Skip navigation

Tag Archives: Satanic Ritual Abuse

DN Claim: “In 2001 I  was  victimized by what is referred to as “nonlethal” technology. I belive I am now on technology called computer/brain interface. When I close my eyes I see inside what I believe to be a Quantum- physics based computer screen due to nanotechnology which has been placed in my inner eyelid.  According to an article at Wired.com, DARPA is researching placing “brains” on computer chips. I can testify that this technology has been implemented as of 2001 and it was used on me. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/08/darpa-fake-brai/ne. One of the first computers I used to see into was reportedy operated by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. The second one was owned by Michael Aquino. I was told by Aquino that various satanic cults were going to abuse me as a gesture for the millenium. I believe that the computers accessing me are similar to Quantum computer.” (May 11th 2009 blog post at 11:25pm, misquoted in-text as May 8th 2009).

Reality: Napolis’ description of visual imagery in her “inner eyelid” is closer to self-generated eidetic imagery rather than nanotechnology or quantum computers. The eidetic imagery explanation also fits Napolis’ interest in lucid dreaming methodologies, drawn from New Age interpretations of Tibetan Buddhist praxis. There is no independent evidence that a computer/brain interface exists beyond its depiction in science fiction films; that Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory or Michael Aquino own this purported technology (LLNL’s computation and supercomputing facilities are used for simulations of disease epidemics and nuclear explosions); nor that Napolis is being targeted in any way. The Wired.com article clearly states that DARPA‘s research program is at the stages of blue sky/conceptual research and basic R&D, with a 10-20 year timeframe speculated as a longrange possibility, rather than “implemented as of 2001 and it was used on me.” Napolis’ claim that, “I was told by Aquino that various satanic cults were going to abuse me as a gesture for the millennium,” illustrate her Satanic Ritual Abuse worldview, and differs remarkably from Aquino’s Church of Satan history (2009). A comparison of Napolis and Aquino’s worldviews reveals that they are conceptually, philosophically and ethically incommensurable.

DN Claim: “Michael Aquino was a multi-millionaire who had extensive real estate holdings. I believe that Ms. Hopkins was involved in a conspiracy to steal Aquino’s millions before I was targeted and that there have been attempts to steal his identity . . . I suspect that Hopkins then became curious as to why I was not being controlled by Michael Aquino whose computer I was in. After listening to the internal conversation it became clear to me that contrary to my belief, Aquino really was not in control, identity theft had occurred, and he was being used as a fall guy.” (May 9th 2009 blog post at 5:33am).

Reality: Napolis’ information on Dr. Michael A. Aquino‘s real estate holdings in San Francisco is taken from 1987 media coverage of Satanic Ritual Abuse allegations made against Aquino, which were never proven and which he was never charged for, yet which became the focus of Napolis’ Internet newsgroup attacks. Today, Aquino’s holdings are managed by the Barony of Rachane family trust with no connection whatsoever to Carol Hopkins. Aquino notes in his extensive rejoinder to Napolis’ unsuccessful lawsuit filed with the U.S. Federal Court in 2008, that he has had no contact with Hopkins except as a co-defendant, that Napolis lawsuit was dismissed on 16th September 2008 against all defendants, and that the San Francisco Superior Court issued a permanent Restraining Order against Napolis on 31st October 2008, to protect the Aquinos.

Thus there is no evidence that Hopkins was “involved in a conspiracy to steal Aquino’s millions” nor that Napolis “was not being controlled by Michael Aquino whose computer I was in” (as noted above such an asset class and family trust vehicle are prudent investment and wealth management structures against such risks). This is just rumor and speculation by Napolis to try and keep the interest of her audience, due to her lawsuit’s dismissal by the U.S. Federal Court. In fact, Napolis’ extensive email postings in 1995-2000 under Karen ‘Curio’ Jones and other pseudonyms illustrates her unsuccessful attempts at “identity theft” and reputation damage against Aquino and others, which they have rebutted. Being “in a computer” and hearing an “internal conversation” suggests referential ideation, magical thinking and auditory hallucinations — unless Napolis meant a transparent Apple Macintosh SE/30?

Nor is there any evidence for Aquino being a “fall guy” in Napolis’ fictional conspiracy involving Carol Hopkins as a “gold digger”. Instead, this final claim illustrates four aspects of Napolis’ thought process: (1) People who Napolis has publicly attacked for over a decade are ‘clustered’ into a group (even when her alleged collaborators have a public record of longstanding disagreement, such as Aquino and Scott Locklin); (2) Napolis claims this group is ‘against’ her as a reaction formation when, in fact, it was she who attacked them; (3) When Napolis’ claims are shown to be wrong or falsiable, she creates false claims to misdirect others, rather than re-evaluate her theories, because of anchoring, framing, sunk costs and other cognitive biases; and (4) over time, Napolis uses a ‘revolving door’ to reposition the people she attacks, such as Aquino being a “fall guy” and Hopkins now being the villain (Napolis made earlier claims about Aquino, Locklin and others named as co-defendants in her unsuccessful lawsuit, and earlier in 1995-2000 postings on Internet newsgroups). Rather than disgard her false claims, or adjusting for biases by using Bayes’ theorem for a priori and post priori information, Napolis simply creates more grandiose conspiracies, inferences and speculation as attention-seeking.

Collectively, these examples illustrate Napolis’ defense mechanisms to avoid having to publicly admit that she has been incorrect for over a decade.