiccan... I heard a great online interview on A Closer Look hosted by Michael Corbin The show dealt with the fact that some of the pervert priests in the recent scandal were practicing Satanists. The people who did the show are devout Catholics but not bad guys. Can any here give me a pithy definition of the difference between Wicca and Satanism that I can send to Corbin? He asked me to in an email but I am new to the craft and need some help. You can hear the interview online [airdate Aug 30] at: http://www.4acloserlook.com/dates.html The guy interviewed has a CD out on the subject at: http://www.geocities.com/whksoul/eschaton.html Really interesting stuff!
I had already run into him earlier, in another email group, where he had referred readers to another page which not only advertised the above-mentioned CD but also had links to some of his writings. So, I replied:From: Diane Vera Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 12:20:32 -0400 Subject: Re: Question from a new Wiccan... This message is being sent to Seeking_Wicca and CC'd various other Yahoo email groups. On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:19:13 -0000, "whksoul" <whksoul@y...> wrote: > I heard a great online interview on A Closer Look hosted by > Michael Corbin [...] > http://www.4acloserlook.com/dates.html [Diane:] For some reason, you decided not to mention that the "great online interview" is an interview with YOU. On the above-mentioned web page, the August 30 interview is described as follows: | --------------------------------------------------------------- | William H. Kennedy discusses his project, a 1-Hour CD | production of _The Black Room: Satanic Ritual Abuse in the | Catholic Church_. This CD exposes the network that exists in | the Church, and how it was responsible for the scandal in the | Boston Archdiocese. | --------------------------------------------------------------- [whksoul:] > The guy interviewed has a CD out on the subject at: > > http://www.geocities.com/whksoul/eschaton.html [Diane:] Note to other readers: Observe the "whksoul" in both the above URL and the poster's email address -- the "whk" stands for William H. Kennedy. And, if you remove the final "l" from the above URL, you can see a much more interesting page, with a list of William H. Kennedy's other writings: http://www.geocities.com/whksoul/eschaton.htm including the following article promoting the "Satanic Ritual Abuse" scare: http://www.geocities.com/whksoul/black_room.htm and the following defense of Malachi Martin, a traditionalist Catholic writer noted for his allegations about a conspiracy of Satanists supposedly taking over the Catholic Church: http://www.geocities.com/whksoul/malachi_martin.htm (I just now saved copies of these pages in case W.H. Kennedy decides to delete them.) [whksoul:] > Can any here give me a pithy definition of the difference between > Wicca and Satanism that I can send to Corbin? He asked me to in an > email but I am new to the craft and need some help. [Diane:] Have you, in fact, converted to Wicca? Very interesting. What led you to convert to Wicca? I'm sure that plenty of other folks here would be very interested to hear this too. [whksoul:] > The show dealt with the fact that some of the pervert priests > in the recent scandal were practicing Satanists. [Diane:] On what grounds was it asserted that they were "practicing Satanists"? Because some priests are allged to have used Satanic trappings when molesting kids? According to your own article on Malachi Martin, another child-molesting priest claimed to be Jesus. This certainly does not imply that he was, in fact, Jesus. The use of Satanic trappings does not prove that someone is actually a Satanist. Other possible motives for both the Satanic trappings and the Jesus claims might have been to try to scare the kids into silence, or to discredit the child's testimony should the child talk. Be that as it may, even if it's true that some child-molesting Catholic priests actually did decide to become Satanists in whatever sense of the word, one cannot conclude that there exists a vast conspiracy of child-molesting Satanists within the Catholic priesthood. For some articles debunking earlier incarnations of the "Satanic Ritual Abuse" scare, see this page on my website: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/academic.html#debunk For some further thoughts of mine on the "Satanist pedophile conspiracy in the Catholic priesthood" theory, see this page: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/politics/SRA-Catholic.html Diane Vera
One of the groups I forwarded the above post to was FCoS, the public email group of the First Church of Satan. While checking its Yahoo homepage to see whether my post had arrived, I found the following post:Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 14:45:15 -0000 From: "karenxgillian2000" <karenxgillian2000@y...> Subject: Advice Needed Please... Hi, I heard a really great radio on A Closer Look hosted by Michael Corbin on Aug 30, 03 which dealt with the priest crisis in the Catholic Church. The guest pointed out that many of the priests were, in fact, secret satanists and he has a CD out on the subject: http://www.geocties.com/whksoul/eschaton.html I am in an e-mail exchange with Corbin and need a really pithy definition of the differences between CofS and fruitcake Satanism like the weird Catholics featured on the show. I am new to the CofS and need some advice as what exactly to say. You can hear the achieved interview with realplayer at; http://www.4acloserlook.com/dates.html airdate 8/30/03 Hail Satan!!!
Observe the many striking similarities in style between the above post and W.H. Kennedy's post. I replied:Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 19:53:14 -0400 From: Diane Vera Subject: Re: Advice Needed Please... This post is being sent to FCoS, the Yahoo email group of the First Church of Satan, and CC'd to Seeking_Wicca and various other Yahoo email groups. On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 14:45:15 -0000, "karenxgillian2000" <karenxgillian2000@y...> wrote: > I heard a really great radio on A Closer Look hosted by Michael > Corbin on Aug 30, 03 which dealt with the priest crisis in the > Catholic Church. The guest pointed out that many of the priests > were, in fact, secret satanists and he has a CD out on the subject: Hello there, William H. Kennedy. Yes, it's pretty obvious who you are. (See my earlier posts today, in whichever email group you find this.) > I am in an e-mail exchange with Corbin and need a really pithy > definition of the differences between CofS and fruitcake Satanism > like the weird Catholics featured on the show. I am new to the CofS > and need some advice as what exactly to say. There are many different kinds of Satanism. Sorry, but a quickie soundbite definition is not possible. I'll just say that there are many law-abiding Satanists of various kinds. You might find the following article helpful: Satan and "Evil" in Christianity (and Satanism) http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/Muse/XianSatanEvil.html Diane Vera
I've been told that similar posts were sent to quite a few other Yahoo email groups too, using various email addresses.
The day after I posted the original version of this article, W.H. Kennedy attempted to send the following to my moderated Theistic-Satanism email group (where posts by him would be contrary to the group's stated policies -- the only email group of mine in which he would actually be welcome to post is Theistic-Satanists-and-others-2):Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:45:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [Theistic-Satanism] An SRA scaremonger's bungled undercover operation From: william kennedy <whksoul@y...> Hi Diane, I merely passed that communication on - its all over the net and is did not originate with me. I spoke to my brother who is a lawyer and he claims that spamming involves using an automated system in a particular way. Consequently, you are slandering my name and reputation by making this claim in your article. Spamming is illegal and you are accusing me of a crime without knowing all the facts. A transcript of my CD is online for free and you will see that I only attack Catholic priests who raped children in bizzare satanic rituals and DID NOT attack any other types of Satanists nor did I imply that other satanists were into SRA. You can read the article yourself: http://www.geocities.com/whksoul/black_room.htm If you send me a snail mail address I will send you a FREE copy of the CD to show you that my word is good. I write for Dagoberts Revenge which has the Satanist Boyd Rice on its staff and never once complained about him. I am a Catholic and am only attacking other Catholics and would appreciate it if you would at least add this rejoinder to harsh article. I did nothing to warrent your slanderous statements. Regards, Bill Kennedy
To Bill: Do you really mean to claim you "merely passed on" a "communication" that just happened to be advertising your very own CD?
Your definition of "spam" is overly narrow -- see Yahoo's Universal Anti-Spam Policy. It is also not true that spam is currently (as of September 2003) illegal. By the way, does your "lawyer" friend know the difference between "slander" and "libel"? Be that as it may, I've made the concession of editing out the word "spam" (in favor of "junk mail") in my introductory remarks.
If indeed your aim is only to attack "other Catholics," then don't call them Satanists, and don't claim that they belong to a large-scale "Satanic cult" -- a claim for which your article presents NO evidence other than to say, vaguely, that some people have "alleged" it. The existence of sexually abusive priests (a few of whom may use Satanic trappings) plus church coverups does not constitute evidence of a large-scale "Satanic cult." Church coverups indicate nothing more than clubbiness on the part of the clargy.
Bill also tried to post two more messages to my Theistic-Satanism group:Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 12:19:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: PS. From: william kennedy <whksoul@y...> Hi Dianne, I should point out that my CD includes an exclusive interview by Malachi Martin from 1996 where he accuses Bernard Law of being complicate in the operation of a satanic pedophile ring in the Boston Archdiocese. Regards, Bill Kennedy P.S. I think people should buy my CD and make up my their own minds. My offer to send you a free copy still stands. Do you have a PO Box or some other contact address? You can't complain about a FREE COPY!!!
To Bill: I'm not interested in your CD, even for free. I've read your articles, and they're bad enough. For example, your article The Black Room claims to present evidence of a vast "Satanic cult," but failed to live up to that claim, as I've explained above. Why should I expect your CD to be any better? Nor do I have a high opinion of Malachi Martin. (See my article The "Satanic Ritual Abuse" scare -- it's BAACK!.)Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 20:39:24 -0000 Subject: Check this out oh satan lovers... From: "whksoul" <whksoul@y...> Some back up info; http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030910-094143-3996r
To Bill: That article says nothing to support your (and Malachi Martin's) claims about a vast "Satanic cult" trying to take over the Catholic Church. All it does is to blame the Roman Catholic Church's troubles on yet another outside scapegoat -- in this case, Aleister Crowley.)
Upon reading an earlier version of the above, Bill Kennedy replied:Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 05:38:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [Theistic-Satanism] An SRA scaremonger's bungled undercover operation From: william kennedy <whksoul@y...> Hi Diane, I again deny that I had anything to do with the Wicca qustion email. I did a special search and found that it originated at the College of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University - an institution I have no affilation with and, consequently, have NO ACCESS CODE to enter their computing facilities. I guess I hav efans there. I read your recent update and think you should point out that the man who wrote the Crowley article was Uwe Siemon-Netto - UPI Religion Editor - far from being the sort of extermeist crank that you paint Malachi Martin and I as being. Ironically, your attempt to debunk me has led to my CD site getting far more hits than normal and more hits mean more sales...Tahnk You! Regards, Bill Kennedy
To Bill: You're denying "again" that you "had anything to do with the Wicca qustion [sic] email"? Earlier, you didn't claim you had nothing to do with it. You claimed to have "merely passed that communication on."
As for the recent increase in traffic to your site, it is unlikely that the article you are reading now had much to do with it, since this article itself has not yet been widely advertised, as far as I am aware. Instead, you should thank a certain mysterious individual who has been running all over the net pretending to be you advertising your CD, while at the same time giving the appearance of doing an incredibly lousy job of pretending NOT to be you....
As for Uwe Siemon-Netto, being a "UPI Religion Editor" does not, alas, prove that a person's reasoning abilities are sound. UPI, a once-reputable news service, is now owned by the Moonies. (See Cult Ownership of the Press on cipherwar.com.)
However, to his credit, Uwe Siemon-Netto's article does not make any claims about a vast "Satanic cult" conspiracy. Nor does it, in any way, support your own claims of same. All it does is (1) make the more modest claim of clergy clubbiness, (2) denounce the cultural trends of the 1960's as "Satanic," and (3) scapegoat Crowley. Yet you claimed it as "back up info" for your own "Satanic cult" claims?