Internet theology 101

I've questioned the validity of the Bishop's lineage and exposed his propensity for plagiarism on multiple occasions (which is much more extensive than I realised). Let's examine one of his latest posts concerning very, let's say, sensitive theological topics.

A reader of Bishop Manchester's blog named Michael Douglass, asked: 'Do Jews and Protestants go to hell? Can either become vampires?'. His Excellency carefully considered an appropriate response to Mike's sensitive question and painstakingly researched the topic before submitting his answer in a blog entry titled 'Salvation' (8 April 2011).

Nah, just kidding. He engaged in some light googling and copied huge chunks of text from other websites, passed it off his own and omitted links to his sources. Compare the Bishop's Scriptural interpretation...

The statement "born again" means that God has to see you in a body other than the body of Adam. When we place our faith in the Precious Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 6) we are baptised into the Body of Christ. This means that in the eyes of God we are in a Body that has never sinned against God in any way. That is how man is redeemed. Whether you are a Jew or Gentile or any nationality, without the Body of Christ, no man or woman will enter Heaven. So anyone who says Jesus Christ is not risen in a physical body is still yet in his sins (1 Corinthians 15: 17).

...with the following response to 'Do Jews go to Hell?' on Answers.com (17 April 2007):

The statement "born again" means that God has to see you in a body other than the body of Adam, and when you place your faith in the blood of Jesus Christ, Romans Chapter 6 says we are baptized into the body of Christ. This means that in the eyes of God you are in a body that has never sinned against God in any way and that body died and was buried and raised from the dead and brought into the throne room of God with you in Him. So that is how man is "redeemed." It makes no difference whether you are a Jew or Gentile or any nationality -- without the body of Christ, no man or woman will enter heaven. So anyone who says Christ is not risen in a physical body is still yet in his sins. (First Corinthians 15:17).

It doesn't get any better from thereon in, folks. Once again, from the Bishop's entry:

The Jews of today are not the Jews of the Bible. A group of them deviated from their beliefs and rejected their own saviour from their prophesies. Christians are now the new "jews" who did follow the teachings and accepted the saviour when He appeared. Therefore, the Jews of today forfeit their birthright just as their ancestors did during Jesus' time.

And from Answers.com:

The Jews of today are not the Jews of the bible. A group of them deviated from their beliefs and rejected their own savior from their prophesies. The Christians are, of course, the jews who DID follow the teachings and accepted the savior. Therefore, the jews of today forfeit their birthright just as their ancestors did during Jesus' time.

Right-o. To be fair, not all of the Bishop's entry is cribbed from that webpage. Take his comments on grace, for instance:

Redemptive grace is focused most clearly in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, whom Christians recognise as the Living Christ. We might refer to Jesus as Grace Himself, as Grace in the Flesh, as Grace walking around. The grace of Christ can inspire us in such a transformative way as to change our awareness of ourselves, of our potential as human beings and as mankind, and our awareness of God's gracious purpose for us and through us for all Creation. It is this changed awareness which recognises a still more specialised form of grace — the grace made available to all who choose to serve God's hope for all in Christ. This is the grace which makes us disciples and is available as spiritual power for goodness' sake. Jesus exhibited this kind of power and challenged us to do the same.

Inspiring stuff. Shame it's pretty much the same thing the Rev. Dr. Katherine M. Lehman wrote, four years ago, in 'What is meant by the grace of God?':

Redemptive grace is focused most clearly in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, whom Christians call Christ, meaning the one chosen to deliver this particular grace. We might refer to Jesus as Grace himself, as Grace in the flesh, as Grace walking around. The grace of Christ can inspire us in such a transformative way as to change our awareness of ourselves, of our potential as human beings and as humankind, and our awareness of God's gracious purpose for us and through us for all creation. It is this changed awareness which recognizes a still more specialized form of grace—the grace made available to all who choose to serve God's hope for all in Christ. This is the grace which makes us disciples and is available as spiritual power for goodness' sake. Jesus exhibited this kind of power and challenged us to do the same.

To be fair on the Bish, his commentary on the spiritual after-effects of vampiric contamination appear to be his own. However, in saying that 'the person is afflicted in life and is not one of God's true dead, is something anyone outside of a state of grace is susceptible to', really makes me wonder about the kind of shenanigans Lusia must've gotten up to while she was still alive.

On a serious note, my sincere condolences for the passing of Gitte.

The Hatchet Job

The FoBSM's 'hit list' blog has an entry about me which I've neglected to cover, until now. Time to dissect their hatchet job.

Their blog entry has been revised numerous times (with no notes made about the edits) and one of the reasons I feel 'safe' in covering it now, is that until recently, it featured the photograph of someone they presumed was me along with - what looked like - a home address. It was the exact same photo and address that had been forwarded to me by a stalker on the Arcadia forum.

Therefore, I decided not to draw attention to their blog entry, lest this innocent party be exposed to further attention and distribution of his picture. However, it was some relief to find that the 'home address' they'd posted was actually that of a petrol station. Despite repeatedly telling and proving that neither the photo nor the address were mine byway of the Supernatural World forum, the 'details' of this innocent bystander remained in their blog entry for some time, before they caved into common sense.

How they connected the photo with the address still remains a mystery. Indeed, why they'd even try to seek out an 'unmasked' picture of me as well as publicly posting 'my' address has never been explained. But that's just the tip of the iceberg.

The FoBSM's blog entry labels me as a 'stalker', which I can't help but find amusing, when the same entry describes me as 'Anthony Hogg, who lives in a suburb of Melbourne, Australia', includes a stolen pic of me, publishes my private correspondence with a forum member named 'Vampire Researcher' and, of course, previously featured an 'unmasked' picture of me along with a 'home' address.

I'm also described as an obsessive, once again, an amusing charge, when one of Vampire Researcher's correspondents says 'I spent (or rather wasted) a good couple of hours going through Anthony’s blog', without a trace of irony. Really, I should be flattered.

The third main charge labels me as an 'harasser', but no specifics are given into how my 'harassment' manifests except to say that I harass David Farrant and Sean Manchester 'almost every day of [my] life'.

In the midst of all this guff, there's also a pointed jibe at my anonymity ('Mr Hogg, who always hides behind a demonic mask'), yet the blog entry's author lists themselves as 'Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester'. And here's their own profile pic:


And my 'demonic' mask? It's actually a vampire mask. I thought the fangs, corpse-like 'skin tone' and widow's peak would've given that away.

They also mention my publication of a 'UK address in full', something I won't deny. But what they don't mention is that the address I published was a business address. Gothic Press's, in fact. The same address that Gothic Press freely published online. You can view it in this blog entry's footnote, as well as the link I obtained it from. The hypocrisy in their criticism is revealed in their Don Peek entry, in which they display no issue with posting his business address. Clearly, what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

But who is Don Peek and what is his relevance to their blog's coverage? FoBSM cites him as 'Don Ecker's internet service provider who stepped in to help when Mr Ecker's previous server deleted a cache of stolen images owned by Bishop Seán Manchester'. I should also point out that they've posted Peek's picture along with the entry.

It's admittedly strange to see them take such umbrage at the publication of 'a cache of stolen images', when the person they're 'defending' is actually a blatant plagiarist, who also includes 'stolen images' in his web output, just as they do.

Lastly, I'll discuss their claims of my (alleged) censorship, or, as they put it 'Mr Hogg who adopts the tactic of censorship with anyone favourable to Bishop Manchester'. Yet another bizarre accusation, considering the posts I've allowed from 'Gothic' aka 'Demonologist' aka 'The Overseer' aka 'Vampirologist'. Read through the comments in this entry, for instance. Oh, and this entry features a comment from Manchester, himself.

Speaking of 'Vampirologist', FoBSM mentions a comment from him 'still awaiting moderation', which will 'most unlikely ever to see the light of day'. The funny thing is, I have not seen his comment awaiting moderation on any of my blogs. I'm not saying it was never posted, of course, I'm just saying I've received no notification for it. I will mention, however, that it's not the first time they've evidenced that kind of paranoia. In fact, I'm more than happy to post Vampirologist's comment right here, byway of their blog. Here it is, and I'll even respond to it:

You offer "[Bishop] Manchester's 'profession'" as "Britain's only full-time vampire hunter" when you know very well that Seán Manchester has never described himself as such. That description belongs to somebody else. You purposely fail to attribute it to its source because that would affect the false picture you wish to present of the man whose profession is that of bishop with a specialist ministry in demonolatry and exorcism. But you already know that, Anthony, don't you? It just suits your agenda to misrepresent what his full-time profession really is.

Your petty obsession with this man and the case he investigated four decades ago is a clear indication of your state of mind. Bishop Seán Manchester has given his final interview on the vampire case that made him a household name. Why can't you now give it a rest?

Year after year you irritate the hell out of people on the internet with your compulsive behaviour and obvious fixation with Seán Manchester whom you misrepresent and abuse from one week to the next. What is the matter with you? There must be something seriously wrong when you focus on a stranger twice your age living on the other side of the world who you don't know or especially like.

You either need to get a life or at least get some professional psychiatric help. I'm serious, Anthony. You are out on a limb. Nobody supports your behaviour. At best, it is tolerated. At worst, it is considered pathological.

This is not the beginning of a dialogue between us, Anthony. Knowing how obsessive you are where these matters are concerned, it is the end of one.

Vampirologist's criticism of my reference to Manchester as "Britain's only full-time vampire hunter" appears to be referring to a recent entry on my amateur vampirologist blog. It's true that (as far as I know), Manchester doesn't refer to himself in this way. However, I didn't say he did, either. Indeed, I placed the description in quotation marks, as you'll see.

The description was taken from Joe McNally's review of Manchester's The Vampire Hunter's Handbook (1997). This 'endorsement' is actually incorporated into Manchester's website. Note, there are no retractions to go with it. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that it's a title Manchester's happy with.

Once again, the 'obsessed' card is played against me, but with no sense of context. This blog is about the Highgate Vampire Case, as I clearly outlined in my first entry. How exactly am I supposed to talk about the case without discussing Manchester to a large degree, considering he was central to the story's 'plot'? Or David, for that matter. That'd be like advocating a blog dedicated to Dracula, which omits mentions of Van Helsing or the Count. Once again, how my 'obsession' manifests, isn't made clear by my accuser.

Furthermore, Manchester is a public figure and he's a public figure because of the Highgate case, which even Vampirologist mentions made him a 'household name'.

Vampirologist then goes on to claim that I 'misrepresent and abuse [Manchester] from one week to the next' but doesn't say how, when or where. No specific instances are given. No specific posts are mentioned or linked to. Just like FoBSM (of which he's a member), he resorts to hyperbole and ad hominem attacks against me at the expense of proving his case.

The childishness, maliciousness and pettiness displayed by both the FoBSM and Vampirologist makes the purpose of the group redundant if that's how they show their 'support for a man who adheres to traditional values and sound doctrine in the face of incredible antipathy from hostile elements'. Or, in other words: pot, kettle, black. In fact, their blatant hypocrisy could be symptomatic of narcissistic personality disorder, not aided by the fact that the Bishop is very clearly aware of their activities.

Moved to WordPress

I've been forced to move my Windows Live Spaces (WLS) site over to WordPress. Nothing sinister to that.

If you're interested as to why, check out my first WordPress post. I'm still getting the hang of all its functions and such, so it looks kinda drab at the moment. But in terms of usability and variety of function, it's miles ahead of WLS.

That transitory process bears no impact on this Blogger blog, which will remain open. Oh, and speaking of things staying open, eagle-eyed voters may have noticed an extension in the polls' expiration date. Around New Years' time, I decided to let the polls stay open for a year after I wrote 'em, rather than the end of 2010, as I originally planned. Make your voice heard! Vote today!

Applicants Welcome

Looking for work? Got nothing else better to do with your time? Well, a recent vacancy's come up. This could be the job for you!

While promoting the second volume of his autobiography, In the Shadow of the Highgate Vampire, David let slip that he's after a new secretary, a role previously occupied by Catherine Fearnley and Patsy Langley:

Which reminds me, I’m STILL looking for a new secretary (but a trustworthy one this time). Anybody got any idea’s? Qualifications not really necessary: except must be female; doesn’t object to working late hours, and making me coffee occasionally (or pouring me a drink!). Other than that, I’m not that fussy!

Well, the byline's David, but apparently, the housemaid-like job description was written by the Vice President of the British Psychic and Occult Society. According to Dave:

PLEASE NOTE EVERYONE!: That comment about my new book and gettiing [sic] a new secretary was NOT written by myself. It was written by Gareth He was reound [sic] here and said he wanted to post something . . . uncensored. Well, as he gave me a lot of helf [sic] with the book, I agreed but it strictly only represents his own opinion – not mine! It is true I am looking for a new secretary, but not in the way he is trying to imply!

I'm guessing Dave could do with an editor as well. If you're still interested in the role, what exactly do you think it'd entail? Apart from fixing David drinks, what would your responsibilities be? How about a testimonial from one of his former secretaries: "WELL AS TO QUALIFICATIONS TO BE BPOS SECRETARY YOU DON'T NEED ANY APART FROM BEING WILLING TO DO MR. FARRANTS DIRTY WORK FOR HIM." Ok, sounds good so far. Anything else?

Well as I’ve previously stated I became involved with Farrant, he didn’t have the use of a computer then as such only a word processor so it was easier for me to do the typing and organise membership cards, newsletters, etc and so forth. Also in and among Farrant asked me to make posts against Bishop Manchester which were of a derogatory nature so he wouldn’t have to put his name to them, all of this I now deeply regret no end. In fact I regret ever getting involved with them in the first place full stop.

If that sounds like your cup of tea, then drop by David's blog. You could probably post your resume (although, you probably won't even need one) in the comments section.

David Attributes His Lack of "Knowledge" to Me

As mentioned in the previous entry, press coverage of the supernatural hijinks at Highgate began with a letter David wrote to the Hampstead & Highgate Express. Recently, David claims a certain line is his letter was taken out of context. "Nonsense!" says I. I'll show you why.

The Highgate Vampire's "existence" was established by two people: Sean Manchester and David Farrant. Previous sightings (including David's) indicated spectral activity, which was later revised to a vampiric presence. Because of them, we refer to the Highgate Vampire, rather than the Highgate Ghost(s).¹

David has tried to whitewash his part in establishing vampire theory in popular consciousness, by his constant references to not believing in bloodsucking vampires, but contemporary press coverage reveals his true involvement in propagating the theory. Being that duplicitous doesn't come without a price, however. You see, it's caused him to start losing track of his own "story".

David's letter to the Ham & High, "Ghostly Walks in Highgate" (6 February 1970), apparently concluded with the following line: "I have no knowledge in this field and I would be interested to hear if any other readers have seen anything of this nature."² What's its context? Here's the rest of the letter:

Some nights I walk home past the gates of Highgate Cemetery.

On three occasions I have seen what appeared to be a ghost-like figure inside the gates at the top of Swains Lane. The first occasion was on Christmas Eve. I saw a grey figure for a few seconds before it disappeared into the darkness. The second sighting, a week later, was also brief.

Last week the figure appeared, only a few yards inside the gates. This time it was there long enough for me to see it much more clearly, and now I can think of no other explanation than this apparition being supernatural.³

This won't seem important, at first, but note there's no use of the word "vampire". Nothing remotely vampiric is implied in the letter. Yet, apparently, I've taken his "no knowledge in this field" line out of context!

After fellow Supernatural World forum member, Cú Chulainn, pointed out the line's omission from the revised edition of Sean Manchester's The Highgate Vampire (1991), David had this to say:

Regarding the 'missing line' accusing my self of saying . . . "I have noknowledge in this field", this has been taken deliberately out of context and just repeated in ignorance by your correspondent Anthony. I spoke to many reporters around this time and I may well have said (in fact, I am sure I did) that I "Have no knowledge in the field of 'blood-sucking vampires'" which some reporters had been led to believe that it was. And I do not. How can you possibly have knowledge in something you don't even believe exists!?

I'll prefigure my response by saying I haven't read the original letter. I've had to rely on Ellis (1993) for that line. I'll even disclose that the Vice President of the British Psychic and Occult Society, Gareth J. Medway, believes the line doesn't exist and attributes David's acknowledgement of it to False Memory Syndrome.

That said, David's gone and acknowledged its existence again, but added a bizarre twist: apparently he was talking about "no knowledge in the field of 'blood-sucking vampires'". Really? There's one major problem with David's rebuttal: the vampire theory was publicised 21 days after David's letter. Indeed, when the theory was first broadcast (by Sean Manchester), it got front page treatment in the Ham & High: "Does a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?" (27 February 1970).

Prior to that article's publication, there was no mention of the paranormal activity at the Cemetery being vampiric. David's own letter uses the following terms to describe his vision: "a ghost-like figure", "a grey figure", "apparition" and "supernatural". So why on earth would David attribute his "no knowledge in this field" comment to vampires, when no one was asking him about it, least of all himself? The actual implication of his lack of knowledge concerns ghosts (or, one could argue, the supernatural itself). That's blindingly obvious to anyone who's read the letter.

This, in itself, is rather odd considering his latter-day claims about the British Psychic and Occult Society's founding. You really gotta start wondering whether Tony Hill was onto something.

So, what about these reporters banging down David's door asking him about vampires? Funny you should ask! Firstly, the earliest press coverage given to David's vampire views would have to wait 'til March 6, 1970: a month after David's letter. The Ham & High published a front page story called "Why Do the Foxes Die?", in which David posited a supernatural theory for the death of foxes in the Cemetery:

THE mysterious death of foxes in Highgate Cemetery was this week linked with the theory that a ghost seen in the area might be . . . a vampire.

Tobacconist, Mr. David Farrant, 24, who first reported seeing the ghost last month, returned to the spot last weekend and discovered a dead fox.

“Several other foxes have also been found dead in the cemetery.” he said at his home in Priestwood Mansions, Archway Road, Highgate. “The odd thing is there was no outward sign of how they died.

“Much remains unexplained, but what I have recently learnt all points to the vampire theory being the most likely answer.

“Should this be so, I for one am prepared to pursue it, taking whatever means might be necessary so that we can all rest.”

The vampire theory was suggested last week by Mr. Sean Manchester, 25-year-old president of the British Occult Society, who believes that “the King Vampire of the Undead walks again.”

So much for taking his lack of knowledge in the field "deliberately out of context" and "repeat[ing] [it] in ignorance". As I've clearly demonstrated, it wasn't me or his imaginary reporters who took him out of context. The only person who did that was, well, him! Not often someone takes themselves out of context. Clearly, the poor guy's got vampires on the brain.

¹ As the Wikipedia's "Highgate Vampire" entry notes: "These ghosts were described as a tall man in a hat, a spectral cyclist, a woman in white, a face glaring through the bars of a gate, a figure wading into a pond, a pale gliding form, bells ringing, and voices calling. Hardly two correspondents gave the same story."

² Quoted in Bill Ellis, "The Highgate Vampire Cemetery Vampire Hunt: The Anglo-American Connection in Satanic Cult Lore", Folklore, vol. 104, no. 1-2, p. 21.

³ ibid.