Clarification re: Hoaxtead SJWs

Uncategorized

The following post from my own FB page was republished and miscontextualised on the Hoaxtead site, where I have made it quite clear I do not desire to communicate with them – and why. I have been in communication with the police and hope to hear soon regarding further proceedings. I have been denied any right of reply on their site, presumably because my comments there were showing them up as the Id-I.O.T.s they are.

I would like to make it clear that I take the Hoaxstead sockpuppets’ allegations against us very seriously. However I do not have any evidence of them being, personally, paedophiles or murderers. I do not even know who they are.

It remains true, however, that we have been stalked in the past by those connected with Colin Batley’s cul-de-sac cult, including someone who very definitely is a paedophile and murderer, having served a long sentence for the rape and murder of a child. We have our own reasons to suspect others who have harassed us in the past are also guilty of both extreme child abuse and murder. This is in the real world, not in any tit-for-tat online stupidity from misguided SJW and psuedo-Satanic college boys who have never even joined any orders or covens – unless you include the juvenile online forums they frequent; which no genuine Satanist ever would.

These cul-de-sac cultists have also spread lies that closely correlate to those being spread on the Hoaxtead site. By their own admission James Hind and others are acting on their behalf. They are just more dupes among many, and not worth too much time engaging with.

What their repost does show it that the online harassment from those involved with the Hoaxtead site had not abated in over 11 days. I suspect it makes them feel important. Sadly they do not seem to understand the legal trouble they could find themselves in, or the equally serious and entirely criminal problems they might be stirring up.

Capture

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “Clarification re: Hoaxtead SJWs

  1. Satanicviews aka James Hind claims convicted paedophiles from among the Pagan and occult scene are not ‘real’ Satanists. How ironic. According to his own blog he considers himself ‘independent and unaffiliated’, and we all know what that means. Nobody would have him. No genuine Satanists recognize him as one of their own.

    He is a fraud, deluding himself more than anyone else, desperate to make a name so the ‘real’ Satanists will pay him some attention. He should be careful or perhaps they will.

    I expect those convicted of such crimes as drinking children’s blood and raping them during rituals of devil worship (Albert & Carolee Hickman) think they are ‘real Satanists’ and everyone else is just a poseur. No doubt Richard Ramirez or Bobby Beusoliel would also have their own views on what it takes for a Satanist to be considered ‘real’ by their piers.

    The Satanists can argue among themselves as to who is ‘real’ but they all look like deluded nutjobs to everyone else.

    1. Because they are not ‘real Satanists’ apparently their very real crimes do not count as Satanic Ritual Abuse and anyone who says they are is spreading false SRA narratives. Apparently.

      And anyway real Satanists are never paedophiles because Satanism is the only religion in the whole world ever not to have any, and even if there is some there are for some reason a lot less, and in those very rare instances of Satanic paedophilia if it even exists – which it doe not because James Hind says so and he has been studying for ten years – they would never ritualize their abuse even though Satanists ritualize every other sexual activity from masturbation to orgies. And even if all this was really going on it would never be any famous Satanists doing it, especially not the Priests because.. well.. because they’re priests.

      Sound familiar? His blog also says he was brought up by a nice Christian family so I’m guessing this is learned behaviour from his choir boy days or something. It’s the same denial we see everywhere, especially among the enthusiastic wanna-be newbies who will believe any sh*t their ‘priests’ choose to feed them.

      1. The classic double bind so beloved of abusers, this time expressed as theology. Butt hurt Christian boy goes crying off to the Satanists only to get more of the same in different coloured robes. I shouldn’t laugh because it is actually very tragic. Perhaps one day he’ll learn there is no shelter in any religion. It is all the bloody same out there.

  2. There are so many fake accounts on that site and it seems unlikely James Hind is his real name. Might ITT geek Anton Channing be involved in this somewhere? After all he would have the motivation and time at least if he is not too busy updating his vore site with his crap drawings and yes we know vore is a code. We doubt there are as many contributors or readers as they would like anyone to believe it is easy to create your own fake support with a bit of internet trickery. We are unconvinced this is anything to worry about but just shout if you need us to take a closer look.

    1. Thanks. I think this is a matter best dealt with by the police. I do hope charges can be brought against him as it would help clear up a lot of rubbish for a lot of people. It is not down to me but when Vayne made his failed attempt to convince police I had a vendetta they gave me the opportunity to tell them what was really going on. I showed them online abuse that dates right back to 2001 when I resigned from the I.O.T. JV was not a member back then but has a relationship with Nicola Ward (aka Nikki Wyrd), the mother of my daughter and a current ‘Magi’ of the IOT (laughable) whose vendetta against me goes back even further to when I left her in 1994. As a result the police were quite insistent that they personally wanted to see this abuse stopped, as do we.

      I agree there are too many nameless sockpuppets and only one apparent ‘real name’ involved in the entire site. He has made several allegations that I have had an online vendetta against Julian Vayne, who I have never even met. He seems to believe that JV is too nice to go to the police and thus Hind is justified in holding his own online vendetta against me. WTF? And he does not stop to consider that just maybe he has been played, somewhere down the line?

      Ironically Nicola Ward (and JV) keep updating the Nathan Satan page she made on Encyclopedia Dramatica back in 2003(?), claiming almost anyone I have ever engaged with over the internet to be my sockpuppet. They will probably say the same about you. I have had some ludicrous emails from them in the past – all forwarded to the police – calling you my ‘stabby gang’. Either they don’t think you exist or they think I am your leader, which is certainly something I never encouraged.

      Anyway, thanks for stopping virtually by.

  3. Yes I saw it. Someone not a sockpuppet honest called “Pallas Athena”. I’d like to take a closer look at them in time. A face to face talk might be illuminating, if they ever had the courage. They are certainly mistaken if they think I will be playing ‘victim’ on account of anything they say or do. Absolute morons. Don’t prod them, whatever you do. I can do without the grief.

  4. It is pretty clear to anyone they have an agenda and it is nothing to do with protecting children or outing hoaxes. Why else would they be so relentlessly obsessed with this one Hampstead case for so long?

    Nobody I meet in my day to day life has any problem with me. People who know me have seen the facts and find no problem believing us. So far the only people who have been ‘certain’ enough in their apparent views to actually attack us have known full well they are lying. And then there is this mob. So what are we to make of it?

    There seems to be ‘another side’ to their supposed campaign that consists entirely of loons. I would appeal to them but seriously – stay off our side. No wonder some people are saying their site is all part of a cover-up attempt making both sides of the argument look insane.

    I have attempted to leave one more legal warning to ‘James Hind’, who probably is not Julian Vayne’s actual sockpuppet but still seems to have a hand up up his ar*e telling him what to say. We know who to blame for this situation and have informed the police.

  5. Are you suggesting the sockpuppets of Hoaxtead may in fact be a very small group of people – perhaps even just one or two – with lots of accounts?

    They are very sad. And one day soon, perhaps, seriously out of pocket. But that isn’t down to us!

    1. It would elevate his worth undeservedly to place his name next to those who have already endorsed our creative work – under any of our ‘names’. We have not ascertained who he really is yet. Many of his slurs are word for word copies of those received by the Id-I.O.T.s ..over more than a decade.

      Thanks for the story, other me. It precisely represents Hind’s attainments of philosophical oversight and has already gained appreciation from among the ‘Bizzaro’ set in the USA.. One or two of whom also appear to be among the new breed of pop-art ‘Satanists’. That’s what they call themselves – after all anybody is free to use the term as they please. It doesn’t mean they hang out with serial killers or paedophiles, even if a startling number of the same also seem to identify as ‘Satanists’. Nor do they seem to feel the need to take sole ownership of the term. In other words, much smarter than any of the HoaxedHead ‘researchers’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s