Lanning refers to and quotes idiotic authors such as Rebecca Brown M.D. who's written a book titled "Prepare for war". He writes:
... she lists among the 'doorways' to satanic power and/or demon infestation the following: fortune tellers, horoscopes, fraternity oaths, vegetarianism, yoga, self-hypnosis, relaxation tapes, acupuncture, biofeedback, fantasy role-playing games, adultery, homosexuality, pornography, judo, karate, and rock music. Dr. Brown states that rock music "was a carefully masterminded plan by none other than Satan himself" (p. 84.)
In the same paragraph, K. Lanning goes on to say:
In books, lectures, handout material, and conversations, I have heard all of the following referred to as satanism:
-- Church of Satan
-- Ordo Templi Orientis
-- Temple of Set
-- Demonology
-- Witchcraft
-- Occult
-- Paganism
-- Santeria
-- Voodoo
-- Rosicrucians
-- Freemasonry
-- Knights Templar
-- Stoner Gangs
-- Heavy Metal Music
-- Rock Music
-- KKK
-- Nazis
-- Skinheads
-- Scientology
-- Unification Church
-- The Way
-- Hare Krishna
-- Rajneesh
-- Religious Cults
-- New Age
-- Astrology
-- Channeling
-- Transcendental Meditation
-- Holistic Medicine
-- Buddhism
-- Hinduism
-- Mormonism
-- Islam
-- Orthodox Church
-- Roman Catholicism
So, almost every religion except Judaism, Jehovah witnesses and all Christian denominations except for Orthodox and Roman Catholic are not considered satanic anywhere in books, lectures, material or conversations. Really?! How biased is that...
2. I believe it's a brainwashing tool for FBI and probably other American Intelligence agencies.
In the same 'Definitions' paragraph, Lanning goes on to write:
The ideas expressed in Dr. Brown's book may seem extreme and even humorous. This book, however, has been recommended as a serious reference in law enforcement training material on this topic.
Really?
At law enforcement training conferences, it is witchcraft, Santeria, paganism, and the occult that are most often referred to as forms of satanism. It may be a matter of definition, but these things are not necessarily the same as traditional satanism. **The worship of lunar goddesses and nature and the practice of fertility rituals are not satanism. **Santeria is a combination of 17th century Roman Catholicism and African paganism.
I repeat myself: totally biased and a clear brainwashing tool. And if you go on to read the other points such as 'what is ritual child abuse' and 'what makes a crime satanic, occult or ritualistic, most of you will be shocked at Lanning's interpretations of these terms, in a negative way.
You have clearly misunderstood - he is referencing an author who has written things that are apparently used by law enforcement to understand satanism or these kinds of abuses. Even if the book is idiotic, it is not wrong of him to reference it if it is relevant to what he's writing about, which it is. He isn't saying he agrees with her, he isn't holding the book up as the ultimate arbiter of truth, he's showing what kind of things have been described in the literature as doorways to satanic power.
The second point - the religions he lists he says are ones he has heard referred to as satanism, not that they are not satanism, so you've totally confused that. Orthodox and Roman Catholicism HAVE been referred to as satanism. The rest of Christian denominations, Judaism etc have NOT been referred to as satanism anywhere.
Again, he is just saying what's going on - that this other book by Brown has been used by law enforcement, he's not saying it should be, he's describing the way things are.
It is not biased from what you've put here and not brainwashing at all. Sounds like a normal academic text, which by necessity will discuss various aspects of a topic and previous writings on it, how those writings are interpreted and used, without necessarily endorsing those ideas and opinions.
When I read something completely biased as this here, which is HIS own personal view, I know that his intentions are not as pure as we might want to believe.
Most, however, would probably answer that what makes a crime satanic, occult, or ritualistic is the motivation for the crime. It is a crime that is spiritually motivated by a religious belief system. **How then do we label the following true crimes?
**
The first two "true crimes" on his list:
Parents defy a court order and send their children to an unlicensed Christian school.
Parents refuse to send their children to any school because they are waiting for the second coming of Christ.
How are these defined as true satanic, occult or ritualistic crimes? Do I really have to put up a link or something to make you see how he's being biased? Use your common sense for God's sake. And don't tell me that when he writes: "How then do we label the following true crimes", he's referring to someone other than himself, because he doesn't point that out anywhere. You just want to believe he does.
I just think you aren't familiar with reading academic texts/arguments. He is not being biased at all, he is pointing out the complexities of crimes that are motivated by religious belief. He isn't saying that those examples are satanic crimes, he's saying that they are crimes in that they break the law, and that they are motivated by firm religious belief, as in Christian belief, not satanic belief!
You are obviously delusional. Even former Top Bureau official Ted Gunderson says "FBI's Lanning sides with Satan. Original document can be found on recent Anon drop from AKilluminati https://mega.nz/#F!79IzHRJQ!aCZLkiUUGoya77PvmqHMrw < Ex-FBI Ted Gunderson case files < Law Enforcement reaction to Satanic Cult Problem (PDF) page 29/41
I'm not making any judgement either way about Lanning, I don't know. I'm just saying what you've provided as evidence isn't evidence of what you're claiming, that's all.
I read the entire report and it left me with the clear impression that he was being biased and manipulative in his ideas and presentation. There is no way for me to bring up evidence except quote him. I simply used common sense. Anyway, the message was clear to me, but it might not have been as evident to others, which in my opinion, made him even more dangerous. I was just trying to warn people. Peace.
view the rest of the comments →
YingYangMom ago
Here is MY PERSONAL OPINON of the the htm 1992 FBI report - Satanic Ritual Abuse by Kenneth V. Lanning - http://www.skeptictank.org/fbi1992.htm
at first glance and here's why.
Lanning refers to and quotes idiotic authors such as Rebecca Brown M.D. who's written a book titled "Prepare for war". He writes:
In the same paragraph, K. Lanning goes on to say:
So, almost every religion except Judaism, Jehovah witnesses and all Christian denominations except for Orthodox and Roman Catholic are not considered satanic anywhere in books, lectures, material or conversations. Really?! How biased is that...
In the same 'Definitions' paragraph, Lanning goes on to write:
Really?
I repeat myself: totally biased and a clear brainwashing tool. And if you go on to read the other points such as 'what is ritual child abuse' and 'what makes a crime satanic, occult or ritualistic, most of you will be shocked at Lanning's interpretations of these terms, in a negative way.
SpikyAube ago
You have clearly misunderstood - he is referencing an author who has written things that are apparently used by law enforcement to understand satanism or these kinds of abuses. Even if the book is idiotic, it is not wrong of him to reference it if it is relevant to what he's writing about, which it is. He isn't saying he agrees with her, he isn't holding the book up as the ultimate arbiter of truth, he's showing what kind of things have been described in the literature as doorways to satanic power.
The second point - the religions he lists he says are ones he has heard referred to as satanism, not that they are not satanism, so you've totally confused that. Orthodox and Roman Catholicism HAVE been referred to as satanism. The rest of Christian denominations, Judaism etc have NOT been referred to as satanism anywhere.
Again, he is just saying what's going on - that this other book by Brown has been used by law enforcement, he's not saying it should be, he's describing the way things are.
It is not biased from what you've put here and not brainwashing at all. Sounds like a normal academic text, which by necessity will discuss various aspects of a topic and previous writings on it, how those writings are interpreted and used, without necessarily endorsing those ideas and opinions.
YingYangMom ago
When I read something completely biased as this here, which is HIS own personal view, I know that his intentions are not as pure as we might want to believe.
The first two "true crimes" on his list:
How are these defined as true satanic, occult or ritualistic crimes? Do I really have to put up a link or something to make you see how he's being biased? Use your common sense for God's sake. And don't tell me that when he writes: "How then do we label the following true crimes", he's referring to someone other than himself, because he doesn't point that out anywhere. You just want to believe he does.
SpikyAube ago
I just think you aren't familiar with reading academic texts/arguments. He is not being biased at all, he is pointing out the complexities of crimes that are motivated by religious belief. He isn't saying that those examples are satanic crimes, he's saying that they are crimes in that they break the law, and that they are motivated by firm religious belief, as in Christian belief, not satanic belief!
YingYangMom ago
You are obviously delusional. Even former Top Bureau official Ted Gunderson says "FBI's Lanning sides with Satan. Original document can be found on recent Anon drop from AKilluminati https://mega.nz/#F!79IzHRJQ!aCZLkiUUGoya77PvmqHMrw < Ex-FBI Ted Gunderson case files < Law Enforcement reaction to Satanic Cult Problem (PDF) page 29/41
SpikyAube ago
I'm not making any judgement either way about Lanning, I don't know. I'm just saying what you've provided as evidence isn't evidence of what you're claiming, that's all.
YingYangMom ago
I read the entire report and it left me with the clear impression that he was being biased and manipulative in his ideas and presentation. There is no way for me to bring up evidence except quote him. I simply used common sense. Anyway, the message was clear to me, but it might not have been as evident to others, which in my opinion, made him even more dangerous. I was just trying to warn people. Peace.