Laughing at Satanists!

James Hind, a figure who associates himself with the Satanist label, operates in an unusual and often contradictory way. On the one hand, he actively cultivates an air of mystery around his identity, hiding behind a mask that ostensibly shields him from the prying eyes of the public. He admits that the stories he tells may be smokescreens or misdirections, meant to keep people from understanding his true self. Yet, paradoxically, he also expects his audience to believe the narratives he constructs about others—often people he disapproves of or considers his adversaries. It raises an essential question about credibility and accountability: how can someone who openly manipulates facts for the purpose of personal concealment demand trust from the very audience he’s keeping in the dark? Hind's narrative is emblematic of a larger issue—the challenge of distinguishing between the "truth" and a well-constructed fabrication. Here, we explore the unique ethical conundrum Hind pres

The phrase "dealt with" carries a notable weight, invoking ideas that range from decisive action to formalised closure. But what does it actually mean to be "dealt with," especially in the context of escalating tensions or disputes? The term itself is loaded with both implication and ambiguity, and it’s often used to signal everything from taking legal action to simply establishing boundaries. Let’s unpack this phrase as it’s used by James Hind, writing as "Mordred" on his blog. In a recent entry, Mordred states: "PNW is now of the conclusion that these stalkers will have to be dealt with through litigation." He goes on to say, "PNW find responding to the stalkers tedious and onerous, hence their decision to eventually litigate." These statements prompt questions not only about the intended course of action but also about the attitudes behind the choice of language. Why choose "dealt with" instead of "addressed,&quo