Recently Updated Posts

Nice!!! Thanks!

That's a very good point--the difference between "child proof," and "tamper proof." What better way to make someone buy your new product, than to make your old product, which has already saturated the market, obsolete? "We have solved the child-proofing problem. But, tragically, as we have aaaaaalllll seen, we face a new problem..."

Or, maybe it's your competitor...

That's the problem I'm trying to fight--"That's good enough for me." Well, it's NOT good enough. How would you like to be on trial for 12 counts of capital murder, be convicted, then sentenced to death, on no actual evidence whatsoever? I didn't say I could prove Charles Ng "innocent." But that's not the same thing as proving he's guilty of eleven murders. Are he and Leonard Lake the most obvious and best suspects? Of course. But, where's the evidence? It sure as shit ain't on those tapes. And those tapes were the ONLY "evidence" presented at his trial.

And it isn't only that. There is this myth of "snuff films" no one has ever seen. THIS was the ONLY trial in which supposed "bona fide snuff films" were presented as "evidence." But they're not "snuff films." They are, at best, SIMULATED snuff films. And there was NO OTHER EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND--not even garbage "testimony" like Susan Atkins--to otherwise show that Charles Ng had ever murdered anybody. And we're talking about the most expensive manhunt and trial in history. No evidence. Of any kind.

If something is true, it can be proven. So, why is there no PROOF that Charles Ng murdered someone? On or off camera? Oh, there's endless hours of horror show TV and newspaper and magazine coverage. Just like Manson. Just like Son of Sam. Just like some of these other cases. And it turns out that's not the only thing this "case" has in common with those cases.

If you don't feel like hashing out the evidence, and lack thereof, in this or any case, then don't waste space commenting on that particular thread. I couldn't give half a rat's ass for what people "believe." I am only interested in evidence.

Of what? There is NO actual VIOLENCE to be SEEN. Only noises. And I include Leonard's FANTASIES as "noise." NONE of those videotapes is evidence of MURDER. Not even kidnapping. Charles Ng is the only defendant ever convicted of actually making "snuff films." But the prosecution produced zero actual snuff films at his trial. Or ever. Beware--there is a low budget "movie" from a few years ago that contains REENACTMENTS of scenes from supposed vidoes Lake and Ng supposedly made. But the videos used as evidence at Ng's trial only prove that Ng knew one of the victims. They don't prove anything else. The one most people know about is the featuring the woman from next door. But it's clear from the conversation in that video that she was more or less participating "voluntarily." For money? For thrills? Who knows? It's only later, just before Ng leads her into the other room (the camera does NOT follow) that she becomes aware that she has gotten into something unforeseen. We then hear what SOUNDS like "torture," etc. But we do NOT see it. Her corpse, along with those of her husband, child, and other people, was found on the property. Lake and Ng are clearly the first, most obvious suspects. But NONE of the videos police claim to have found, including that one, are evidence of any actual violent crime. Only the corpses. And no actual evidence that Ng actually participated in any violence. Just the testimony of--guess who--jailhouse snitches about Ng's FANTASIES.

Oh, you've made a good beginning. But you have a long, long way to go. And I care less about your ego than I do about your feelings. Let alone your opinion of "me." Never, ever fool yourself about that.

Now, back to the Topic at hand: the history, as we can deduce it, from the surviving sources, and I'll repeat myself just this once, the GENERAL idea of something that has historically been called "gnosticism."

"Pythagoras was an initiate [supposedly. According to whatever scant "sources" we have] of the Greek mystery schools" which is pretty much the definition of gnosticism (and, again, I am NOT talking about any textbook's definition of "Gnosticism" with a capital G) I have been using--that is, the belief (and yes, I use the word with full intention if highlighting the irony) in the notion that revealed "knowledge" ("gnosis") will save the gnostic from dying. And, using YOUR example for example, this notion pre-dates "Christianity" by several centuries. As you yourself pointed out. Some mystery religions (to the extent that we know jack fucking shit at all about the details) merely required the acting out of various episodes from the life of the man/god. There was no need to "learn" anything, let alone "expand your consciousness;" just do what the god did and experience what the god experienced, and you'll become a god, too. This is the part that Pythagoras felt insufficient for his lofty "intelligence." Hence all that math. Studying math (and whether he learned his metempsychosis in India or not, his math sure as hell--get it?--came from there, possibly via Babylon, where some traditions claim he studied) "expanded his consciousness" (in the parlance of our times) so that he could see that death was merely an illusion, blah, blah, blah. Thus sayeth (as far as we can tell) the [neo] Pythagoreans. Was "Pythagoras" even a real person? Who the fuck knows (once I start, I can't stop)? Again, it's a tad suspicious that he, "Buddha," and "Zarathustra" all supposedly lived about the same time.

Now, to split yet another hair, technically, and by technically, I mean, this is how I have and will use the term, "mystery" religions involve ACTING OUT certain key episodes in the life of the "man-who-became-a-god" in order to achieve the same results. In gnosticish (happy?) mystery cults, these episodes, properly re-enacted, reveal "gnowledge" (better? Are you getting the picture AT ALL?) that again, is believed will save the initiate from having to go through all that scary death business. One famous (I see you have, indeed, read a book two written by "experts" on the subject, so I will assume you've heard of this particular ancient culture) example is the "Egyptian Book of the Dead [pharaoh.]" Even Pharaoh couldn't just get up out of his grave and walk into the world of the gods and order a Golden Big Mac. He had to learn HOW to "be" a "god." In order to maintain their power over him and his administration, the priests kept this knowledge a secret, only writing the Book on the walls of his tomb, so he could read it AFTER HE DIED. Naturally, the priests (well, a select few) new the "secret," and even more naturally, they could SELL it. Over the centuries, this life-after-death religion became more and more "democratized," with even the poorest slave able to partake in the Afterlife. So long as he/she served the King faithfully in this life, then he/she would enjoy the privilege of alo emptying the latrines in the NEXT life. Hooray. This is apparently the basis of the "Pharisees" (again, I'm using the term broadly. There is zero evidence I'm wrong, since the only source for the "standard" definition of the word comes via Josephus, who himself is not necessarily a real, historical person) belief that that the Dead will be physically resurrected (although in THIS world, not another one) on Judgment Day, and those who were "good" will be rewarded with good land, etc, and those who were "evil" or "sinful" will be dispossessed and end up as the lepers and the beggars, etc. The "Pharisee" afterlife is in the same place as this one, just in a different Time, the time after the Final Judgment fixes the World Order once and for all.

The "Saduccees," on the other hand, seem to have been more or less neo-Platonist, in the sense that they did NOT believe in the PHYSICAL resurrection of the body on Judgment Day, but rather, they seem to have believed in the "Platonist" version (not necessarily Plato's) of metempsychosis, insofar as the "soul" (that hair will be split another time) leaves the physical body upon death. But, unlike the "Platonists," who apparently believed in vaguely (if not downright suspiciously) Buddhist ideas about re-incarnation, the neo-Platonists seem to have believed that said soul goes to some kind of "heaven," (or "hell.") That is, another quasi-Egyptian afterlife in another "place," but unlike the Egyptians, who seem to have believed that the Afterlife was pretty much like this life, but maybe better, the neo-Platonists saw this afterlife world in what science fiction idiots call "a higher dimension" or "higher plane of existence." And again, that's your good old-fashioned gnosticism. (As opposed to "Buddhism," which basically teaches that the only way to escape the hell of endless reincarnation is to cease to exist as a "mind" at all. But they use "koan" mindblower exercises for a similar purpose to that as Pythagoras--to slap the mind into thinking outside the box. Blah, blah, blah.) And the Sadduccees seem to have been a Jew-ish version of this "neo-Platonism." Hence their ideas of the Bible as "allegory," etc. 

Was the penultimate period (well, colon [:], but I'm sure YOU get my point. Right?) of the first complete copy of the "Septuagint" dribbled onto the page on Friday, the 13th of Shevat 231 BC? Or Monday the 0th of Bullshit, 351 AD? Who the fuck cares? I'm talking about the evolution of basic religious and philosophical ideas as traced (to whatever extent possible) through the surviving literature. Or, that's all I'm going to talk about on THIS website and podcast. I'm not getting into the fact that the people who wrote the New Testament had zero first-hand knowledge of Judaism. "Paul" is a Type, a character, a literary device. Whether he actually existed to any extent, or not. His "dialogues" and his "epistles" clearly show that character had NEVER been an "orthodox" ("Nazorean," or whatever) Jew. The authors of those texts clearly have no first-hand knowledge of "Judaism." They are only familiar with standard stereotypes and misconceptions of their day. And so on and on and on and on and on.

When I use the words "gnostic" and "gnosticism" on MY website and MY podcast, I'm talking about the broader idea outlined above. So, get used to it. I don't have time to do for Tischendorff, et al what I did for Graysmith. But long story short, "Christianity," as codified (get it? I'll be impressed if you do) by the early Imperial Catholic Ecclesia in their collection of canonical texts we ignorant Germanic types quaintly call The Bible in the 4th and early 5th centuries, appears to be what it obviously is--a rock soup of Mithraism, Egyptian gnosticism (largely by way of Isis/Horus/Osiris cult, but also with a dash of pepper from the "Pharisees,") Greek gnosticism (mostly "neo-Platonism") by way of the "Sadduccees," Roman "Herculesism" (yet ANOTHER demigod who uses his powers for Good, instead of for Evil, and a champion of the poor and oppressed,) and let's not forget ChrEstianity (source of the "Good Shepherd" blah, blah, blah) which may or not be the same "ChrEstianity" (and that is a direct quote [XRHSTIANOI] from both Sinaiticus) supposedly established at Antioch. Something from Everybody, for Everybody. And Constantine the "Great" propagandized himself (in many forms) as the Soter/Christos/Apollo/Heracles/Blah, Blah, Blah of this new meatloaf of religions. 

Except, even this new all-inclusive state "religion" feared, loathed, and generally lost their cookies (I KNOW you got that one) over one particularly nightmarish cult that just wouldn't die out, no matter how many of them they killed--the "Gnostics." Who had infiltrated the Ecclesia (you do know what THAT word MEANS, right?) near the highest levels. Perhaps the highest. What interests me about that controversy is, it sounds a lot like a modern "conspiracy theory." A LOT like one. A SPECIFIC one. Because we seem to be up to our third eyeballs in these assholes, now. And the more we learn about said assholes, the scarier they get. 

And here's one more thing--if even someone as educated on the topic as YOU don't (yet) see it, then how could anyone else MAKE IT UP? How could somebody--even Blavatsky and Crowley--accidentally dream up the exact same horseshit? That's like a million monkeys typing Hamlet on a million typewriters. That's one hell of a coincidence to be nothing more than a coincidence. They--and a lot of other assholes--must have learned it. And son of a bitch (that's a catholic joke from The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly) if those assholes didn't just happen to study the exact same book(s) (I'm looking at YOU, Tibetan BooK of the Dead) from the exact same monasteries as...well, you get my point. God willing.

That's my point.

Thanks! This is another case with a wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide gap between the actual facts, and the popular story of the case.

To summarize what we need to re-think about this case:

1. Charles Ng is facing a basket of death sentences after a trial where the prosecution presented even less evidence to the jury than in the Manson case. In fact, they presented zero evidence of any kind. At least Tex and Krenwinkel left fingerprints, if non bloody prints, at the Tate house. Ng was convicted on NOTHING but a horror story backed up with ZERO evidence. Does that mean he's innocent? Not necessarily. But it's not the same thing as proving him guilty, either. And one possible reason for not having any evidence to present at trial is that the evidence incriminated other people in addition to Ng and Lake.

2. There is NO actual evidence that Lake ever actually made any actual "snuff" videos and films. Are there excuses for this lack of evidence? Naturally. Is that the same thing as evidence? Nope. Did he make BDSM porn? Apparently. Did that include "simulated" murder? Most definitely. Has anyone seen one, single, solitary frame of actual murder actually taking place on camera? Nope.

3. There is no real doubt that Lake grew pot and procured weapons for the Hells Angels. What about kiddie porn and snuff films? There is no doubt Lake's WIFE engaged in producing kiddie porn, and involved Leonard in this. But here is the crucial question--if Lake PRODUCED child and snuff porn, then WHO BOUGHT IT? You can't sell tomatoes unless SOMEONE BUYS THEM. There are plenty of reasons to think the Hells Angels also distributed this material. Okay. To WHOM?

4. There's no doubt that the woman from next door on the famous video was murdered, along with her husband and small son. SOUNDS of that murder, and possibly torture, can supposedly be heard on that tape. But I'll say it again--that MIGHT have been a "simulation." No actual physical torture or murder takes place on camera. Only off-screen noises. The actual murder could have taken place later. We just. Don't. Know.

5. Leonard's wife AND mother were "protected" from prosecution. Why? Was it because they KNEW WHO THE CUSTOMERS WERE? I'll say it again--you can't accuse someone of selling oranges to zero customers. No buyers; no sellers. Who were the buyers?

6. As in ALL these cases, an ACCURATE, COMPLETE victim background profile is absolutely necessary. And again, the backgrounds and profiles of ALL these victims turns out to be far more interesting than the popular story. Far more.

If your confirmation bias is strong enough, the CJB confession letter (29 Nov, 1966) reframes a few phrases in the 1968 patent filed the same month.