Iron Chariots spam

A while back I decided to upgrade the server software for the Iron Chariots wiki and install a bunch of add-ons, including one that allows me to force all new editors to write a short biography and wait for approval. It’s kind of a headache, but before doing this, we would get dozens of new users a day who would start filling up the wiki articles with advertisements for wristwatches and porn. Unfortunately, sometimes I can go for a couple of months without remembering to check the spam trap, and then people complain. But it beats the alternative.

Today I remembered that I haven’t approved users since April, so I cleared out a fairly manageable 17 requests. Nearly half of them were spammers who were stupid enough to put spam in their biography, so that was easy. I approved a bunch of requests… and then I saw this guy.

Author William Barney is a theosophist master of Biblical Scripture with eighteen years (since 1996) experience. The common aim of all theosophists is to interpret the secret doctrine of Holy Scripture to make the determination what exactly took place during the six days of creation found in Genesis One. Unbeknown to most; Genesis One, Two and Three were composed using symbol words and metaphoric language which was very common before Jesus Christ. Today this is known as esoteric scripture––Scriptures that are “dark” in appearance or enigmatic in nature which are not easily understood seeing the vast amount of time and effort that is required in order to “break the code” to any scripture in question.

See also: Safer Ha-Zohar. The secret doctrine of Blavatsky and the: Twelve Foundational Days of Creation.

The commonality of these three books is strikingly similar which can only mean one thing; we are simply three theosophist masters that came to understand how to interpret enigma words of the Holy Scriptures. Ironically, the Enuma Elish corroborates my doctrine on creation.


Then in the “Additional notes” section, Mr. Barney wrote:

Your “Bible page” is lacking one field of understanding Genesis account of creation––The secret doctrine.

I replied:

Unfortunately I’ve rejected your request to edit the Iron Chariots wiki. This is an atheist-centered wiki dealing with counter-apologetics (see Iron Chariots Wiki: Neutral point of view). In your biography you say “…to make the determination what exactly took place during the six days of creation found in Genesis One.” I think you’ll find that this question doesn’t have any importance to atheists, who don’t give even a shred of credibility to any of the Genesis account.

It’s possible I may be misreading your point of view on this, but unless I’m very much mistaken, the fact that this “secret doctrine” business is “Unbeknown to most” implies that it is not considered mainstream among historians. As such, it would probably be considered “original research” and you should try to advance it in reputable peer reviewed historical journals, instead of trying to promote it on our wiki.

Having said that, you are free to call “The Atheist Experience” any Sunday when we air, and discuss your opinions with the hosts (including myself).

TLDR: Today I trampled all over some guy’s free speech rights, as usual.


  1. John Nugent says

    OK, I have to laugh a bit, before I type.

    But seriously, Russell, I hope he calls in. It’s always interesting to hear new ways which have been found of interpreting the Genesis account. I wonder if (unlike, say, Ham) he’s taken the actual Hebrew into account….

  2. John Kruger says

    Peer review!?

    Don’t you see he is the only one who is a known “theosophist master”? Peer review is thus impossible. Clearly there is no choice but to put complete faith into everything that he says without questioning anything.

    In all seriousness though, you guys sure do attract some live ones. If he does decide to start shooting off enormous e-mails overflowing with Bible-babble to you, just give us the courtesy of a fold when putting any of it on the blog. Reading all the wild stuff from Matt’s stalker was an exercise in extreme masochism. I’ll pass on this one.

  3. Rob Kaper says

    It continues to amaze me you guys have to deal with such a religious presence in the US. It’s certainly present here in Holland as well but the scope and intensity is incomparable. Even though I find myself agreeing more often than that I actually learn new insights, your show is a pleasure to follow on YouTube. Keep it up!

  4. Dorkman says

    Aww, I was hoping it was actually someone accusing you of trampling them. Those are always good times.

  5. John Nugent says

    Martin –

    I am unfamiliar with Blavatsky. Could you summarize, to bring me into the loop?

  6. John Nugent says

    Oh wait. I just googled, and I saw the wikipedia entry. I had looked her up, before, on an unrelated topic. OK. Yes. Joke.

  7. says

    Why the heck would God put in “secret” data into the Bible? Isn’t it difficult enough, as it is, to establish as true? Half the adherents disagree with the other half about whether it actually means what it actually says.

    The real question is whether or not what’s revealed in the “secret doctrine” also has a “secret doctrine” hidden within that. For all we know, the secret-secret doctrine of the jumble of undemonstrated claims says “JK!”

  8. says

    This is exactly the same question to ask in response to that “Bible Code” crap that was briefly in vogue in the 1990s. Here’s a holy book that theologians are having to interpret all to Sam Hill and back in order to make any sense of at all, and then we’re supposed to believe that God also intended it to be this secret prophecy Sudoku game on top of all that. What’s God’s Deal that he couldn’t just say what he means and mean what he says?

  9. John Nugent says

    Yeah, I kinda thought it was like the Bible Code nonsense, too. So, I wonder if int his guy’s view (like in the Bible Code), the Bible predicts the JFK assassination – as if that actually had some dire impact on the overall history of the world. Sad event, yes, but minute, compared to everything else that has ever happened.

  10. says

    Don’t you love the temper tantrum that is “You are denying me free speech?” They have no idea what legal free speech, as the government defines it, is. You have the right for example, to blog about shit that gripes you. You can say mean things about black folks, immigrants, and women. BUT you can’t force your thoughts and opinions on someone elses allocated space for THEIR expression. That would be the real world equivalent of taking the microphone from a speaker while they are on stage, shouting your own opinions, and then crying about freedom of speech being denied when they tackle you and throw your dumb ass out. If you’re that damned passionate about something, ain’t nothing stopping you from creating a similar venue to speak about it–see–THAT”S free speech. Can you imagine the pandemonium that would ensue if there were no limitations on how folks interact in this manner? NO ONE would be heard in the end. As a person who owns a blog you would have the ability to comment only if I allow it–it isn’t your right to comment no more than it is your right to barge into someone else house and demand they make you dinner. It is a privilege and a courtesy extended by the owner of a site or blog. Even Atheists are guilty of this stupidity and self martyrdom. I am very happy when I have the ability to comment on given topics, however, I don’t look at it as some inalienable right that I am owed. Now, how I may personally feel about the inability to comment (i.e.–man that sucks) is a different story altogether…

  11. unfogged says

    with eighteen years (since 1996) experience

    Hey, what’s a little rounding error between theosophists!

  12. xxxxxx says

    DEFINITION: Wizard of Oz (WOO) —
    People, such as Mr. William Barney, in real life who likely present themselves as perfectly sane and rational people, as long as we “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” — i.e. that “man” that comes out when shielded by the curtain of Internet anonymity.

  13. Gord Tulloch says

    Oh look, he’s selling a book, surprise surprise… just another spammer after all, good catch Russell! The bio on this page is more revealing…

    I watched the embedded video on the main page long enough to conclude “batshit crazy” and tuned out 🙂

  14. Paul Wright says

    Today I learned the word ‘theosophist’ . Thank you for this post. I hope he calls in tonight or later. He sounds like fun. 🙂

  15. says

    When I first moved to NYC I would occasionally walk past a sign on a side street for the Theosophical Society. I eventually looked them up online. I think it’s odd that some people’s idea of truth is just whatever they made up.

  16. Lord Narf says

    Part of the subtitle is “An Infallible Approach to Genesis One and Two”. I enjoy reading this sort of crap, seeing what kind of weird pretzels people can twist the Bible into, but I sure as hell wouldn’t give anyone money for something like that.

  17. Paul Wright says

    Yes, I find it baffling that there are so many people who don’t seem that concerned if their beliefs are true or not. I couldn’t function like that personally. Then there are the people who insist things are true despite all the evidence to contrary, they really annoy me. Regarding theosophy, I can see it’s allure because it promises some kind of esoteric knowledge, which must be like a red rag to a bull if you’re one those people who are into conspiracy’s and such.

  18. Mumbo Jumbo says

    Theosophy???? You can’t make shit like that up! Oops….or maybe they can.

  19. trog69 says

    This guy has nothing on William Tapley, “commonly known as the Third Eagle of the Apocalypse or the Co-Prophet of the End Times”. Talk about finding “hidden” meaning in the bible, Tapley finds hidden meaning in subway signs.

  20. Monocle Smile says

    That’s just it…theosophy appeals to people who don’t know anything about anything. It means that you can just make shit up and it counts as “truth.” It’s the easy way out.

  21. Lonely says

    Blavatsky is popular where I am from. So is Alan Kardec and the Pope. It is a sad place for an atheist.

  22. Karen says

    Theosophist? I think I will use that term to refer to those who use presuppositional apologetics, like Sye TenBruggencate.