WHAT A LOAD OF CODSWALLOP!
A Review of the Inaccuracies contained within
Children For The Devil,
by Tim Tate
Tate, the brains behind the discredited Cook Report's The Devil's Work
(which tried to tell us that the U.K. was being overrun with Satanic
Child Abusers- remember all the fuss?) has spent the last two
years working hard to seek out cases to convince us that his original
assertions were correct and that Satanic Ritual Child Abuse (SRA)
exists. To the casual observer the sheer weight of Tate's research is
impressive, but to those who know, his book is a conglomeration of
half-truths and misleading statements.
Tate contributes nothing really new to the controversy. He has
discovered nothing extra which will offer conclusive proof that Satanic
Ritual Abuse exists. The book itself is not the first of it's kind. It
has been attempted before by more able historians, from Bodin, through
Scott, Summers and Rhodes. They got it wrong because they all began from a prejudiced viewpoint. How then did Tate do?
Sad to say, CHILDREN FOR THE DEVIL, RITUALISED ABUSE AND SATANIC CRIME
is nothing but a fourth-hand re-run of information which was already
third-hand and suspect when it was first collated! In an attempt
to convince the reader of the existence of Satanic Ritualised Abuse
Tate delves into ancient history and asserts that Satanism has been
alive and well for over 600 years! Will the media and the public fall
Those who hoped for a clarification and simplification of Tate's
allegations will be bitterly disappointed. After four years Tate is
still unable to produce factual evidence of even one case of supposed
ritualised child abuse which will stand on its own merits. Inevitably,
Tate continues to blend a cocktail of different cases, each of which
may have some heinous evil aspect, but none of which display the entirety of
his claims that a Worldwide Satanic Cult is abusing and sacrificing
hundreds children as part of its belief system.
Yes folks, it's more of the same intolerant and inconclusive drivel
from Mr Tate but this time he has taken so many liberties with the
truth that the knowledgeable observer can only conclude that his
compulsion to publicise Satanic Ritual Abuse nust have become an obsession.
twisted collection of selectively edited
snippets from a variety of sources is cobbled together in an attempt to
convince Joe Public that Tate Satanic Ritual Child Abuse is a real
threat. If this man had his way there would apparently be
a nationwide hunt for unorthodox beliefs backed up by special SWAT
squads seeking indications of Satanic Ritualised Abuse using the worst
kind of medieval
superstition. Exactly the sort of ignorance which caused the Rochdale
and Orkney SRA fiascos. As usual there are lots of words, but there is not one jot of proof.
The S.A.F.F. have exposed the fragility of Tate's cases in all
instances and despite his clever weaving of narrative in this new book, his evidence is again clearly inconclusive.
In descending to using confessions gained though torture during the
Witch Trials of the 15 and 16 centuries Tate takes on the mantle of the
New Witch finder General. Like Witch finder Generals before him appears ready to convince you by peddling medieval
superstition. Hitching a ride on one of the most reprehensible
periods of history at a time when millions of innocent people went to
their deaths in Europe because of a hysteria not dissimilar to the one
Tate helped to promote during the 1990s, he incorporates confessions gained
under torture in complete disrespect for the dignity of the innocent
people murdered in such a barbarous and uncivilised fashion.
Tate's book is replete
with innuendo, inference and inaccuracies which would take another
volume of twice the size to fully explain so we have chosen a few of the more
pertinent cases and highlighted Mr Tates errors in those to indicate his misportrayal. It makes shocking reading,
whichever way you look at it.
GILES DE RAIS:
de Rais did not admit to the slaughter of a
thousand children as Tate insists. History clearly shows that he was
the richest man in France at the time with extensive lands in his
possession. He was framed for political reasons and tried for heresy on
the pretext that he had struck a priest, not because he killed
children. His supposed child
murders were a corollary charge. His Inquisitors selected two of Rais'
500 servants and tortured them until they confessed all manner of
atrocities which Rais had supposedly committed - hence the incredible
number of claimed child murders. These two servants claimed to be
involved in the carrying out of the crimes and Tate uses their
testimony as trustworthy, but he does not mention that after testifying
against their master
they were both set free; a strange occurrence for two miscreants who
confessed to helping kill thousands of kids!
Tate does not appear to have access to the source-works
of proper scholars such as Ernest Alfred Vizetelly whose
monumental Commore the Cursed and Giles de Rais was first
published in English in 1902 and proved conclusively that the idea of a
child-killing blue-beard sacrificing thousands of children, which was
projected onto Giles de Rais at his trial, was in fact a development of
a very ancient pre-Roman Bretton pagan legend and had no basis whatsoever in
The facts are that there was no concrete evidence of any
crimes given against Giles de Rais at the hearing. No bodies or bones
were ever produced.
The 'confession' by his servants made it inevitable
that Rais would be burned alive at the stake. His Inquisitors offered
Rais death by burning alive or, if he confessed to the put up crimes,
the 'mercy' of being strangled beforehand which, faced with the
inevitability of it all Rais is supposed to have accepted. The put up
nature of the confession was evident in the fact that included in it
was a plea that the court records be published in the vernacular. A
strategic move by his Inquisitors to gain public condemnation whilst
they stripped him of his land and possessions behind the scenes.
Hunting Satanists Pays Dividends
Inquisitors who tried people who were accused of
witchcraft were not usually paid by the state but were permitted to
charge the victim for their 'services'. What this meant in principle was that the estate of the guilty person was split between the prosecutors.
Now look at this: Fifteen days BEFORE the trial of Rais began Duke John V (who took part in the prosecution) disposed of his anticipated share of Giles de Rais lands.
Thus even prior to the trial Rais' guilt had been decided and his death
made certain by those powerful enemies who ranged against him.
And yet Tate would ignore this travesty of justice in order to tell you
that it was certain that Rais killed hundreds of children! There
is not a shred of reliable evidence that this was the case but Tate
would have you believe otherwise, just like he would have believe that
Francesco Prelati who featured in the trial was a 'fellow
Satanist' when in fact he was an ordained priest who, after testifying against Rais, was also set free.
Giles de Rais was a victim of political assassination. The Witch Hysteria
which tore through 15/16 century Europe became the cover for it. It is amazing though how the
superstition of the Satanic Ritual Abuse Myth tends to perpetuate
itself even unto modern times. Tate insists that his quoted cases are
cases of Satanism, yet Rais' helper in his supposed crimes was a Priest
and the trustworthy evidence shows that Rais interest in the esoteric was limited to alchemical
experiments to turn lead into gold. He had no connection whatsoever to any form of organised Satanism.
CATHERINE DE MEDICI:
"The first formalised ritual child sacrifice within a Black Mass is credited to Catherine Medici"
Tate can make such a bald statement as though fact is
beyond our comprehension and we wonder how many readers will believe
him? Firstly De Medici was not a Satanist, and
although, like many of her day, she consulted with soothsayers and in
particular Nostradamus the famous astrologer, this was always for a
political or personal purpose, never to exalt evil or Satanism. The
source reference to the supposed 'Black Mass' is in the writings of
Jean Bodin, (1530-1596) a French lawyer and politicnick who set himself
up to hunt down witches in many trials because it was lucrative work.
He also wrote, conveniently for his purse and with a faint echo that
has spanned the centuries, that witches were so cunning it was
impossible to prove their guilt so all who were accused should be found
guilty even if there was no evidence against them!
Furthermore, the 'sacrifice' was conducted by a Catholic Priest, not a
Satanist. There was only one such rite performed ( for the purpose of
saving the life of Catherine de Medici's gravely ill son). According to Henry Rhodes'
classic The Satanic Mass
"This was no Sabbat or offering to Satan".
In accrediting Catherine de Medici with being the first exponent of satanic ritual child murder Tate
completely omits to mention that she was an ardent Catholic sectarian who
personally initiated the assassination of Admiral Coligny and the
horrendous St Bartholomew Massacre where over FIFTY THOUSAND Huguenots
were murdered simply because they were Protestants.
Rather than being the first example of Satanic Ritualised
Murder this lady could easily be accused of being the first Christian
Ritualised Mass Murderer if it were not for the fact that there are
literally hundreds of precedents to that title throughout history!
In the Loudun Nuns case, in which Urbain Grandier
featured, everyone involved was either a nun, priest or Bishop, yet, my
readers, remember that Mr Tate is attempting to tell you that these
were DREAD SATANISTS. We ask Mr Tate to say at what point a Priest
becomes defined by him as a Satanist?
In fact the clergy at that time contained an even higher proportion of licentious perverts than it does now. (see The Black Museum of Priestly Abuse here
) Becoming a Cleric was one way of avoiding penury and starvation,
especially for disenfranchised bastard sons of the nobility. During
this period there are very many instances on record of priests who had
no Satanic connections whatsoever but who had mistresses and
illegitimate families by various concubines. It is naive of Tate to
over moralise his tales of indiscretions whilst pretending that the
French Church and its officiators were paragons of virtue whose word
could be trusted.
Urbain Grandier was a parish priest who fell foul of Cardinal
Richelieu. He openly made a mistress of one of his young penitents and
was suspected of having made pregnant the daughter of the public
prosecutor of Loudun. Not good form for one in Grandier's position.
Firstly accused of immorality, not heresy, he was found guilty and
suspended from clerical duties. Within a year Grandier's political
friends had engineered his release and those ranged against him began a
conspiracy to incriminate him. Tate fails to mention any of this.
Grandier's enemy Father Mignon, confessor to the nuns of
Loudun, persuaded a few sisters to swear that Father Grandier had
bewitched them. The nuns went into 'victim imposter' mode started
feigning convulsions and began talking in strange voices. The plot
misfired and resulted merely in a warning to Grandier by his Archbishop.
The convent quietened but the conspiracy continued. Laubardemont, a
close friend of the powerful Richelieu was told that Grandier had
published a satire which had enraged the Cardinal. One of the nuns was
related to Richelieu. This cocktail of circumstance resulted in
Richelieu ordering Laubardemont to form a kangaroo commission to
convict Grandier as a witch. The Old allegations resurfaced and, under
exorcism the nuns continued their fantastic allegations about adultery,
incest, sacrileges and other crimes. Acting as though possessed the
nuns became celebrities and were repeatedly exorcised in public.
The similarity between these nuns and modern day SRA victim imposters
who appear on stage to tell their fabricated stories at Satan Seminars
for social workers will not escape my readers.
Grandier was thrown into jail and searched for 'devil's marks' which
were, of course, quickly discovered. The despicable Inquisitors whom
Tate would have you trust, found these devil's marks by subterfuge.
Using a small needle they would stab one part of his body whilst
drawing the onlookers attention to the pressing of another part. This
would have worked had not an apothecary from Poitiers witnessed the
hoax and grabbing the concealed barb revealed that Grandier's body was ordinarily sensitive to pain at any point.
The trial was a complete travesty of justice. Some nuns who,
realising their part in Grandier's serious predicament, wanted to
retract their statements were refused permission to do so.
- They claimed that their allegations had been dictated to them by the parish priest.
- The 'Pact with the devil' supposedly written by
Grandier is not thought by any historians to be anything other than a
- The Mother superior of the convent, herself a main
player in the framing of Grandier, appeared in court with a noose
around her neck and threatened to hang herself to expiate her false
witness against Grandier, but she was ignored.
- Villagers and people who wanted to appear in defence
of Grandier were forcibly kept from testifying and in some cases told
that if they did so they would also be tried for witchcraft.
- Dr Claud Quillet of Chinon had detected impostures at
the public exorcisms and wanted to give testimony to that effect.
Laubardemont immediately ordered his arrest and Dr Quillet only saved
himself by fleeing across the Italian border.
- A public meeting supporting Grandier organised by the
Baili of Loudun complained about the procedure in the trial and
Laubardemont accused all present of Treason to scotch any resistance.
On 18th August 1634 Grandier was sentenced to torture of the 2nd degree and burning alive.
Even under torture so severe that the marrow of his bones oozed out of
his broken limbs Grandier maintained his innocence and refused to bear
false witness by naming imaginary accomplices (the sole purpose of 2nd
dignity and honour under such terrible
institutionalised violence make him a giant amongst martyrs to the
cause of human integrity. It makes Tim Tate's portrayal of him as a
satanist more than unacceptable. It makes it despicable. Proof of
Satanic Ritualised Abuse? I think not!
THE SATANIST NUN: Magdalein Bavent
Again Tate confuses the issue. When is a Nun redefined as a Satanist?
Why do all his cases involve Christian priests and Christian nuns?
When does Christian ritualised abuse become Satanic ritualised abuse?
None of the historical confessions or transcripts which Mr
Tate uses contain any references to any person being called Satanists or
admitting to being a Satanist. Tate can produce no definitive
evidence to show that those accused were termed Satanists or actually were Satanists. We only have Mr
Tate's own assurance that this is the case.
The people in Tate's cases may have done awful things, but the S.A.F.F.
has just produced the result of 8 years analysis of over 100 child sex
abuse cases from the last decade which prove that clergymen and
Christian religious fanatics can perpetrate the same and worse things
without any form of Satanism being involved (see here).
If priests can do it now, they could have done it then. It is
a certainty that some renegade priests did awful things as the above
cases show. Thus the depth of horror of the crime cannot be used as an
incontrovertible indicator of Satanic involvement. Without
clear proof of the existence of a historic Satanic cult, Tate's
allegations about a cult of baby-killing satanists which has
reappared in modern life, are meaningless. None of the cases he
reproduces in Children For the Devil support the contention.
Magdalein Bavent became a Nun in an attempt to escape the repercussions
of being deflowered by a Franciscan monk who was a customer at the shop
where she worked. Her highly detailed and fantastic confessions were
published in her autobiography and from its innocent Early Victim
Imposter style and details of her confessions during trial various
commentators, including Tate, have extracted the allegations which seem
to confirm their prejudices.
Tate did not bother telling his readers that Bavent also
claimed that she
Does this make you think the poor woman might have needed therapy?
- had sex with the ghost of a dead priest,
- was raped a
number of times by the devil in the form of a black Cat which had a
- saw blood trickling from a holy wafer,
- consorted with
Neither does Tate mention that in her autobiography Bavent
herself wrote that her testimony had been
"based upon nothing else than
the vivid suggestion she retained from the questioning".
important insight when related to the misuse of interrogation
techniques in the Rochdale and Orkney SRA cases.
Bavent's allegations concerned the activities of priest Father Picard who had died some time previously from natural causes.
So lunatic were the Satan Hunters of the time at being thwarted that
they dug up Picard's corpse and publicly incinerated it on the same
pyre upon which they burned alive the poor priest who had taken over
from him after he died!
Bavent's allegations regarding eating children were never corroborated.
One of the witnesses at the trials confessed before
being burned that he had prompted Bavent about the Sabbath orgies and
that the details of liturgy supposedly recited at the 'Black Mass' had
been dictated to him by his interrogator who had bribed him with six
sous to give evidence against Bavent.
What do you mean, Tate didn't mention any of this?
CHAMBRE ARDENTE :
is perhaps the most real of Tate's cases. The
Chambre Ardente was convened by Louis XIV due to the widespread
poisoning murders which were occurring amongst the French
nobility. The astonishingly immoral excesses of the court of
Louis XIV, which had nothing whatsoever to do with satanism and all to
do with the bestial appetites of an exceedingly rich and unaccountable
ruling class, hastened the onset of the French Revolution. During
this warm-up period, when there were rumblings of revolt against the
nobility, the Sun King threw the plebs a show-trial, The Chambre
Ardente, to silence the mob. Unfortunately most of the evidence
regarding the 'Black
Mass' was obtained under torture and so the details which Tate relies
upon for his 'proof are unreliable.
There is no doubt that a large number of poisonings took place but the
poisonings had nothing to do with Satanism. Poison was much in demand
by women who wanted to bring the lives of their husbands to a premature
end either to obtain their wealth or to free them for a further
marriage. A common occurrence in the corrupt French nobility because of
the catholic church's prohibition against divorce. The network which made
available the poison was organised by several noblemen including the son of
the Attorney general of Aix, himself a lawyer. The motive was, as
The licentiousness and intrigue of the French Court is well known and
much money was to be had by poison suppliers who also catered for the
libidinous indulgences of the French aristocracy of the time. Several
fortune - tellers including the notorious La Voisin were used to
distribute the poisons which were nearly always used by leading French
celebrities and nobility. It is more than possible that a blackmail
racket was also being worked as a sideline on those who asked for supplies
of poison. The proportion of occult involvement in all of this was
negligible but was blown up by the police chief for political reasons in
order to scapegoat a few guilty people. throw the onus on the plebs and allow the nobles involved to
Tate misleads his readers woefully in attributing 2,500 children's
deaths to this affair. In fact this quotation came from a witness who
claimed that La Voisin HAD TERMINATED 2,500 PREGNANCIES. At that time
abortion was of course illegal and, due to the depravity of the king's court, much
in demand. Drugs would be given to stupefy the patient, many of the
drugs which stupefied were also poisonous in larger doses. It was
natural that women willing to perform ' abortions and who also had
access to such drugs, would be in demand. La Voisin denied being an
abortionist but her friend La Lepere more or less admitted it. It seems
that somewhere down the line a cross-over occurred in all this criminal
activity where a catholic Abbot (Guiborg) employed the aborted foetuses
in a parody of the Catholic Mass to a select audience of sensation seeking nobility. At the trial La Lepere was
accused of providing Guiborg with aborted foetuses for the 'black
masses', not of killing children, an important legal distinction which
At this point the trial had become a witch-hunt and eventually under
torture various admissions and allegations were obtained.
It is from these admissions under torture that details of the
abominations which are supposed to take place at a 'standard' Satanic Black Mass were
synthesised and later enshrined in history as 'fact'.
It is important to note that all the people tortured were
Priests and that each priest gave separate (sometimes conflicting) details of the Black Mass
which were later selectively cobbled into a legend greater than the sum of its
parts. It is of course natural that serving priests would be able to invent that which would abominate most.
The homologated Black Mass produced an overall impression
suitable to their persecutors. Abbe Guiborg, confessed that in ONE
ritual he had murdered a child. Whether Guiborg 'copped a plea' for
this confession is unknown but he wasn't executed for it.
In contradiction to Tate's assertions there was no evidence to
confirm that any of these people were part of an organised Satanic
Group or that what they were doing was part of an existing cult. The
whole thing appeared to be spontaneous extemporisation of things
diametrically opposed to Christianity done for the natural obscenity of
depraved and indulgent people who were pillars of the establishment and
who therefore created space for themselves to experience forbidden
things at a time when the church's iron gauntlet of sexual repression
had a vice-like grip on morality. As things turned
out they were quite right. The corrupt nature of Louis XIVs court
ensured that the nobility escaped prosecution and blame whilst others
took the wrap.
La Vigoreux and La Bosse were burned alive and Francois Bosse was
hanged. However La Voisin and the other fortune-tellers were more
cunning and began implicating the nobility to the embarrassment of the
prosecution. Sensing his delicate political position the Police
Commissioner Reynie resorted to torturing the accused in order to gain
'confessions'. La Voisin was put in the torture chair and then her legs
were crushed in the 'boots'. La Voisin still denied all charges of poisoning.
The verbatim accounts of the torture record her shrieks at each
successive crushing of her legs, but she still admitted nothing.
The Attorney general demanded her tongue be cut out and her hands
chopped off, but the court instead sentenced her to burning alive. An
eye witness reported:
" She was forced to the stake, tied and bound
with iron. Cursing all the time she was covered with straw which five
or six times she threw off her, but at last the flames grew fiercer and
she was lost to sight."
Such perceptions of the barbarity of the time
are important lest Tate's readers are lead to judge the happenings
one-sidedly by assuming that the authorities at the time were
compassionate and uncorrupted people who used similar yardsticks of
morality and behaviour with which we can identify. The activities
of all concerned could easily be described as 'evil' but with Mr
Tate's version you only get part of the story.
After continued investigation Madame de Montespan, a former mistress of
Louis XIV was found to be a key player in the scandal and in order to
avoid further embarrassment the king ordered the investigation to
continue in secret. Tate's recording of the extent of the trial is
misleading. He states that 104 people were sentenced in the case. In
all 319 people were arrested, 36 were put to death, 4 were sent as
slaves to the galleys and another 34 were banished. The missing 30 were
actually acquitted. Seventy four people sentenced for poisoning and
involvement in the scandal is a great number but not all of the 70 were
sentenced for imagined Satanic practices of course.
Additionally the 'forensic proof which Mr Tate makes much of is not as
clear- cut as the impression he gives and the evidence he provides
whilst sounding authoritative is wrong. Firstly in La Filastre's
testimony about the sacrifice of her baby it was not Guiborg who did it
but herself aided by two other officiating priests Abbe Deshayes and
Secondly whilst is quite probable that Voisins' daughter saw
aborted foetuses incinerated in an oven and that 'forensic evidence' of
human remains was found it is quite another thing to suggest that this proves that children were murdered in Satanic Rituals. These
are emotive issues which it is difficult to talk about in a matter of
fact way, but it is the fact's we seek. In order for the reader to make
up their minds they should have been given the full story for although
Tate calls Voisins' daughter's evidence
'the first reliable testimony'
and quotes from it in great detail he omits to tell his readers that she withdrew it all later in the trial.
Of course if police chief Reynie, ( who is obviously held in high
esteem by Mr Tate going by his lauding of him in the book) , was
willing to resort to inhuman tortures in order to force confessions
then it is quite possible that he would think nothing of also planting
evidence. We cannot be sure of any of these things of course, AND THAT
IS EXACTLY THE POINT.
An indication of the weaknesses of Tate's allegations is
his deployment of the pathetic Isabel Gowdie case. In an inverted
volte-face Tate quickly gets over the problem that all historians
consider Gowdie a rustic Pagan and not a Satanist, by trying to confuse
the reader into thinking that the authorities at that time had not got
round to making the distinction between Paganism and Satanism. Of
course we only have Tate's word for this. In reality it could be
exactly the other way round. The authorities didn't use the term
Satanist because none had been discovered. That puts Tate into a real quandary for he
is on record as acknowledging that the Old Religion of Paganism has
nothing whatsoever to do with evil practices or child abuse and he
admits this elsewhere in his book.
Gowdie's confessions show her to be clearly unstable. She gave four
voluntary confessions from which Tate extracts those bits he wants you
to see and leaves behind the bits that tell the full story. As well
as admitting to sacrificing 2 children the poor woman also said that
- turn herself into a jackdaw or a cat
- could fly through
the air on a bit of straw
- could 'shoot down' any
Christian who saw her and did not bless himself. ( But no Christian who
had seen her and blessed himself could be found to corroborate the'
Gowdie said that she shot people with Elf Arrows which
she had seen little Elf boys sharpening. Her coven were so 'abominable'
that they spent most of their time raising storms by hitting a stone
with a wet rag. Hardly the stuff of Satanic Horror. So uncelebrated was
Gowdie's imbecility that the court scribe forgot to record her sentence
and no-one knows what happened to her afterwards. This is proof of Satanic Child
THE HELLFIRE CLUB - The Monks of Medmenham:
In his curious documentary-cum- novelette style Tate
activates our imagination and prepares a detailed description of people
and circumstance, peppering his narrative with snippets of facts and
the names of real people he leads the reader to believe that in his
attention to detail he will portray the whole story. But Tate's
mission appears to be not to tell the WHOLE story, but to prepare a version which panders to expectancies in the reader's
mind. Passing off the licentious indulgences of the privileged
classes, which is all that the Hellfire club was, as Satanism Tate adopts his self- righteous Victorian morality
mode and ignores
the fact that few people who have researched the
scandal other than himself think that Dashwood's and the other Hellfire
Clubs were anything other than debauchery. There is in fact
a direct corelation between the excesses of Louis XIV's court and the
indulgencies of Daswhood's Dandies where upper-class English gentlemen
rodgered their way around servant gals on their extensive estates, free
of the fetters of the rules of law which applied to the lower
Tate quickly polishes over the fact that there is absolutely no evidence
to suggest that any satanic rituals were held by Dashwood. 'No detailed
accounts of the Hell-Fire Club's rituals survive' He says, presupposing their were some, and goes on
to complain about child prostitution and obscenities which have been a
disgusting but ever present part of human society in privileged circles
where people consider themselves above the law, for thousands of years.
Tate does not tell his readers that Dashwood was in fact a fully paid up Christian. He refers to him as a Satanist.
Tate tries to cobble
together a convenient sociological theory that those involved in
Satanism will always swing towards Christianity for repentance because
this fits in with fundamentalist victim imposters, whom he terms
Satanic Survivors and from which he has accepted evidence on SRA. In
fact the reverse is true. Misfits who have become ashamed at the
indiscretions of their youth make up outrageous stories about how far
they descended into the pit of hell, to underline how strong
their conversion to Christianity has become.
The committedness with which Dashwood
pursued his licentiousness had nothing whatsoever to do with a belief
in Satanism. Still it avoids Tate having to explain why Arch
satanist Dashwood would voluntarily collaborate with Benjamin Franklin
to publish The Book of Common Prayer. Rather than prove the
existence of Satanic Ritualised Abuse Tate's historical cases reveal a
higher, incidence of indicators which
prove a connection with Christian Ritualised Abuse.
THE MYSTERIOUS DR BATAILLE:
the mysterious Dr Bataille! After telling us
that Dr Bataille probably didn't exist and that the book was most
likely written by a collection of 19 century fundamentalists Tate waves
that away and goes
on to tell us that nevertheless we must believe that the book contains
first hand experience of the Black Mass! In fact the
two people associated with authoring the sensational Le Diable Au XIX
Siecle were one Gabriel Jogaud- Pages (who also used the pseudonym Leo
Taxil) and one Dr Hecks (which may have been another pseudonym of
According to Wade Baskin , In 1897 Leo Taxil admitted
publicly that he had fabricated all of Dr Bataille's sensational
In his Encyclopaedia of Occultism (1920) the learned Lewis Spence mentions the book in this way:
"He purports to have witnessed the
secret rites and orgies of many diabolic societies, but a merely
perfunctory examination of his work is sufficient to brand it as wholly
an effort of the imagination."
In the case of the mysterious Dr Bataille there is
obviously more evidence to suggest that the contents of his book are
bunkum. Is it right to include bunkum in a serious analysis of Satanic Ritualised Abuse of Children?
ALEISTER CROWLEY, Wickedest Man In The World?
Tate spends a great deal of time impressing the reader
with his research on Crowley and constructing a case to 'prove' that
Crowley was the father of modern Satanism but this is a lie. Crowley
was not a Satanist. Now that we have escaped Tate's historical cases we
don't have to rely upon suspect third hand information and the glaring
technical inaccuracies in Tate's potted biography are revealing.
Tate claims that Crowley invoked the Satan God Horus to convince the
reader that Crowley was a nasty piece of work. But Horus is not a Satan
God. Horus is the Egyptian Sun God whose mythological purpose was to
help mankind to enlightenment by combating the forces of darkness which
in Egyptian mythology are controlled by the God Set. This is a very
strange mistake for Tate, a theology graduate, to make for the American
based Temple of Set who take their name from this god, have been a target for Tate's accusations. Of course Crowley DID NOT
traffick with Satan and his invocation of Horus was an attempt to bring
enlightenment and knowledge for the benefit of mankind, a completely
different perspective to that which Tate has given his reader.
The main weakness in Tate's attack is simply that Crowley was one
of the most prolific occult writers and over 200 of his books available
today show that despite his tongue in cheek manipulation of fools who
hung on his every word, he had nothing whatsoever to do with Satanism
and actually ejected one famous occultist from his order because he
believed he was a black magician.
By using the unfair device of
searching Crowley's extensive writings and correspondence to discover a
quotation which, out of context, seems damning Tate may convince
you of another fundamentalist hobby horse and a necessary piece in the
jigsaw of insisting that a Global Satan conspiracy exists. Of
course we could very quickly find hundreds of references from Crowley's
writings which showed that he only had the best interests of mankind at
heart and his philosophy, which presaged women's rights and pluralism,
is very pertinent to our society. We have not space to contradict all
of Tate's pronouncements on Crowley but we have picked a few examples
Although bi-sexual Crowley favoured homosexuality but his liasons
always involved mature men. Tate avoids using the term
homosexual and instead cleverly substitutes Sodomy which has both a
biblical and legal inference. Of course at that time homosexuality was
still a crime punishable with harsh penalties. Does Mr Tate want to
outlaw homosexuality again , like the fundamentalists? Or is he just
playing to a captured audience?
Tate goes to great lengths to besmirch Crowley's teachings by trying to assert that his method 'released the demonic inside the individual Satanist'
In fact Crowley's magical method did exactly the reverse and Tate very
well knows this. It released what, in his own words, he termed man's
Holy Guardian Angel NOT demons or devils, and in his approach to
demonology Crowley's thinking seems a lot less medieval than Mr Tate's,
as can be gleaned from Crowley's forward to the magical book The Goetia
'What is the cause of my illusion of seeing a spirit in the Triangle of Art...
The Spirits are portions of the human brain and their seals represent
methods of stimulating or regulating those particular areas through the
In short he saw magick as esoteric psychiatry.
Crowley never sacrificed any human and it is despicable
of Tate to assert that he did. - In a lifetime of occult study his
magical diaries show that he experimented with sacrificing a few birds
and couple of cats. Hardly what one would call ultimate evil and a lot
less than the thousands of Frankenstein experiments conducted on
animals by the medical establishment, or fast food outlets for that
The main support for Tate's allegations is the chapter on the BLOODY
SACRIFICE in Crowley's book MAGICK. This provides the 'link' which Tate
makes to the supposed criminal activities of today's O.T.O. This link
is false. It does not take into account the fact that, unlike Mr Tate
it would seem, Crowley had a very definite sense of humour.
Crowley couldn't write a definitive work on magick, historical and
modern, without including a chapter on THE BLOODY SACRIFICE for human
sacrifice was (and animal sacrifice still is - Halal, Kosher slaughter) a component part of most
religions. The best way of dealing with this was the way Crowley did
it. Leaving it to the intellect of the reader to read between the
Tate would have you believe that Crowley wrote a very impressive and
technically brilliant piece of literature on hermetic theurgy for
public consumption and included in it a bland confession that he had
sacrificed 2,400 children. Amazing how that number keeps cropping up? Who shall we take seriously, Mr Tate or Mr
Crowley? If commonsense be not your guide then an extract from R A
Wilson's Cosmic Trigger provides us with the answer:
"The Satirist even more appreciated Crowley's
boffo one-liner in "Magick" where he speaks of sexual yoga (in code as
usual) as a form of sacrifice and says that he thus sacrificed "a male
child of perfect innocence and high intelligence" 150 times a year
since 1912. The sacrifice in sexual yoga is the semen, which is indeed
a "male child" and does indeed contain within the DNA code a very high
intelligence, the genetic blueprint of planet Earth. "
Crowley's allegory therefore refers to auto-eroticism. He was not
admitting killing over 2000 children as Tate maintains. He was
presenting the information subtly beyond the range of the profane for
those who had the awareness and the wit. He was setting a trap for the
narrow-minded, the unvisionary, and the ignorant. A trap which Tate has
Tim Tate has accused Crowley, a dead man who cannot argue his case. on the slimest of pretexts. But in his
wisdom and intelligence Crowley has had the last laugh on those who
would misrepresent him. Crowley's trap has caused virtually the whole
of the fundamentalist movement, many very unwise Social Workers and in
this instance Mr Tate, to stick their necks out and reveal the lack of
proportion of those who jump at the obvious if it fits their own
Apart from this 'confession' in Crowley's "Magick" Tate has absolutely
no other evidence whatsoever that Crowley harmed children. The joke is
from the grave, and it is at the expense of Tate.
Those who want to see the REAL background to Crowley's life and work can read the interesting revelations here:
The First Successful Prosecution For A Satanic Killing:
Tate refers to the Andrew Newell case in 1987. This was nothing of the sort. Newell has always denied being a Satanist.
Newel made a confession to the police under duress but later retracted
it. (sound familiar?) Whilst he had an interest in general occultism he was a beginner and had no connections with any Satanic group. His original trial was a travesty of justice and the appeal court eventually overturned the life-sentence for murder, commuting it to manslaughter.
The trial had not taken account of Newell''s claim of self- defence. He
contended that the murder was the result of an argument which got out
of hand and it probably was.
Tate would have you believe that Newell was a killer who sacrificed someone in pursuit of Satanic philosophy. The
reality is that Newell got into a fight with his friend and flat-mate
after coming home dead drunk and in the process he unintentionally killed his mate.
- No ritual.
- No trappings.
- No Satanist.
- No group of Satanists.
- No Satanic connection.
- No Sacrifice.
Nothing but an obsessive anti-occult prejudice from Tim Tate. We have challenged Tate before on these points .
Tate is very well aware of the fact that Newell's father made a formal
complaint to Central Television about claims in the Tate researched
Cook Report (The Devil's Work) about Newell being a Satanist when he
knew that his son was not and had never claimed to be a Satanist. That
he had no connections with any other Satanist and still maintains that
he is not a Satanist.
Additionally to further sensationalise Newell's supposed
evil inclinations the Cook Report inferred that Newell slept in a
grave. In reality Newell had once crashed out in a graveyard after
walking home blind drunk and the situation was a one-off.
Tate makes great play over the down-to-earth detective superintendent
who brought Newel's case to court and relies upon his statements to
convince the reader of the 'ritual' aspects of the killing. His readers
should know that the S.A.F.F. disagree with Det. Inspector Cole's
scenario of the case and we told him so when he sent a couple of
detectives to ask for our advice on the ritual aspects of the case
before it came to court. His assertion that the knife wounds were
specially placed is speculation and do not relate to any historical or known method of sacrificing anything, particularly human beings.
We did point out that in cultures where Human
Sacrifice (Aztec civilisation) or execution was undertaken it was usual
to tie the victim's hands and legs together, in which case Booth, the
murder victim, would not have had 'defence wounds' on his wrist.
After showing us Newell's 'magical diary' we
told the detective that Newell was obviously a beginner and his studies
into occultism had nothing to do with Satanism. Other information they
gave us lead us to categorically insist that Newel was not a Satanist
and the death was not a premeditated ritual as the Cook Report later claimed.
The detectives made extensive secret
investigations into Occult and New Age groups and personalities in and
around the Telford area in an attempt to find a connection that would fit in with their Satanic conspiracy theory. They failed for there was no such conspiracy and the death was not sacrificial.
We offered to stand up and give evidence in
court. The detectives were not happy with all this and left saying they
would be back in touch. We did not hear from them again.
Later the appeal court reviewed the facts and
came to a conclusion nearer our own. Tate has used this case before to
try and convince the public about Satanic Killings. It is a major plank
in his armoury of cases yet he continually misrepresents it. In the Cook Report it was billed as a Satanic Murder when it was in fact manslaughter.
SO WHAT IS TATE ACTUALLY SAYING?:
Tate collects an impressive selection of cases
which one after the other stun and confuse the reader's consciousness
into accepting by sheer weight of evidence that this is collective 'proof that Satanic Ritualised
Abuse Exists. But as we have shown here that is not the case. Tate's argument is not
singular, it is a hydra composed of a number of different heads none of
which, alone, prove anything much. The author's intent and aim is as
unspecified as his argument. His writing is replete with emotional and
sensational statements designed to shock-horror the reader into belief,
yet overall the book fails in producing any meaningful solution or
Mr Tate has spent the last three years setting
himself up as one of the UK's foremost researchers in Satanic Ritualised Abuse.
He has had access to pro-SRAMist circles and key social worker's cases. He
is now lecturing on ritualised abuse and satanic crime.
Tate castigates Satanism as
yet admits that many Satanists are perfectly law abiding and do not
sacrifice children, like the British satanist whom he filmed being
initiated for the Cook Report. Tate personally bought him a pile of
regalia and paraphernalia for the rite. If
some Satanists are abusers and some satanists aren't then of what
consequence is the philosophy of Satanism to the motivations of
supposed child abusing Satanists?
Tim Tate is well aware that Priestly Child Abuse is a much bigger problem in our society than Satanic
Ritualised Abuse ever could be and that definite prosecutions have revealed that many
clergy and religious fanatics (who have no satanic or occult connection
whatsoever) have committed crimes far more terrible and heinous than
those Mr Tate relies upon to discredit Satanism. In short Satanic
Ritual Abuse (if it exists at all) is no worse than existing cases of
child abuse which are on record. What does it matter therefore how
child-abusers justify themselves, surely it is the crime which matters
and the care of the children which is paramount not the philosophical
bent of the perpetrator?
In, Children for The Devil, Tate also tilts at Heavy Metal Rock Music and asserts that it incites young people to get involved in Satanism. What about the millions of Heavy Metal Fans who avidly listen to Metal Music without succumbing to an interest in Satanism? Is it the music or the person's nature which
is the trigger?
Could it not simply be that the type of person
whose curiosity leads them towards investigating satanic philosophy
also just happens to be interested in Heavy Metal Music and the two
have no direct connection?
Has Mr Tate considered that most Satanists may
also use Red toothbrushes and if they did what difference would it
If we ban Heavy Metal Rock Music will Mr Tate
also want us to ban black leather jackets, T- shirts with occult
symbols and studded belts as well?
How far must we go to restrict the freedom of
teenagers in order to safeguard them from fear of corruption? If we banned
Heavy Metal Music can Mr Tate guarantee us that teenagers would not go off the rails over some other angle?
Of course there IS one reason why Mr Tate may
rush to identify Heavy Metal Music as a direct cause of Satanism (apart
from the fact that it is a ready made piece of propaganda already
promoted by fundamentalist agitators in the U.S.A.) and that is that
the very professional people whom he hopes to convince of that are
likely to be the parents of rebel sons and daughters who enjoy Metal
music which they cannot understand.
Isn't the reality of the situation that Mr
Tate is simply a mega-stick-in-the-mud who is so far removed from his
own youth that he can't credit teenagers with the intelligence to
decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives and instead
wishes to impose restrictions and mores upon them from his exalted
position as an adult?
Mr Tate criticises the publication of Occult
Books & Magazines. Is Mr Tate really trying to tell us that if all
genuine occult books & Magazines were censored that the TV and
Media from which he makes his living would also agree not to publish
occult fiction, occult programmes and historical articles on Occultism
which might also indirectly interest teenagers and provide information for budding
satanists? Yeah sure they would!
Could an argument not be made out, using
Tate's own criteria, that his obsession with researching and publishing
the methodology and the minute details of Satanic Rituals and supposed
Black Masses has actually done more to promote Satanism to the impressionable than anything
any of the authors he condemns in his books and TV programmes?
In his book Tim Tate states that Occult
Bookshops and mail-order retailers of ritual equipment have sprung up
and proved highly profitable. What kind of slur is this? Should an
Occult Bookshop NOT be profitable? Do the proprietors not pay taxes
like Mr Tate?
Is Mr Tate trying to infer that there
is something unscrupulous or illegal about the way that Occult
Bookshops make their money? Please let us not have any more of Mr
Tate's Humbug. He has himself achieved a considerable income from
Newspaper and Magazine articles, TV programmes. Books, Serialisations,
Radio programmes and now is being paid to attend Seminars on the
subject of Satanic Ritual Abuse.
should not allow the pot to call the kettle
black and let Mr Tate get away with hypocritical inferences about the
motivations of bookshop owners and the beliefs of occultists when Mr
Tate has never in all his writings bothered to mention the colour of
his own religious beliefs and affiliations.
When chided by Private Eye magazine over his
motivations Mr Tate wrote that he 'did not belong to or attend any
church of any denomination'. This is not the same thing as saying that
one is an atheist. Before Mr Tate continues to slander and question
other people's beliefs we feel it only fair that he should reveal his
own, he did after all get a doctorate in theology from St Andrews
Despite a chapter devoted to the excesses of
Christian fundamentalism Tate continually reverts to using
fundamentalist scenarios in his book. In fact his whole book is replete with scaled down arguments derived from fundamentalists paranoia.
He knocks Heavy Metal Records and quotes
supposed American cases which were hyped by the fundamentalists; but
does not mention the key fundamentalist off-the-wall theory of 'Backward
Masking' which is supposed to include subliminal commands in music tracks which take over the minds of the young and get
them to commit satanic crimes.
He uses the 'black mass' testimony of Born Again Victim Imposter Michelle Pazder and others comparing it with historical records as some supposed proof of accuracy. Then
he omits to tell his readers that all the facts in her book which could
be checked (location, people etc.) have been shown to be bogus and she
has been discredited in the U.S.A.
Tate goes to great pains in the Chambre Ardent
affair to establish the idea that Satanists adopt the practice of using
aborted foetuses for rituals. The anti-abortion issue is a very
powerful and emotive one and is one of the main planks of the reform of
the Christian right. Tate uses the Natalie case testimony to
try and show that teenagers are at risk from being sexually abused and
made pregnant in order to obtain foetuses for sacrifice. This is his
only case, it is inconclusive and the allegation is different from that
which occurred in the Chambre Ardent affair in that Guiborg used foetuses from women who came voluntarily for abortions. The one does not prove the other.
Tate cannot produce incontrovertible evidence to show what he and the
fundamentalists claim on this issue; that women and children are
kidnapped sexually abused and used as 'breeders' to produce foetuses
which are aborted for Satanic sacrifice. In this one sentence we have
perhaps the most vivid example of inhuman action which can only be
termed ultimate evil. It is an emotional stun-grenade which rolls
together everything which any decent person would find absolutely abominable. Yet
independently its component parts occur on a repetitive basis within
our society without any connection with Satanism and often by
perpetrators who are nominal Christians (child sexual abuse /
child physical abuse / child murder / kidnapping / adult sexual abuse /
rape / murder / legal and back street abortions etc.).
This collection of terrible things is if you like a cultural and religious icon of the Most Evilwithin
our society and demands moral support from any decent
individual. The fundamentalists fight to change the moral structure of
our society on many fronts but this is the biggest bogeyman of the lot.
The kind of mind which would perpetrate such a combined crime is so
abnormal that it could only be described as evil and it is natural for
ordinary people to be too ready to believe in that stereotype even
though there has never been any evidence to corroborate the fears and
Tate's book still fails to provide anything but 'guilt by association'.
When all the huff and puff has gone the Icon of The Most Evil reveals
as being SYMBOLIC and not real.
NEW WORLD ORDER LIES
Continuing his interpretation of
fundamentalist scenarios Tate clearly forges the link between Satanism
and World -Domination inferring that Freemasonry is a pit of Satanic
activity. He doesn't go so far as to accuse them of controlling the
banking system and gaining pan-global economic control as the
fundamentalists do but there are continuous references to powerful and
influential international cartels the leaders of which are too powerful
to be brought to book. The sole evidence for this is that the O.T.O has
a freemasonic grade structure and a some of the members of the Magical
Order of the Golden Dawn were Freemasons. The magnitude of such
assertions based completely on circumstantial evidence and supposition
is beyond all sane comment as exampled by the fundamentalists firmly
held belief that Procter and Gamble's Man in the Moon logo is proof
that the firm is part of this freemasonic plot to control world
Is Tim Tate really trying to assert that the
majority of Freemasons are Satanic Child Abusers? Then he is patently
wrong and should be told so. He has obviously not read
David Aaronovitch's Voodoo Histories which proves that legends
and lies promoting the idea of a New World Order were created by
anti-semitic agent provocateurs at the turn of the 19th century who
forged documents purporting to come from a secret clique of Jewish
Bankers who were conspiring to destroy Christendom by promoting
back-door Communism. It was this idea which influenced the early Nazi movement
and hitler himself.
Does Tate realise he is indirectly perpetuating lies which contributed
towards the deaths of millions of Jews in the Holocaust?
If Tate is asserting that only a
small minority of freemasons are supposedly abusing children then why
bother with the ludicrous conspiracy theories? Does Mr Tate want
to outlaw Freemasonry? If he doesn't then other people who have helped him
with his research do. Like Dianne Core of Childwatch and Maureen Davies
of The Reachout Trust and The Beacon Foundation. Both these leading promoters of Satanic Ritual Abuse are
on record as holding far-out Freemasonic Conspiracy views; like the
TATE REFORMER OR PERSECUTOR? :
There are MANY other incorrect assertions and
wrongful allegations in Mr Tate's book. We find page after page of
biased misinterpretation which we would like to contradict and
challenge and we will do so in due course if necessary. It is obvious from this
lengthy review that anyone who accepts Mr Tate's evidence without obtaining
corroborating proof is likely to be getting a very biased partial view
of the whole. Anyone who is interested in our response on specific
cases or allegations in the book which we have not covered here should
contact the S.A.F.F. at the email address below.
Does CHILDREN FOR THE DEVIL contribute in any
way to a proper understanding of the Satanic Ritual Abuse Myth? I am
afraid it does not. It simply confuses the issue further with more wild
goose chases. It is certainly not a document which will help
professional social workers or the police get at the truth for its many
inaccuracies, biased misinterpretations and fudged conclusions make it
virtually worthless in our opinion.
It is a journalistically polished synthesis of
aspects of the phenomenon which have been dealt with separately in
better detail elsewhere. A blend of advocacy and argument written in a
style which is neither academic nor popular. The sine-wave of Tate's
writing style rises and falls through complex layers of historical
fact, theory, supposition, superstition and disinformation. Perhaps
only Tate knows where one begins and the other leaves off.
He weaves a thread of impressions which
only have one thing in common, they are designed to impact upon our
sensibilities by exacerbating prejudices and stereotypes which already
exist within us in order to convince us that these horrible things are
happening. In legal terms it is called 'guilt by association'. It
works, but it is unjust.
With Tate everything is clear. There's the
goodies and there's the baddies. The Baddies are the ones that do this
and this. The goodies are the ones that do this and that.
Is it all that simple? Of course it's not and that is why, thank
goodness, the efforts of people like Tim Tate have been buffered by the
common-sense and experience of the police in this country.
Tate has a go at them too (can anyone disagree
with him?) and mutely asserts another fundamentalist hobby-horse, that
today's police are complicit in ignoring the evidence because it would
involve people in high places.
In a typical piece of Tateese hypocrisy he
commends Louis XIVs police chief Nicholas de La Reynie for his
professionalism. Tate writes:
' that so much reliable detail of French
satanic ritual crime was recorded is both a tribute to his
professionalism and an eloquent condemnation of the shoddy amateurism
of many modern law-enforcement departments '.
Self righteous stuff indeed. I wonder if Tate
would also recommend our police forces to adopt La Reynie's methods of
obtaining evidence through torture, including smashing the accused's
legs to pulp with mallets?
Ultimately reader's of Tate's book will believe what they want to believe, but they won't believe it because they have been shown proof.