Occult Xenosystems

The swirling delirium at the new /pol/ is at least 80% noise, but it includes some real intelligence (in both senses of the word), and not solely of a comedic variety. The sheer dirtiness of its signal makes it a powerful antenna, picking up on connections and information sources that tidier discussions would dismiss as pollution. This makes it especially suited to conspiracy theorizing, both inane and exotic.

While noting the importance of correction for narcissistic bias, which operates through selective attention, memorization, and (from commentators here) communication, it seems as if this blog is referenced disproportionately by the most extravagant NRx-sensitive /pol/ conspiracists. That is quite understandable. Occult philosophy, secrecy, crypsis, codes, and obscurity are insistent themes here. Xenosystems is inclined towards arcane cultural games. It identifies cryptographic developments as keys to the emerging order of the world.

The primary philosophical task of this blog is to disturb unwarranted pretensions to knowing, in the name of a Pyrrhonian inspiration. In this regard, confusion, paradox, and uncertainty are communicative outcomes to be ardently embraced.

For the purposes of this post, an exceptionally exotic /pol/ suggestion provides the opportunity to make a comparatively compact and simple point. The occasion is a web of conjecture weaving together Xenosystems and The Order of Nine Angles (O9A, ONA, or omega9alpha). In addition to the (highly-recommended) link just provided, the relevant Wikipedia entry is also extremely stimulating.

Xenosystems micro-ethics is uncomfortable with soliciting belief (or invoking expectations of trust). It is necessary to note at this point, therefore, that the following remarks are not designed to appeal to credence, but merely to add testimonial information, to be accepted or rejected at will. In the world we now enter — of “sinister dialectic” — declarations of honesty are utterly debased. However, for what (little) it is worth, these are the facts as I understand and relay them.

The O9A is not entirely new to me, but it is not a gnosis I have studied, still less deliberately aligned with. The few hours of reading I have undertaken today is by far my most intense exposure to it to date. What little I have learnt about David Myatt has not attracted me to him as a thinker or political activist, despite certain impressive characteristics (his intellect and polyglot classicism most notably). With that said:
(1) Many convergent interests are soon apparent between Outside in and the O9A (as well as a not inconsiderable number of divergences).
(2) ‘We’ are both (I think) inclined to dismiss the pretensions of the individual intellect and will, which makes the possibility of connections around the back impossible to dismiss in a peremptory fashion. As one /pol/ ‘anonymous’ remarked: “why so sure that ONA would be the deepest layer, instead of just a japeful ruse?” Real connections, influences, and metaphysical roots are obscure.
(3) O9A is fascinating.

The point of this post (finally) is taken directly from Aleister Crowley. In the compilation of his qabbalistic writings entitled 777 (Alphanomic equivalent of Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law, although that is surely coincidental), he makes some introductory remarks on the topic of hermeticism. My copy of the book is temporarily misplaced, so I shall gloss them here. A secret, of the kind relevant to hermeticism, is not something known and then hidden as a matter of decision, but rather something that by its very nature resists revelation. Crowley proceeds to mock charlatan occultists who treat the numerical values of the Hebrew letters as secret information, to be revealed theatrically at some appropriate stage of initiation. Let whatever can now be known, be known, as lucidly and publicly as possible. Only that is truly hermetic which hides itself. Reality is not so destitute of intrinsically hidden things — of Integral Obscurity — that we need to replenish its coffers with our tawdry discretion.

Whatever might exist, in the way of an occult bond between Outside in and the O9A, it is not one that anybody is keeping secret. To emphasize the point, I am going to include the alpha9omega document in the Resources roll here, not as the acknowledgement of a connection, but as a clear statement that this stuff is not a secret. It is, however, about secrecy — and that is interesting.

ADDED: Is there something in the water?

October 11, 2014admin 89 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Arcane

TAGGED WITH : , ,

89 Responses to this entry

  • Magian Entryist Says:

    I’m happy you took notice.

    I tried to nudge you in this direction a few months back but a demonstration seemed more apt. Ultimately this tradition is all about the individual agent (internal alchemy) and the game of forms is just a means: like you said, noise which is particularly suited to letting a certain kind of signal be heard.

    Pyrrhonism is, you’re right, a central theme. The layering of forms and appearances which you’re encountering is (obviously is probably not the right word, although I feel inclined to say it) related. The ONA frame the interaction as between form (appearance) and what is beyond the paradox in form (the acausal). But this is a Jungian terminology which was introduced later for specific use in the ONA. The Sinister Tradition is expressed in many forms which don’t use it.

    I personally don’t find Myatt that good a writer, despite my admiration for him. Not the kind of sparkling, vaulting intellect that you are more familiar with. But he does get the job done and transmit the tradition, and he has expressed the interplay of the two core element sin the ontology brilliantly in his life. You might particularly enjoy researching his Star Game, a tool for representing the whole tradition in a 3-D Board Game resembling (but IMO far superior to) Enochian Chess.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 11th, 2014 at 5:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Magian Entryist Says:

    On your point about Crowley, though, the picture isn’t complete without noting that both he and ONA deliberately hide that which is not truly hermetic. He tried to hide his IX and many other degrees, for example. The ONA hide lots of information and connections to force a heuristic initiation, although this information is not really intrinsically hermetic. In the first case Crowley’s doing precisely what he criticised those hiding gematria for. In the second, the experience and the change it initiates is the point, and the information secondary. But I think both do both, both cultivate mystery by active and non-intrinsic occultation, and the lines are very blurred.

    The reason the ‘occult’ is occult is because illumination (integrated knowledge) is power. Some people can’t take or be the light, so it occults itself and appears to them as darkness, but there’s also the whole knowledge is power thing. And ‘know, will, dare, keep silent’: not merely because the mysteries cannot be said, but because worlds are built by speaking, by knowledge available and hidden, and above all by what becomes so omnipresent that it is unsayable.

    So, again, it’s a little more complex.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You’re right. My account was selective, to a point just short (?) of disinformation. Perhaps, also, following through on some of the connections being brought here to Western intelligence agencies and operations might be an efficient way to explore the more complex landscape you indicate?

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 11th, 2014 at 6:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • Potere Occulto Says:

    ‘Is there something in the water?’

    2015 e.v. is A.L. 111…

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 11th, 2014 at 7:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • jatli Says:

    trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 11th, 2014 at 8:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • Occult Xenosystems | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on October 11th, 2014 at 8:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin Says:

    Noise inducing delirium. /pol/ on Land is like playing Chinese Whispers on mescaline – addictive. Do you think O9A insinuated Ebola-Chan into the Nigerian forums? I assumed it was a 14 year old kid with a wicked SOH.

    On another note:

    “In regards to age of consent threads and other legitimate issues regarding kids they are allowed as long as no pictures of sexualized children are in it. I’m sure you can control yourselves and discuss those topics without resorting to posting questionable content, this includes skimpy clothing. Make sure the topics are legitimate.”

    Looks like they still have some pretty strict boundaries. Anything goes, except for this. That is why the relationship between Pedophilia and the Cathedral needs to be systematically examined. Dissected along the lines of its cladistic moral heritage, and how legal incentives structure its enshrinement as a progressive taboo few are willing to cross.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 11th, 2014 at 10:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • ReactionaryFerret Says:

    The Slaad and the Githzerai both reside in Limbo. The results are different.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 11th, 2014 at 10:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brother Nihil Says:

    O9A is one of the more ingenious troll operations of all time. David Myatt is an old master; 4chan NRx kiddies should learn at his feet. Take trolling up to 11, incorporate mythos and metaphysics, and you arrive at the master occultism of Myatt and Crowley and Osho (and Jesus and Mohammad). I speak from experience; prophets and cult leaders crush trolls.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2014 at 12:14 am Reply | Quote
  • Celestial Spectra Says:

    Myatt was balls deep in Project Gladio operations and was probably involved in the post-Gladio stuff related to British occult Wahabbist subversion, (an op going way back to Blavatsky, Disraeli, Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani and the Oxford Movement). He wrote under the nom de guerre Anton Long and has always denied setting up the ONA, however Myatt admitted to starting an occult Nazi operation as a honeytrap in order to aeonically subvert Nazism in order o attract certain types of people for his own ends, without naming names so to speak.

    The ONA makes a massive fuss about attacking Magian/Semitic occultism. It was supposedly trying to find some fundamental ground for an ‘Aryan’ occultic system. Yet the ONA’s fundamental concepts like the “Sinister Dialectic of History” and the “Seven Spheres”, rest upon kabbalism and Chaldean magic etc., with bits and pieces from other Middle-Eastern sources too. So for Long to say that it was purely Aryan is a total hoax. Only someone unread or engaged in subversion would come out with that.

    Whilst Hegelian dialectics has its murky roots in Lurianic/Christian Kabbalah and the exoteric dialectics of the Greeks. The dialectic of the ONA is a synthesis of the gnostic critique of the theo-political order of Yahweh as archonic demiurge and the rejection of the requirement of pistis for mediated dialectical becoming within the theo-political hierarchy. The ONA takes the critiqued version of Yahweh (in the ONA: Lord of the Earth – Kthunae) and enshrines it in their system of aeonic magic.

    The gnostic identification of Yahweh as a purely terrestrial dialectical machine is important. He is the entelechy of organic political evolution, through which, he segregates and punishes those that do not worship His totality or those closest to Him, (metaphysical submission and submission to civil, religious and genetic law – halakha). Those who are faithful enter into an evolutionary becoming with both the material and divine hierarchy, through His customs: a mediation through submission. The Torah promises those faithful utopian geo-political integration in Jerusalem under the rule of the Moshiach, the Kabbalah promises the rule of the Moshiach to initiate a metaphysical transcendence at this time too, concretely realised. So, geopolitical, genetic and metaphysical evolution are innately tied in together in one becoming.

    Rather than simply slotting into the hierarchy of the Lord of the Earth, the idea is that the adept, owns the dialectical machine of metaphysical and organic becoming, attempting to both inhabit and wield the universal teleos and indentitarian territory of volkisch Aryanism at the same time. Furthermore, the adept, similar to gnostic doctrine, moves towards a personal unmediated relationship with pure Being, (defined variously as The Wyrd or the acausal in the ONA model, rather than the Solar Logos of traditional gnosticism). An adept is supposed to channel or mediate the acausal as part of the Great Work of ushering in the New Aeon, transhumanistically work towards the Aryan “galactic imperium” and summon the acausal Dark Gods into the terrestrial plane.

    The ONA are *supposed* to be transhumanist and working on summoning inhuman dark gods. The accusations on /fringe/ make no sense, they’re supposed to be doing what they accuse you of except from a purely ‘Aryan’ perspective. It is possible they do not understand the material correctly. All the shouting about Magian/Semitic tactics would be theatre to those that fully understood the system and actually participated, because the conceptual framework of the ONA is mostly Magian/Semitic, a potential line is that they’re attempting to perpetuate the dialectical manipulation between ‘Jew’ and ‘Aryan’ in order politically deceive. Well, that, or I’m giving them far too much credit, where none is due. Similarly, the accusations of being NWO, coming from an ONA ‘member’ means nothing, as the ONA is pretty much a ‘dark’ New Age cult when the flesh is boiled off.

    The ONA is mostly auto-initiatory, one is supposed to work through the material and apprehend the embedded occult method, *sans denotatum* as it is called. The mythic representations of the ONA are simply placeholders. It gives the image of syncretism much like Freemasonry, however that is to essentially ‘carry’ the messages. Whilst it is clear that Myatt had ulterior motives for using the ONA to initiate idiots for his own operations and cause chaos, the ONA is simultaneously an occult revelation of the method for occult warfare.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2014 at 12:17 am Reply | Quote
  • Dark Psy-Ops Says:

    Behold the power of germs – http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/greg-cochrans-gay-germ-hypothesis-an-exercise-in-the-power-of-germs/

    Plenty of conjecture here, especially in comments, but it’s worth adding to the spreadsheet of stubbornly perpetuating complexes.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2014 at 3:51 am Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    I would recomend anyone with pretensions of simplicity in political issues to investigate the actions of Gladio. I might throw together a post later today highlighting some of the known (or rather hinted) activities of the organisation and a vague exploration of it’s motives. Understanding the role of hidden agendas and currents is important in many ways.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2014 at 4:09 am Reply | Quote
  • Wally Greeniker Says:

    You may benefit from reading Andrevski’s ‘Social science as sorcery’ published in 1974 and long ot of print. It’s all abot how sociologists dress up time-worn, platitudinous or banal ideas to make them look novel and complicated. I was struck, while reading it, back then, by a passage where he wondered why French philosophers were expressing themselves in langage that was growing more and more obscure and convoluted: how had such a collapse of self-confidence occurred in a culture which had once prided itself, so much, on it’s lucidity and logicality?

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    I think the lucidity and logicality was false from the start. The effect was, and still is, to create a hubris amongst the elites that they could understand anything in totality by applying techniques of studying simple phenomena to complex ones. They have been trying to describe the resultant shitstorm following from this error from a specific position and trying to fit the paterns of collapse to their pre conceived models (equality based ridiculousness). The result is convoluted winding explanations which cling to reality only in the most tenuous ways. Take Baudrillard’s simulacra or Foucaults power and knowledge ideas- I get the sense there is something there, but its garbled.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2014 at 6:17 am Reply | Quote
  • northanger Says:

    Werner von Braun & Dr. Carol Rosin: False Flag Wars and Exopolitics
    http://exopolitics.blogs.com/exopolitics/2006/12/eyeopening_inte.html

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2014 at 6:23 am Reply | Quote
  • Kerri Scott Says:

    In response to Celestial Spectra:

    1. There has been much speculation – and it is important to remember that it is only speculation/rumor – about Myatt’s alleged involvement with MI5, via the UK arm of Gladio (Column 88) his visits to Northern Ireland in the early 1970s, his later conversion to Islam and support for Al Qaeda, and other stuff; as here – http://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/agent-provocateur/

    Recent rumors re Myatt as a state asset have focused on revelations such as (i) a June 2014 report in The Guardian newspaper about a police ‘undercover spy’ in a right-wing political group who was asked if “he could the Muslim thing” and convert to Islam. Echoes of Myatt’s 1998 conversion? – http://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/undercover-spies/ – and (ii) an intriguing interview with a former British army intelligence officer stationed in Northern Ireland during ‘the troubles’ who, beginning in 1972 (curiously the year “Anton Long” formed the Order of Nine Angles), used satanism as a tactic to try and smear paramilitary organizations – http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/09/satanic-panic-british-agents-stoked-fears-troubles

    2. Contrary to popular misconceptions, the Order of Nine Angles ‘Seven Spheres’, its seven fold way, and other esoteric stuff, are derived from a tradition much older than kabbalism with its ten sephira. This older tradition is that of Hellenic hermeticism; specifically the Pymander tractate – qv. (i) Myatt’s translation and commentary published under the title ‘Poemandres’, ISBN 978-1495470684, and (ii) several O9A texts such as “Perusing The Seven Fold Way – Historical Origins Of The Septenary System Of The Order of Nine Angles”.

    3. There is also no link to Chaldean magic, but rather links to ancient Arabic cosmogony, and ancient Indian and Persian mysticism.

    4. The dialectic of the ONA has nothing whatsoever to do with “a gnostic critique” (of whatever) but is in fact – in conventional exoteric terms – a balancing of the still prevalent ‘patriarchal ethos’ by muliebral virtues and pathei-mathos. Esoterically: a personal and sinister-numinous anados of esoteric and exoteric experiencing.

    [Reply]

    Celestial Spectra Reply:

    Thank you Kerri for the response.

    2. The ONA constantly link the septenary system back to Poimandres and Hellenic Occultism as if it is some sort of golden source. Despite it having no form of traditional authority as evidence of a purely ‘Aryan’ tradition. Rather, it is well known that the roots of Greek occultism flow back into Phoenicia, Chaldea, and Egypt amongst other places, through its Ionic site of entry via the Greek mysteries. There is nothing special in the Poimandres section of the Hermetica that marks it out as particularly European, except for its numinous literary qualities. It may be merely a synthesis of Judaism and various Magian inspired Middle-Eastern occultisms. Many scholars have noted its the Jewish influence on the Hermetica including the Poimandres section, O. Wikander and C. H. Dodd to name a couple. Myatt needs to provide stronger evidence regarding the authority of the Poimandres section of the Hermetica as specifically natively European. To my mind he has provided none whatsoever. Perhaps you can provide me with the information as to why it is so singular in this regard?

    However, the place Myatt says he derived it from is irrelevant to me. I’m not interested in facialised occultism, but in structural transmission and aetiology. That is to say, the fashion by which occultic/aeonic shapeshifting occurs.

    4. OK, so I do not disagree with the esoteric aspect of the dialectic being at least *partially* a sinister-numinous anados of esoteric and exoteric experiencing. Especially the initiatory aspect and the constant flow through to ‘immortality’. It is a sublime phoenician/mercurian model. I have issues with it, but to delve into them would have me going on for ages.

    To make myself clear, I’m not saying the ONA formulated the sinister dialectic from the “gnostic critique” itself, but that there is a synthesis of Magian/Semitic tactics, (outlined *by* the “gnostic critique”) encoded by contradictions and expressions of technique within Long’s work. The dialectical model of the “sinister dialectic of history”, when stripped of its mythic signification is identical with the gnostic critique of theo-political order of Yahweh as demiourgos, that is, when the dialectic is reduced to its purely strategic and tactical formations. The technique of sinister manipulation and using deceit to craft demiurgically, whilst inhabiting an identitarian territory as part of grand aeonic strategy is of Magian/Semitic militarised archonic theo-politics. There is no escaping this. These tactics stand splattered across Long’s works clear for those that can see it, as they do through Myatt’s ‘sinister actions’.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2014 at 9:35 am Reply | Quote
  • Altadoon Says:

    No man can take the mantle of a prophet without breathing out chaos onto the external world. /pol/ recognised Lands importance and played it up. They’re making Xenosystems stuff of legends all while thinking they’re brave souls for resisting it. A bunch of fools.

    [Reply]

    Chloe Reply:

    They’re making Xenosystems stuff of legends all while thinking they’re brave souls for resisting it. A bunch of fools.

    That’s the point of it, you [gratuitous abuse deleted]. It was supposed to make people attracted to NRx and heretical ideas.

    From the ONA link that Nick linked to above (that no doubt Kerri Scott above, who is the semi-official mouthpiece of O9A, has something to say about):

    Have you … Sinisterly manipulated or incited someone, or several, into a life of violence and/or crime and/or of practical heretical/adversarial activism disruptive of the status quo?

    You are sitting here jerking yourself hard that you’ve “won,” and they’ve lost. But you both won, in a sense. You have formerly non-NRx people now taking interest in NRx on the *chans (achieving an O9A goal), and strengthening your internal resolve via an enemy. You also have one of the major O9A talking heads (Kerri Scott) in Nick Land’s comment section here. Kerri is connected to the who’s who of O9A and is rumored to be Myatt himself (he’ll deny this of course, but Kerri is a good sort, so hopefully he’ll let this bit of legend building slide). In the next few days and weeks you are going to have large amounts of the Satanic underground, left hand path groups, Occultists, Nazis, Fascist Islamists, and various others finding out what the Dark Enlightenment and NRx is, through Kerri and others. I’d say whoever pulled this off has achieved their aim of “sinister manipulation.”

    [Reply]

    Altadoon Reply:

    You’re giving them far too much credit. Whatever happens, you can construct a narrative of an epic ruse. I’m not believing you or anyone else here.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “I’m not believing you or anyone else here.” — That seems like an excellent default position.

    Posted on October 12th, 2014 at 11:32 am Reply | Quote
  • Ovid Says:

    Just so you know Land, you’ve been had.
    https://8chan.co/fringe/res/855.html#855

    Also you’re apparently a Jewish-Marxist-Technocrat. I feel like that is something that should be cleared up for future reference. You won’t believe how often I read something and go “gosh, sounds like it was written by a Jewish Marxist Technocrat!” Please confirm or deny you WTC exploding reptile you.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2014 at 12:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dark Psy-Ops Says:

    I thought it would be fun to risk elaborating on Soap Jackal’s previous intimations of intensifying fission as Neoreaction’s fragile meta-stability divides into sorted variables and unsettled fractions. In a political controversy where the only observable ‘action’ is in cyber-praxeological intelligence operations, perspectival disagreements subsume the ‘content’ of conflict itself, while actively resisting a ‘higher sublation’ or ‘linking’ into a so-called syzygetic trichotomy (the ‘splitting’ of sinister dialectics). Occult crypto-linguistics dissuades partial readers as it relays and strengthens hermetic inscriptions through fading communication channels. Having barely sobered from the early evening Jack Daniels, I will forgo further digression and skip to designation:

    EthNats: Populist-brand ‘Darwinism’ particularly excoriated by the Cathedral which discerns in their minimally exclusionary, still-too-indiscriminate racial welfarism an obvious competitor for the disgruntled legions of white leftists turned fascist-sympathizers. Eth-Nats are undoubtedly closer to socialists than HBD’ers, most plainly in their ‘Knights of the Country Farm’ variants. Tech-comm NRx has already issued a soundly-worded, unanswered challenge to the eth-nat presumption of a monopoly on ultra-competitive racialism in the post ‘hyper-racism’.

    Rel-trads: Christian re-constructionists sympathetic to ethno-nationalism, sharing with them a past-oriented socially-centred reactionary anti-modernism (though how can Christians not be race-traitors?). Needless to say, both are in uneasy relation with the experimental anti-humanist abstract futurism of the nomadic techno-commercial war-machine. Tech-comm in turn is without Christian proclivities, and is actually closer to anti-Christian in its (heretical-Satanic) cutting edge.

    Tech-comm: socially abrasive hyper-nihilistic High Modernism, boasting its own darkly-glistening Trike with an (atheistic) religion, (post-tribal) racialism, and realist economics (Doom Paul). It predicts a coming age of cyber-synthetic genetic manipulation, scientific inhumanism, accelerating social stratification, and formalized governance (neocameralism). It’s possibly the greatest single threat to progressives and reactionaries alike, strongly aligning as it does with pyrrhic prophecy and chaos.

    So that’s about all I know so far. More Moldbug needed.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2014 at 12:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • northanger Says:

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sinistra

    In programming languages and mathematical notation, the associativity (or fixity) of an operator is a property that determines how operators of the same precedence are grouped in the absence of parentheses. If an operand is both preceded and followed by operators (for example, “^ 4 ^”), and those operators have equal precedence, then the operand may be used as input to two different operations (i.e. the two operations indicated by the two operators). The choice of which operations to apply the operand to, is determined by the “associativity” of the operators. Operators may be left-associative (meaning the operations are grouped from the left), right-associative (meaning the operations are grouped from the right) or non-associative (meaning there is no defined grouping). The associativity and precedence of an operator is a part of the definition of the programming language; different programming languages may have different associativity and precedence for the same type of operator.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2014 at 2:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • northanger Says:

    16527=Isaiah 32 King James Version 1 Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment. 2 And a man shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land. 3 And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken. 4 The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly. 5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful. 6 For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the Lord, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail. 7 The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right. 8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2014 at 2:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Magian Entryist Says:

    I couldn’t leave a direct reply to your message with TorBrowser, so I’ll post it down here.

    On your question about intelligence agencies: I think you may find it informative.

    Certainly with Crowley, who we ONA do not like now (by ‘we’ I mean to imply inspiration only, not authority to speak for), although one of the original Nexions that merged in decades ago was an extremist Thelemic group, or at least appeared that way. You might regard it just as a dialectical manipulation of that form at a point at which it was useful, whereas it no longer is. Anyway Crowley himself was an employee of British intelligence, and if you follow that thread back you’ll get into Masonry and endless manipulations of the public occulture which so reveres Crowley, but I won’t go there.

    With the ONA, there are historical connections at many points in the publicly available information. Gladio (see the ‘Strategy of Tension’, Combat 18, etc.), the Interpol episode, and the information Kerri kindly linked above (hi Kerry, nice to see you here). But I myself find it helps to understand it as a self-enclosed hermetic system with an aim. There is a labyrinthine encryption (noise) and an aim. Although navigating intelligence agencies and prison and various fables and historical narratives may be part of the process needed to birth that aim into reality, I personally wouldn’t say that they’re the decrypting, clarifying focus.

    As an intellectual, you might find some very interesting threads and themes in Myatt’s work, and in the fact of the existence of the Tradition. I would recommend Myatt and Long’s recent writings on the Hellenic roots, and on the pre-Islamic roots of the name Atazoth. These are not your normal public-occult half-hearted mythos or ‘perennial’ Kabbalistic Hermeticism. The information actually undermines most of the narratives public ‘occultists’ tend to peddle, in a very interesting way. Given reaction’s frequent flirtation with Evola, this alternate perspective on an alternate Tradition to the one he believes might be enriching. Celestia Spectra does not have it right here, although his species of claims are common amongst people who think they have researched the Tradition more deeply than they have. His lack of sensitivity to the processes at work right now also marks him out as a non-initiate.

    In terms of outer forms: the essence is internal and happens by extreme experience only, and most of any given flock won’t be suited. But the Lovecraftian invokation is a common outer purpose, or purported one. And, in a sense, the draw to this quest is one of the deepest forms of Reaction there is. Against the (non-Pyrrhonic) hubris, against the unreality and insanity of the ‘abstractions’ which box in the modern mind, and against equality. I think the forms are rich and perhaps you may find something in them of value, bearing in mind the Focus and Purpose and so not getting lost. I find your ‘default position’ to be the most useful one. The breaking apart of unreal, presumptive ‘knowings’ which your site engages in is, as you noticed, one of the core processes in the Tradition. People are mostly tripped up by their mundane arrogance, and when they are (as for example in the recent informative case of Kris from the Temple of Them) it often utterly ruins them– one reason women tend to do better. They think that they know and their society and life has taught them what nature and other people are; the Tradition merely confronts them with reality, as they claimed to want. It gets messy.

    On purpose, noise, etc.: well, having whipped it up on /fringe/ and /pol/, I can tell you that what’s going on here has had one intent from the start. As I said, this is an individual process, working by hooking into and then mutually imploding outer forms. The noise is irrelevant, except in so far as it may draw in individuals of relevant aptitudes, who are being targeted. There is a game of forms, mythos and acausalities, a Sinister Dialectic and the learning it brings, but obviously we can’t go into that.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2014 at 3:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    I knew that O9A thing rang a bell. There was a French Occult society linked to Gladio in France and Belgium (linked to Westland Newt Post). They all killed themselves. Also vaguely remember that weird Japanese suicide cult that Sarin gassed the Japanese underground as having links to the CIA (also don’t forget Prop Due – the Italian Masonic lodge being involved with Gladio.

    Order of the solar Temple – http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XStIIDEkEGkC&pg=PA246&lpg=PA246&dq=The+Order+of+the+Solar+Temple+%2B+Gladio&source=bl&ots=2HhDB6tjR5&sig=ku7pzvx2Ay1-YE_hoEGpdooXkbE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4GE6VNCGOZXz8gW9zoHwDg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Propaganda Due – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_Due

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2014 at 4:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • simon Says:

    I’m way out of my league here, both at this site and probably at this thread but I landed here anyway and I’ve had my own – true to me – reasons for looking into some of Myatt’s stuff..

    When i read his most recent personal writings (if you look for them) that speak of his remorse for endless years of hubris and arrogance, and his laments over the passing of his fiance and wife and his old man grief and his self-imposed seclusion and his theatrical ‘silencio’, his self-doubt, his constant self-piteous, self-indulgent confessions of his own fallibility and errors, and his manically-depressed bits of verse, I find it hard to really embrace his other ‘recent writings’ about the pre-Islamic roots of the name Atazoth…and it leaves me intuiting that his numinous and Pathei-Mathos aren’t worth a lot either…other than the knowing that suffering and adversity are real for everyone.

    So, you know, if that’s a 51 yea cycle of evolution, emergence and metamorphosis, I think, for now, I’ll hang onto my ‘outer’ shell and stay underground..

    Because at the end of every day, people, both magic and mundane, really just want peace..and , especially the old ones, don’t really care if the peace that feeds them springs from certainty of nothing or certainty of everything..

    And you cannot tell me Myatt’s repentance is an ability of empathy designed as a necessary game-like move – even if it is – because you’ve already said you’re inspired, not authorized.

    [Reply]

    Kerri Scott Reply:

    In reply to Simon who wrote: “it leaves me intuiting that his numinous and Pathei-Mathos aren’t worth a lot either.”

    In fact, Myatt philosophy of pathei-mathos is, IMO, interesting because its primary virtue is that of personal honor and because it is “a contemporary mystical pagan philosophy in the [Western] classical tradition, and thus one which dispenses with all the unnecessary accretions, and misunderstandings, of the past century that have become attached to modern paganism.” Source of quote – http://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/an-honourable-paganus-cultured-way-of-life/

    [Reply]

    simon Reply:

    ‘virtue’ and ‘honor’ cannot be correctly attributed to someone, who, despite his words of repentance and regret for past wrongdoings, continues to lie and hide the truth about himself from others. Virtue and honor have no credibility without honesty…

    Anyone can paint an ethos full of symbols and pathways to change and truth…but, you know, with myatt, I can’t see the picture for the noise of his lies..

    If his system of honor allows for the deception and manipulation of others, that he or his adherents have arbitrarily named ‘mundanes’, then he is, in my own law, a dishonorable and diminutive man…

    As long as the disguise is in place, he is, himself, along with his construct, a ‘folly’ – in the historical sense of the word

    Genuine personal Honor intrinsically implies courage

    [Reply]

    Kerri Scott Reply:

    You’re apparently basing your pejorative claims about Myatt on the rumor that he is Anton Long and the rumor that his involvement with the O9A went beyond his admission of setting it up, and using it for a few years, in the 1970s as a neo-nazi honeytrap to further his subversive neo-nazi agenda.

    If you consider his writings, re virtue and honor, sans such unproven rumors then a quite different picture emerges.

    Yaya Khayan Reply:

    Hi Kerri, what I do find interesting about the O9A are their views on higher dimension geometry when you approach the acasual (quantum realm ?) where standard physics no longer hold. They are very similar to my personal research in respect to zero squared (-1+1) (+1-1) no-thing producing some-things but the somethings are less than nothing. The has been that never was. All lies can be proven as contradictory but real ‘truths’ cant because they are beyond proof and paradoxical. Real passion beyond love or hate, real justice beyond right or wrong, real morality beyond good or evil etc. Regards.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 14th, 2014 at 10:49 am Reply | Quote
  • Magian Entryist Says:

    Why’s Myatt so important? Did I say I was here to represent Myatt, or try to sell our host on the virtues of Myatt adoration?

    No. I said I was here to talk about a specific hermetic Tradition, a Physis, with roots in Hellenic Greece and Britain, that evolved through the hermetic explosion in the Islamic world (the Picatrix is the source of most Western Grimoires) and whom various forms and individuals may be communicating aspects of today.

    Besides which, I should retract my claim that that article was Myatt’s. Actually it was probably somebody else’s, and Myatt is widely rumored to have been just a good friend of the Oxford don who wrote many of the articles attributed to Anton Long. A certain academic tome which launched said Don’s career was dedicated to Anton Long. Besides, why on earth would disliking somebody’s personal writings bear upon ’embracing’ a historical, etymological article, even if it were theirs?

    As you repeated, I certainly can’t order you to believe this or that; but I can invite those relevant to PLAY the Game which specifically encodes the Tradition and so would make sense of moves, to those with relevant faculties. The Star Game.

    “Because at the end of every day, people, both magic and mundane, really just want peace..and , especially the old ones, don’t really care if the peace that feeds them springs from certainty of nothing or certainty of everything..”

    Not true.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 15th, 2014 at 2:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • simon Says:

    @Magian Entryist

    Besides which, I should retract my claim that that article was Myatt’s. Actually it was probably somebody else’s, and Myatt is widely rumored to have been just a good friend of the Oxford don who wrote many of the articles attributed to Anton Long. A certain academic tome which launched said Don’s career was dedicated to Anton Long.

    Good one!

    Know any knock-knock jokes?

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 16th, 2014 at 1:24 am Reply | Quote
  • simon Says:

    @

    Says you! I’m sorry, but who exactly are you?

    You know who I am. I might be still struggling as an author but my journalistic skills are, I hope, still pretty good..

    Myatt’s philosophy and that of your society are almost two lanes of the same freeway..

    I’ve read the autobiographical material. Both before and after he revised it. I know what is in the original and I know what he chose to remove on his last edit.

    Even his latest version (revised 2013) is extremely telling of the type of character we are dealing with. His sly but proudly admitted ability to change identities at whim… His descriptively-callous treatment of the subject of an old woman’s murder, where he thought it was amusing to anonymously send the investigative researcher a bunch of roses, with a card that was signed; ‘A little devil.’

    It’s not that he found that episode amusing to himself, it’s that he found it just as amusing to tell the world about it…and yet he claims he is now such a penitent man. None of that is funny or clever – it’s just boring, old, run of the mill, ‘psychopath.’

    He quotes anonymous sources to back up his versions of everything. What credence is there in that?

    His opening paragraph of Myngath is almost lyrical and Zen-like in its humility and self-deprecation – but from there on in it’s mostly a barrage of the very hubris he seems to always be decrying. And there’s barely more than an acknowledgement of his father and mother, which is in itself revealing, particularly coupled with the way feels the need to recount all his sexual exploits and highlight his adventures in martial arts.

    Of course, I really do not know who or what Myatt really is, especially at this moment…but, based on his autobiography alone, even a ‘mundane’ psychologist would unwind Myatt’s string of unresolved adolescent issues like he was a runaway ball of string.

    If you aren’t familiar with this stuff then I have great sympathy for you – for your lack of awareness. I just hope you are not too far along this journey to not be able to see – in Myatt (or his construct) – what the end-game might really mean for you as a human being.

    I do sincerely wish the best for you…there’s no one so far gone that they cannot turn around and begin again.

    Keep asking the hard questions and knocking on hard doors – until peace comes..

    [Reply]

    Kerri Scott Reply:

    particularly coupled with the way feels the need to recount all his sexual exploits […] abd based on his autobiography alone, even a mundane psychologist would unwind Myatt’s string of unresolved adolescent issues like he was a runaway ball of string.”

    What an awful lot of prejudiced presumptions you make in respect of Myatt especially as, in respect of his autobiography, he makes it clear that it is just “an aural recollection to a friend, recorded and then transcribed, of SOME events in my wyrdful and sometimes quite eventful life… [and] a concise recalling of some events (with much left unwritten), because it is the essence of this particular life, recalled, that in my fallible view is or rather may be instructive…”

    As for his recalling of events such a sending someone some flowers, you are interpreting things according to a certain bias whereas he, as he writes, is merely being honest about his feelings “at the time”, i.e. about what he felt and did in the past. That you make no distinction between “then” and “now” is perhaps indicative of your bias.

    As for your quip about him “needing to recount all his sexual exploits” – in fact, he simply recounts his selfishness and his dishonourable betrayal of SOME of the women in his life, which is a quite different thing. Again, a certain prejudice in respect of Myatt is evident in your assumption and your comment.

    As for him revising pre-publication (note the term pre-publication) drafts of his autobiography, which drafts he made freely available, so what? Authors often revise their works, and if Myatt was or wanted to be “sly” – as you assume – he wouldn’t have made such pre-publication drafts freely available, would he? The fact that he did make them available points to his honesty.

    You also wrote that “if you aren’t familiar with this stuff then I have great sympathy for you” whereas in fact I have personally known Myatt for some years.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 16th, 2014 at 10:28 am Reply | Quote
  • simon Says:

    Ok, let’s say I agree with the possibility that all your suppositions re my prejudiced assumptions are correct. Let’s say I agree with the possibility that all that you have said re my wrongful interpretations of his ‘recollections’ are right. It is certainly possible I am wrong.

    Where does that leave us?

    Nowhere – except where we began – with no better understanding of Myatt’s person, or his past and present behaviors and associations.

    Why? Because it’s all hearsay – it’s yet one more vain, untested argument in a sea of a trillion threads…

    Even your claim that you know Myatt is as old as the online hills. Just another anonymous, completely unsubstantiated, sighting of the mythical Myatt monster..

    If David is real, and ‘for real’ in his deeply expressed sorrow over the way he has hurt people in the past, including the death’s he may have inadvertently been involved with, then let’s hear and see it outside this flimsy cyber-realm of rumors..

    Ask him, if you know him so well, whether he, himself, is willing to answer hard questions, with a commitment to be utterly honorable in his answers.

    If his remorse for his past is as genuine as he intimates in his writings, I imagine, it would be a cathartic experience to express these things face to face with another human being (one completely outside his own circle and comfort zone), and especially to the world at large. For it was in this world, not the world of the web, where most of his past life was lived and it was in this world that he says his ‘sins’ were committed.

    Or, is he, for whatever reason, still afraid?

    If he is still afraid, then, again, we are back at the beginning, when I said that I believed his numinous and pathei-mathos are not worth much, and certainly should not be heralded as an example or ethos for the aspiration of others.

    If he is genuinely desirous of making amends, let’s start by hearing his voice and seeing his facial expressions, allowing others the chance to intuit his tones and read his body language and discern his real live answers..

    The wui-we doesn’t cut it in the ongoing process of amend-making. Real amends require real action – and, in my own experience (and I’ve had plenty in this area), amends aren’t real if they are not uncomfortable.

    That would be my message, if David were still floating out there somewhere where it could be heard by him: “Are you willing to become a real person again, David?”

    [Reply]

    Kerri Scott Reply:

    You wrote: “If David is real, and ‘for real’ in his deeply expressed sorrow over the way he has hurt people in the past, including the death’s he may have inadvertently been involved with, then let’s hear and see it outside this flimsy cyber-realm of rumors.”

    Perhaps you missed his answers to questions people submitted to him earlier this year? One of the questions was about such “inadvertent deaths”. Here’s the question and the beginning of his answer:

    {quote} Q. In the year 2000 you were accused by a reporter from the BBC Panorama television programme of being “the intellectual who shaped the ideas propelling Copeland on his road to terrorism” and of inspiring him to do what he did. When the reporter then asked whether you had any guilt regarding the loss of life and the horrific injuries caused by Copeland’s nail bombs you replied that you had no comment to make and that what you felt was a private matter. So my question is, would you now be prepared to make a public statement and is there, or was there ever, any guilt regarding that or other things from your past?

    Answer: If by guilt you mean responsibility for some event or act, then yes I accept I was responsible – both directly and indirectly – for causing suffering, during my extremist decades, by what I said, by what I wrote, by what I did, and by what and whom I incited and inspired. There is also regret for having so caused such suffering. {/quote} Source – http://www.davidmyatt.info/dwm-questions-may2014.html

    You wrote: “Ask him, if you know him so well, whether he, himself, is willing to answer hard questions, with a commitment to be utterly honorable in his answers.”

    Why don’t you post the questions you want to ask here?

    If by “utterly honorable answers” you mean public (or even private) admissions that could be used in evidence against him in a court of law then that’ an unreasonable demand isn’t it?

    You wrote: “If he is genuinely desirous of making amends, let’s start by hearing his voice and seeing his facial expressions, allowing others the chance to intuit his tones and read his body language and discern his real live answers.”

    So you’re basically saying that if someone who, out of humility, is reclusive and who shuns publicity doesn’t agree to your request for some sort of televised public interview then he’s not genuine in his expressions of regret, and that a refusal to meet your demands regarding such a public appearance means that all the accusations you’ve made against him must be true.

    I’m sure I’m not the only one who can see the flaw in such a request: “He’s guilty, until he agrees to my demands and proves in public and to my satisfaction – even if it means he must incriminate himself and render himself liable to prosecution in a court if law – that he’s genuinely remorseful.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 17th, 2014 at 1:34 am Reply | Quote
  • simon Says:

    Again, absolute hearsay, no evidence that Myatt answered or, for that matter, has even directly been asked those questions..we could just as easily be dealing with a puppet-ghost perpetuated for the benefits of a devious society…For all anyone really knows, the real reason Myatt might be reclusive is that he is buried in the back of someone’s farm or in a hidden graveyard of shame for neo-nazis..

    As for posting questions here, I have already and, so far, I’ve got back unverifiable air

    I do have other questions that have arisen, but none I’m prepared to ask to an invisible avatar.

    I’m glad you at least inferred he is afraid – of the law courts. It not only implies he still has unresolved guilt but also exposes his personal numinous for what I thought it might be – void of any solid usefulness, like giving a man genuine courage to face life on life’s terms – even if it’s in this mundane (causal) world.

    In my view (at this point of time), it’s likely this fear of justice has played a large part in his present day hermit-status – not so much that he needs time to sit in his backyard, stew over memories, and come up with new ways (games) to save/evolve humanity. I suggest also that this fear of justice could be much of the motivation to his renouncing most of his writings prior to 2011. The laws are tightening in the Magian world…in some nations, soon an incite to violence – even on the web- might very well be treated as an act of terrorism. It is very possible (and I’m willing to be proved wrong by him only) Myatt might be afraid of tightening screws – on all sides.

    With that in mind, I will, after all, ask one question.

    Given that you agree that Myatt admitted to setting up this order in question and given that he has gone sorely out of his way to proclaim loudly (ahem, writing it on the internet) that he is against all forms of extremism, why has he not spoken out openly and publicly against the extremist doctrine of ‘culling’ of this very society he birthed?

    Even if he has thoroughly removed himself from them – it is quite clear that they have not yet removed themselves from him. From their representative writings it is obvious that , to them, he is father and prophet.

    Has it never occurred to him, in his newly found love for humankind, that speaking out publicly against these specific extremist views might go a much longer way in convincing others he really has changed?

    It could also (possibly) allow the said order to find new room to maneuver itself toward its own evolution.

    [Reply]

    Kerri Scott Reply:

    I think the following words by Myatt provide an eloquent riposte to one of the many biased assumptions ‘Simon’ has made about him:

    {quote} The reason why I now do not – and have no desire to – “get involved with social change” (or to “go out into the world and try to give something back” as another correspondent recently expressed it) is the reality of me having made, and knowing and feeling I made, so many mistakes, shown such poor judgement, been so arrogant, so selfish, for so many decades – for most of my adult life. Given this reality, I simply do not trust myself anymore not to cause suffering, not to make even more mistakes, not to show poor judgement again. Just as I know my responsibility, my blame, for those my past mistakes and their human consequences.

    Thus, why would I want to inflict myself on the world anymore? External engagement might in theory (just might) be possible for me again were I to have the guidance, the oversight, of others; a moral authoritative framework provided by good people I could empathize with and trust to guide, advise, correct me. But even then, even then given my past propensity to be hubriatic and selfish, I might veer away from doing what was right. For the simple honest truth is that I now feel, in my very being, that I have no right to, can find no justification for me to – beyond that necessitated by personal honour in the immediacy of the moment – interfere in the lives of others, in however small a way even if my initial motives might be (or seemed to me to be) good. For who I am to judge, decide, things beyond the purvue of empathy and a very personal honour? I am just one fallible exceedingly error-prone human being with a long proven history of impersonal interference, of hubriatic, suffering-causing, and selfish, deeds. Someone who does not trust himself anymore and who values and tries to cultivate wu-wei. Which is the major reason why some months ago I ceased to write (to pontificate) – about anything; leaving me with only some few and sporadic (and soon also to cease) personal correspondences such as this. In effect, I feel I am not – by being reclusive – retreating from the world, just seeking not to inflict my error-prone self on the world, on others. An error-prone self, a person, I admit I now do not like very much.” {/quote} – Source: David Myatt, ‘Understanding and Rejecting Extremism: A Very Strange Peregrination’.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 18th, 2014 at 2:40 am Reply | Quote
  • Kerri Scott Says:

    Simon wrote: “Again, absolute hearsay, no evidence that Myatt answered or, for that matter, has even directly been asked those questions..we could just as easily be dealing with a puppet-ghost perpetuated for the benefits of a devious society.”

    That really is a conspiracy-like assumption, especially given the content of those answers (and other stuff) by Myatt and the fact that his former political opponents, et al, have accepted that such writings are by him as are the weblog and the DM ‘info’ website.

    But I guess that unproven assumption of yours is at least consistent with your apparent desire to believe the worst about him. For it gives you a convenient excuse to reject everything he’s written post-2009.

    Simon wrote: “I’m glad you at least inferred he is afraid – of the law courts”

    That’s another pejorative assumption you’ve made about Myatt – because all that was meant was that the sensible thing to do is not answer questions in a manner that might provide evidence which could potentially be used against you in a court of law.

    There is a difference between being sensible and being ‘afraid’.

    Simon wrote: “In my view (at this point of time), it’s likely this fear of justice has played a large part in his present day hermit-status.”

    Yet another pejorative assumption about Myatt. It really does seem that you’ve made your mind up about him, that you assume the worst about him – and then proceed to interpret everything about him, his deeds and writings, on the basis your imaginary ‘evil’ Myatt.

    In other words, you’re prejudiced against him.

    Simon wrote: “Has it never occurred to him, in his newly found love for humankind, that speaking out publicly against these specific extremist views might go a much longer way in convincing others he really has changed?”

    Has it never occurred to you that his post-2009 writings have done exactly that? Or that those writings – available on his blog, website, and in printed books, are in fact by him? But of course you have a very convenient excuse to reject those writings because you claim they’re not by him and will continue to believe that unless he comes out of retirement and publicly answers your questions.

    Why should he care about what you – or indeed anyone – assume or believe about him? Who are you anyway and why should anyone take your unproven, conspiracy-like, biased claims about Myatt seriously?

    May I suggest that you compare his now reclusive life, his avoidance of publicity, his refusal to comment about current affairs and about political matters – following his rejection of all types of extremism c. 2009 – with the behavior and writings of and the media circus surrounding Stephen Lennon (aka Robinson) since that person’s apparent rejection of extremism. To me, at least, his refusal to engage in public life is consistent with his rejection of extremism and with his recently developed weltanschauung.

    If you believe that Myatt’s regret about and rejection of his extremist past are some sort of ruse, then it follows that you also believe that Myatt’s philosophy of pathei-mathos, his poetry, his published post-2006 letters, his post-2011 writings about extremism – analysing and rejecting all forms of extremism, and thus rejecting intolerance and hatred – as well as his many personal post-2009 essays, are somehow contrived or fake or part of some sinister plot or even written by someone else. Perhaps, therefore, you could write and publish an analysis of those writings and which analysis might some credence to such a belief of yours?

    You might, for instance, begin with analyzing three of his published works: (i) ‘Religion, Empathy, and Pathei-Mathos: Essays and Letters Regarding Spirituality, Humility, and A Learning From Grief’. 2013. 60 pages. ISBN 978-1484097984; (ii) ‘One Vagabond In Exile From The Gods: Some Personal and Metaphysical Musings’. 2014. 46 pages. ISBN 978-1502396105; and (iii) ‘Understanding and Rejecting Extremism: A Very Strange Peregrination’. 58 pages. ISBN 978-1484854266. All three of these works are also available as free pdf files on his blog – davidmyatt.wordpress.com

    It would be most interesting to read your detailed analysis of part’s two and three of his ‘Understanding and Rejecting Extremism’, especially as some of the letters in part three were sent to someone who, apparently, worked for the BBC. Now, you could ‘poke around’ – like a journalist – and find out who that correspondent was.

    Furthermore, your assumptions about David Myatt don’t seem to take into consideration a certain perspective: of him possibly being, for several decades, a State (e.g. MI5) covert operative or asset.

    This perspective – which is just as plausible as your prejudiced unproven assumptions about him – explains his strange life just as well – if not more so – than the rumor that he was Anton Long and thus has been, for all of his life, some sort of “sly satanist” or an evil magus. And “more so” re Column 88, setting up the O9A in the 1970s as a honeytrap, his visits to Northern Ireland during ‘the troubles’, his involvement with Combat 18, the fact he wasn’t prosecuted for his “Aryan terrorist manuals”, him being the mentor of Copeland, his subsequent conversion to Islam, his support for Al Qa’ida and the fact that he wasn’t prosecuted for “inciting Islamic terrorism” despite him justifying suicide attacks and 9/11 and 7/7.

    Now, if we ignore both rumors – of him being Anton Long and him being some sort of covert State operative – and ignore your prejudiced assumptions about his character, then his weird life does make sense in terms of pathei-mathos; that is, as someone who – arrogant in his youth, selfish by nature, and violently involved with extremism – gradually rediscovers his humanity and thence acknowledges his mistakes, develops a rather mystical weltanschauung, and lives a rather reclusive life consistent with that mysticism.

    But I guess nothing I – or anyone – can say, and nothing Myatt has written or will write, will alter your biased perception of the man.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 18th, 2014 at 6:02 am Reply | Quote
  • simon Says:

    I’m sorry, but in your many-paragraphed answer I must have missed the part where David Myatt publicly renounces and condemns ‘culling’.

    To say he doesn’t need to is, in my view, nonsensical, especially in light of his claims that he now only believes in ‘love’. And that it was he who incarnated the mob that spew out this doctrine of murder, violence and incitement to crime, and encourage and promote it as a necessary part of the initiate’s path of adept-ship. He invented the order’s fundamental belief system – including the star game.

    There is no separating Myatt’s overwhelming and permeating influence from the order.

    Does he not have some inherent sense of responsibility and duty as an ‘honorable man’ to speak out for the benefit of this order’s adherents ( who still venerate him like a messiah) and tell them unequivocally it is wrong?

    I understand how you view my bias. Is it possible for you to see that How and Why David can justify not publicly calling for this sick bit of dogma to be abolished might be part of the reason someone like me has some prejudices?

    For me, honestly, it is difficult not to lean towards the conclusion that he is simply playing a typical o9a game of sleight of hand, dodging and weaving between two realities, with one hand trying to avoid the scrutiny of media and law in a world he believes is passing, while with the other, still coaxing aflame the coals of his true passion; a very sinister and murderous society.

    Again, I am wholly willing to be wrong, if David wishes to answer further questions directly.

    But, please understand, hearsay, anonymous avatars and quotes etc are not, in my world, worth anything at all – to anyone – except those who are not really concerned with what is real or true, and who are sold on a path for different reasons altogether ..

    [Reply]

    Kerri Scott Reply:

    You wrote: “There is no separating Myatt’s overwhelming and permeating influence from the order.”

    That is another of your assumptions: an assumption based on an assumption regarding Myatt and the O9A. There is no evidence to support either assumption, which remain just rumor and speculation.

    All Myatt has admitted – consistently from the 1980s on – is that in the early 1970s he was for a short time involved (for the purposes of neo-nazi submersion) with an occult group (which he does not name) which was set up as a neo-nazi honeytrap. Now, if you have actual evidence in support of assumptions and speculations and rumors to the contrary, then do please provide it. Until such evidence is provided it remains speculation and rumor.

    Since your assumption regarding his involvement is just speculation and rumor, why should he make announcements about ‘culling’ or anything to do with the O9A? You might just as well, and just as illogically, assume he was MI5 and take his silence on the matter of such an assumption – regarding such rumors and speculation – as some sort of ‘proof’ that he was MI5.

    You wrote: “I am wholly willing to be wrong, if David wishes to answer further questions directly”.

    In other words, unless and until Myatt agrees to your demand to take part in some sort of media circus – and answers your questions in a way you find satisfactory – you will continue to believe that your unproven (and prejudiced) assumptions and conspiracy theories about him are correct.

    So, I’ll repeat what I asked you: who are you, and why should he care about what you – or indeed anyone – assume or believe about him? He has nothing to prove, while you have no evidence in support of your assumptions and conspiracy theories about him.

    In effect, therefore, it seems you’re committing a local fallacy: the burden of proof. Which burden of evidential proof lies with you.

    What proof have you that his weblog and website are not his? What proof have you that the writings on those sites are not his? What proof have you that his published books – some of which I referenced in a previous reply – were not written by him? What proof have you regarding your assumption of him being Anton Long and being involved with the O9A from the 1980s onward? What proof have you that we was not involved with MI5? What proof have you that he did not corresponded,a few years ago, with someone from the BBC? And so on.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 18th, 2014 at 8:59 am Reply | Quote
  • simon Says:

    Well, there’s proof in plain sight that an intelligent nose will find easily – and there’s proof hidden, which, I am certain time will take care of…

    I didn’t even want to start with the Myatt/Anton Long conglomeration but since you keep raising it and since it’s clear ‘the mad monk’ isn’t making an honest appearance, let’s have just a brief look at a couple of links and let others decide..

    https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/tag/anton-long/

    The intro is offered by KS – hmm, wonder who that might be..and it’s even got a year date underneath; 2014…This intro is all about Pathei-Mathos, the phrase that is continually popping up as a central theme in both the present day writings of Myatt and the writings of 09a (infact, any cursory reading of almost any of the order’s material and Myatt’s will leave the reader with the only conclusion possible; that the two are intrinsically interconnected in the most overt, as well as the most subtle ways)..

    ..but, all that aside lets look further down the page to the next section. We have a picture of Myatt. Above the picture is the title ‘A Modern Mage’. Underneath the picture is the tag description of the picture ‘Mage Myatt’.

    Next line down we have the title ‘Anton Long and the Order of Nine Angles’. Interesting. Click on it. It’s a PDF file.

    https://regardingdavidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/myatt-mage-o9a-v2.pdf

    There we see at the head of the document a much bigger picture of Mage Myatt, with the title of the picture above that reads, “A Modern Mage. Anton Long and the Order of Nine Angles”.

    Same picture, only one says “Mage Myatt’ and the other “Anton Long”..

    Even if you come up with something especially silly to explain that away, the text in the opening paragraphs of both links, mention the ‘pseudonymous Anton Long’ and ‘his strange life’, which is exactly how Myatt describes his own life….Then the lines, a few paragraphs down on the second link, about the Mage’s (Myatt’s) ability to shape shift into various persona’s and identities..There’s so much more to see if you look just a little – or a lot.

    Better scrabble around and do some more editing and revisions – if you want to hold any semblance of a line that Long and Myatt are not one and the same.

    Maybe when you lot were given your shape shifting abilities it was at the expense of your mental faculties.

    The thing with the internet, it can be very hard to get everything – people copy stuff and save it – even from years and years back..people (and some groups) don’t forget either – people tend to remember wrongs done to them or their family..

    Then one day.. a dark figure appears at the door of the home of a weaselly ‘little devil’, with just one announcement, “It is time”, and drags that inconsequential little fellow off through a journey of long, deep darkness, and into an ‘abyss’ quite different from the one he imagined he’d be seeing..

    PS:
    If I came to this thread and I was seriously looking at the Odor of Nine Ankles as a place to hang my hat – I’d think again – At first their words will be white as snow – but the words on the contract you’ll ultimately sign are blacker than the darkest of deeds.

    No-one can say they have not been warned.

    If, on the other hand, you’re already entwined with them, after being recruited to via instar game, and no longer wish to be – either on the internet (with their japes & games etc) or in the 3d world – I can help you, please feel free to contact me.

    [Reply]

    Kerri Scott Reply:

    Simon: I asked you for evidential proof of your assumptions re Myatt and the O9A and you give links to internet texts that do not provide any such proof. Instead of evidential proof, such texts merely repeat the assumption that Myatt=Long and make further speculations, and connections, based on that assumption.

    Indeed, one of texts you linked to clearly states: {quote} “the as yet unproven claim that Anton Long was a pseudonym used by David Myatt and that Myatt set up the ONA in the 1970s and codified “its teachings into a fully developed system of initiation and training for adeptship”. {/quote}

    I find it interesting that you now resort to using such internet texts – written by anonymous individuals or by individuals whose real-world identity is unknown or unverified – in support of your assumptions about Myatt, and yet you previously stated that, in the case of Myatt, such Internet texts are dubious, “unverifiable”, and lack credence.

    So, (i) according to your own criteria, you are – in support of your assumptions – citing dubious, unverifiable texts that lack credence, and (ii) using texts which, in addition to being dubious, unverifiable and lacking credence, do not present any evidential proof whatsoever to support your assumptions.

    Thus, since you have provided no evidential proof, your assumptions about Myatt and the Order of Nine Angles were, and remain, unproven assumptions and/or mere rumors. That some people make and have made the same or similar assumptions – and/or believe the same rumors about him as you do – does not make them true. Indeed, no one has yet provided any evidential proof whatsoever regarding such assumptions and rumors about Myatt.

    The rational – the honorable, the fair – thing therefore is surely to give Myatt the benefit of the doubt.

    As for the O9A, they undoubtedly have a vested interest in propagating the myth that Myatt=Long.

    [Reply]

    Kerri Scott Reply:

    You wrote: “One day.. a dark figure appears at the door of the home of a weaselly ‘little devil’, with just one announcement, “It is time”, and drags that inconsequential little fellow off through a journey of long, deep darkness, and into an ‘abyss’ quite different from the one he imagined he’d be seeing..”

    It’s interesting that you end by resorting to making veiled threats in respect of a person you so clearly dislike and whom for some reason – or because of prejudice – you regard as responsible for “various things”. Perhaps someone will pass such threatening remarks on to the relevant authorities. You can then explain that you were really only outlining the plot of a new novel that you are intending to write…in which even ‘darker figures’ than your doorstepping assailant intervene, with help from the security services of course…

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 18th, 2014 at 1:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • simon Says:

    Dear person going by the name ‘Kerrie Scott’, the first internet texts of the two I linked – that you say I am ‘resorting to using’ – is prefaced by someone going by the initials KS and dated this year..

    Proof is not even a word in play when connecting the Myatt-Long-o9a dots…a monkey with a blunt pencil joins that map in its sleep..

    Still, as far as I’m concerned, the long-myatt issue is so easily provable that it really is a red herring, and one that you would probably prefer to be the battlefront.

    The real matters are what Myatt and the o9a gang might be up to these days, particularly on the internet, using long-developed, tried methods of puzzles and game-playing and deceptiveness to either lure unsuspecting ‘targets’ or to sabotage what they see as obstructions to their short and long term goals. They use right hand path terms and precepts, along with classical pagan traditions to invite conversation with others who may have such things in common, all with the view of gradually, purposefully, gently manipulating the unsuspecting into their sinister fold. And I don’t mean sinister in a nice, esoteric way – I mean sinister as in the classical abstract, lying, devilish, violent, cheating, dishonorable, mafia-like, fundamentally evil way..

    Infact, the o9a will claim to hold to any ‘abstraction’ in order to reach out to someone or some group or some forum and represent themselves in the particular language/ethos of that someone, group or forum – They will use anyone and anything to get a hook into the mouth of a fish and because they are completely amoral it does not matter how it is done.

    To many, they say, if it is power you are after, we’ve got it. Acausal energies that can be experienced via the seven fold way, rituals and the star game. And the thing is, you may well experience acausal energies, but from my own experience and the experience of others, I tell you these energies are powers that are very limited and very temporal. They are themselves disguised and are not, even to many members of the order, what Myatt/others claim they are. I give that they are supernatural powers but they have their own hidden, very insidious purposes. Ultimately they will own and warp your soul, imprisoning you before you are even aware of what has happened.

    As for the heart of the order’s system, not only is culling part of the seven fold way but to manipulate someone else to commit a culling is as if you have done it yourself..

    Read this excerpt from Anton Long:

    “Sometimes a Satanist may undertake a culling – either during a magickal
    ritual or in the real world (e.g. by assassination, manipulating someone to
    do the deed). Whether or not this is done depends on the Destiny of the
    individual Satanist – on whether a particular person or persons need
    removing in order for that Destiny to be attained.
    However, all victims for such removal must be suitable – that is,
    they will be judged as worthless, dross: or be suitable because their
    removal will aid the sinister dialectic. They, of course, will be judged
    and found suitable, Satanically. In practice, this means that once someone
    has been judged to be worthless (in terms of their character and deeds) or
    otherwise found to be suitable for sacrifice, they will be tested in order
    to confirm this judgement/suitability. The tests give them a sporting
    chance. Two or three tests are usually conducted, without the victim’s
    knowledge. Only if they fail these tests will a culling be undertaken, for
    the glory of Satanism in general.
    The “raison d’etre” for Satanic culling, is some people are
    worthless, a liability to evolution, and their removal is healthy: it aids
    the human stock. And thus helps to achieve Satanic goals.
    Further, those chosen really choose themselves, by their deeds –
    they reveal their worthless character or their suitability by what they do,
    or do not do, in real life. Thus, a culling is akin to an act of ‘natural
    justice’, a restoration of the creative imperative.”

    Hear the vile, manipulative words, anyone? This is what you will deal with – sooner or later – if you wish to progress as a satanist of the o9a kind..

    As for claims that Myatt is now well out of the above picture remains utterly untested. You ask why I cannot give this man the benefit of the doubt? I had to laugh at that, I’m sorry.

    How can I, or any reasonable being, give him the benefit of the doubt when a) we cannot even attest to whether he is still on earth and b) he refuses to step briefly into the light, answer a few questions, announce that he no longer has anything to do with o9a and condemn the doctrine of culling and incitement to violence and crime.

    Even the latter two would go quite far – at least, for me. All that he needs is a smartphone or a webcam, 5 minutes of time, followed by a simple youtube upload.

    What is he afraid of? That he’ll become a target. Osama, Snowden and Assange all managed regular video appearances and they either were at one time or still are among the USA’s most wanted men on the planet..

    I mean, in reality, I should have much more reason to be afraid than he does. I’m fully out in the open, attacking the order and its daddy like a bulldog to bone.

    I suspect the difference is that my own pathei-mathos has left me with less attachment to this world’s ‘abstractions’ than myatt’s; that how I leave this earth is less important to me than whether or not my own version of honor is in place when that moment comes. I believe and hope that I will fall down in true honor, unlike these cowardly, grubbers of the o9a, who will all eventually pass too – only they, if they have not turned around, will go out knowing only fear and emptiness – with a soul as void of love as nothingness itself.

    ..Yes, please contact the authorities with claims of my veiled threats. Here’s an assortment of links to get you started.

    http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/about-us/what-we-do/national-cyber-crime-unit

    http://law.jrank.org/pages/700/Computer-Crime-Agencies-focused-on-computer-crimes.html

    http://content.met.police.uk/Article/AntiTerrorist-Hotline/

    https://tips.fbi.gov/
    (This link is a simple, easy to use formatted message carrier, where one can directly supply information and is, or so the rumor goes, regularly swept by other various international agencies – not just the FBI)

    http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/WhatAustraliaisdoing/Pages/TheNationalSecurityHotline.aspx
    (One from my country is probably the best option)

    I encourage you to utilize these links. Use the hotlines – a little more secure than online – or do both is even better.

    You have my details, which makes it easier – and I imagine they will be easily able to match them with the details of my own contacts with them.

    (honor aside – it’s never a bad idea to do the little things to cover one’s own arse)

    [Reply]

    Kerri Scott Reply:

    You wrote: “as far as I’m concerned, the long-myatt issue is so easily provable”

    Yet neither you – nor anyone else – have provided any evidential proof.

    You wrote: “How can I…give him the benefit of the doubt when…he refuses to [do what I demand he does]”

    Giving a person the benefit of the doubt (the presumption of innocence) until incontrovertible evidential proof to the contrary is provided is one of the fundamentals of a civilized society.

    Neither you, nor anyone else, has provided any evidential proof in respect of (i) the rumor he is Anton Long, (ii) the rumor he is and has been, since the 1980’s, connected with the O9A, (iii) the rumor he is still connected with the O9A, (iv) the claim that his post-2009 writings are not his, (v) the rumor that he condones O9A culling, (vi) the rumor that his rejection of extremism and remorse is a subterfuge, (viii) that he is deceased, and so on and so on.

    Thus the answer to “how can you” presume he is innocent until proven guilty is easy: you can be reasonable, civilized, and give him the benefit of the doubt until you (or someone else) provides, or seeks to find and then presents, incontrovertible evidential proof in support of such accusations as you have made.

    Until you provide such proof, your accusations about David Myatt – whatever the personal motive behind them – remain just unproven (and possibly malicious) accusations.

    You wrote: “What is he afraid of?”

    That’s just another of your pejorative assumptions – for you’re basically saying: “if he doesn’t do what I want, then he must be afraid of something.”

    You wrote: “Read this excerpt from Anton Long…”

    So what? Who – according to incontrovertible evidential proof – is Anton Long?

    You wrote: “the first internet texts of the two I linked… is prefaced by someone going by the initials KS and dated this year.”

    So what? Do that alter the fact that you haven’t provided any evidential proof for your accusations about Myatt? No. Does that alter the fact that your assumptions about Myatt are pejorative? No. Does it alter the fact – deducible from what you have written here – that you are biased and prejudiced against (and most probably hate) Myatt? No.

    You wrote: “I should have much more reason to be afraid than he does.”

    1. Given (certainly according to urban legend and possibly also in reality) that the O9A may include or possibly has associated with it certain types of people, then the first part of your statement – that one person has a reason to be afraid – may possibly have some merit.

    2. However, the second part of your statement – that a certain other person may be ‘afraid’ – is just another pejorative assumption, and furthermore – given the violent past of that person, his documented skill in a certain martial art, the fact he possibly has contacts in the security services, and that he is known to always carry a weapon – is an assumption that is contrary to reality. More fiction than fact.

    You wrote: “my own pathei-mathos…”

    Perhaps you could make your fictional version of Myatt the villain of some novel?!

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 19th, 2014 at 3:47 am Reply | Quote
  • simon Says:

    Actually, no, what I wrote (in fullness) was “..as far as I’m concerned, the long-myatt issue is so easily provable that it really is a red herring, and one that you would probably prefer to be the battlefront. ”

    From your increasingly desperate ramblings about ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’, I see my prediction was correct. You’d much rather talk red herrings than fundamentals. Like the sort I raised in my previous post (above)..ie the excerpt from the order’s cowardly, culling doctrine, and my description of other various, present-day japes and ruses that o9a employ online to woo new victims into their murky world.

    NB: Much of what I have written is not for your benefit, ks.

    Just to refresh my warning: Watch out for the o9a associate who comes calling into forums with words of agreement – however harmless or abstract the subject might be. Tis their way. Look at all their fine print. Examine everything. If you are looking for a justifiable ethos of violence then hop on their boat, all the while singing to yourself, ‘it’s the good ship lollypop’. But if you see through their white disguise and into their black heart, then run a mile, and be thankful you missed a free trip on the titanic.

    Back to you, ks; don’t you know that the first precept of internet forums is that ‘nothing is, has or ever shall be proven?’

    Proof and evidence are words that really are only of worth outside this realm..in places where justice sometimes happens.

    As for your last two paragraphs (I blinked past the other mumblings)..

    KS says, “1. Given (certainly according to urban legend and possibly also in reality) that the O9A may include or possibly has associated with it certain types of people, then the first part of your statement – that one person has a reason to be afraid – may possibly have some merit.”

    I say, You already have my details, out in the open, but, feel free to email me for my exact address.

    KS says, “2. However, the second part of your statement – that a certain other person may be ‘afraid’ – is just another pejorative assumption, and furthermore – given the violent past of that person, his documented skill in a certain martial art, the fact he possibly has contacts in the security services, and that he is known to always carry a weapon – is an assumption that is contrary to reality. More fiction than fact.”

    I say, Your highlighting ancient rumors that I did not raise and that may or may not have even circulated about his martial arts skills or propensity for violence or carrying of weapons is so very telling it made me, for a moment, feel genuinely sorry for said ‘certain other person’…

    For some reason it made me think of the Wizard of Oz., at the end, when Dorothy discovers that behind the terrifying light and sound show was a very sad, lonely man..

    I hope that is not true really. That, I think would be almost unbearably sad. I would much rather believe that myatt was, at least, a willing (or even unwilling) masthead for a real society.

    Still, whatever the case, your last question to me; “Perhaps you could make your fictional version of Myatt the villain of some novel?!” deepens this sadness immensely…

    To which, I can barely bring myself to whisper ‘no’…

    [Reply]

    Kerri Scott Reply:

    You opined: “what I wrote (in fullness) was ..as far as I’m concerned, the long-myatt issue is so easily provable that it really is a red herring.”

    Ignoratio elenchis. Because now you say “it’s a red herring” after failing to produce any evidential proof of your assumption regarding Myatt being Long. An assumption which you made several times, and an assumption which led you to make various claims regarding Myatt.

    Furthermore, although you state that it is “so easily provable”, you have not supplied at evidential proof that the issue has indeed been proved or that you (or indeed anyone) can “easily” prove it.

    You wrote: “your increasingly desperate ramblings”.

    Most amusing, because this seems to be some attempt by you to deflect attention from your failure to back up your claims and assumptions about Myatt with actual evidence. In fact, your remarks about “increasingly desperate ramblings” actually relate to what you are now writing.

    You wrote: “the excerpt from the order’s cowardly, culling doctrine”

    You obviously either (i) have not properly researched O9A culling, or (ii) you are disseminating disinformation. Because O9A texts – from the 1980s on – make it clear that all potential opfers must be given “a sporting chance” (i.e. three tests) in order to determine their suitability. Furthermore, they are chosen initially – before such tests – on the basis of actual deeds they have done.

    You wrote: “a very sad, lonely man”

    Again, most amusing, and also indicative. Amusing, because your pejorative assumption regarding a particular person is so far from the truth it’s laughable. Indicative, because psychologically it does so help to so portray – to others, and to yourself – your “enemies” as you would like them to be. It’s makes them less scary, less of a threat, if you in your imagination demean and diminish them.

    You also wrote: “my own version of honor.”

    Yes indeed, your version. Which version apparently means (i) that you consider it honorable to believe that someone is guilty even though there is no evidential proof of said guilt, and (ii) that you can judge someone without having personally met and known them for an extended period of time, and (iii) that in respect of Myatt you consider him guilty until he accedes to your demand to participate in some media circus and gives answers that you personally approve of, and (iv) that you can make unproven accusations against, and belittle, someone you have never met, and (v) that you consider that publicly spreading rumors, and making accusations about, someone is an honorable thing to do.

    As for me, I admit I agree with Myatt’s understanding of honor as manifest in his post-2009 philosophy of pathei-mathos, and that: {quote} “honour – by its and our φύσις – is and can only ever be personal, and thus cannot be extracted out from the ‘living moment’ and our participation in the moment” {/quote} and thus implies a personal knowing of individuals.

    Therefore, you can only know if a person is honorable or dishonorable through personally knowing them, and their deeds, over a period of time. Anything else is prejudice, bias, bigotry.

    But perhaps you never bothered to research Myatt’s understanding of honor as manifest in his post-2009 philosophy of pathei-mathos? Possibly because you were and remain biased in respect Myatt and thus irrationally believe that his ‘philosophy of pathei-mathos’ is either some sort of sly jape by him or was actually invented by someone else who just happened to use, for some sinister reason, Myatt’s name…

    On the basis of what you have written – and I admit to making assumptions about you – you comes across as just jealous, envious, of Myatt and his “strange, exeatic, and documented life and accomplishments” which make your own life seem mundane and yourself a very sad man hiding behind vitriolic words directed at perceived enemies…

    Or, perhaps, you are so subsumed with hatred of the man – for some prejudiced reason or because you believe some rumor or rumors about him – that he (or your villainous version of him as Anton Long) has invaded your mind to the detriment of reason and honor and therefore launched you on a crusade and which anti-Myatt crusade you find vivifies you and provides you with a raison d’etre and makes sense of whatever personal tragedies you may have encountered in the past. For most of us need a villain upon whom we can project various things, including our own failings, hatreds, and dark feelings…

    Which would, of course, explain why you seem intent on portraying Myatt in a very derogatory, demeaning, way and contrary to the reality known by people who have personally known Myatt for a while. For it does so help to so portray one’s “enemies” in such derogatory, demeaning, way. And how someone so demeaningly portrays – or thinks of – a hated enemy often betrays what they really think, deep down, about themselves…

    You wrote: “yes, please contact the authorities with claims of my veiled threats.”

    Already done, by “various people”.

    You wrote: “my own pathei-mathos…”

    So just what are your documented experiences, your documented deeds, that led to your pathei-mathos? How do they compare with the documented experiences and documented deeds of Myatt?

    Since you have lambasted Myatt and made assumptions about him, it is apposite – only fitting – to consider how your documented experiences and documented deeds compare to his. Or do you not have any similar documented experiences and deeds?

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 20th, 2014 at 5:01 am Reply | Quote
  • simon Says:

    I’m sorry, I must’ve forgotten to say goodbye.

    KS: Don’t let it worry you, go back to what you are doing and pretend I wasn’t here. If anyone asks me, I’ll tell them that you won.

    As for anyone else who is floating by here, please read this thread carefully to get an inkling about the real spirit behind o9a.

    And, if I can also add a respectful note of caution (not assumption or accusation) that you can totally disregard if you don’t like it. I’m 50 years old now and a dinosaur in many ways. Secrets may be important to your world. It feels good to know things and be enlightened in ways others may not be. In my experience, how we chose to deliver our understanding to others (and what we keep from them) can be more important than what we know.

    ie, case in point, myatt, as a young man, or so his ‘recollections’ go, believes he can save/evolve humanity…What an awesome aspiration… Yet, for whatever reason, it isn’t long before his insights allow him a system of belief that classifies around 95% of the human race as ‘mundanes’ and that justifies murdering human beings on a whim – after, as KS pointed out (above), “giving them a sporting chance”, of course.

    The world and our lives are built on the precept of trouble. There’s always ways to improve things, perhaps. But there is no fixing it – at least, not in the way many of us think there are.

    Things even more essential to life than its troubles, like the path of growing in love for ourselves and for others, are much more real when out in the open.

    Not everything should be encrypted..

    Anyway, the best of everything to you all 🙂

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 20th, 2014 at 10:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kerri Scott Says:

    You wrote: “As for anyone else who is floating by here, please read this thread carefully to get an inkling about the real spirit behind o9a.”

    The Order of Nine Angles watchwords that are relevant re the comments here are: confusion, paradox, uncertainty, propaganda, and laughter.

    Sow confusion, be paradoxical, create uncertainty about certain matters (or individuals), let others be the propagandists, and be amused or amuse (if only mildly) the sagacious.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 21st, 2014 at 5:18 am Reply | Quote
  • simon Says:

    we also have a disclaimer:

    מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין

    [Reply]

    Kerri Scott Reply:

    Perhaps more apposite, in the context of the comments here, is:

    θνητοῖσιν ἀνωΐστων πολέων περ οὐδὲν ἀφραστότερον πέλεται νόου ἀνθρώποισι. (Vitae Homeri)

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 22nd, 2014 at 4:53 am Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    I did not find either of these quotations helpful. Neither Bing nor Google translators was able to render either one evenly remotely comprehensibly.

    [Reply]

    Kerri Scoot Reply:

    A (non-literal) translation of the epigram anciently attributed to Homer is: “Of all the things that mortals fail to understand, the most incomprehensible is human intent.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 22nd, 2014 at 2:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kerri Scott Says:

    A (non-literal) translation of the epigram anciently attributed to Homer is: “Of all the things that mortals fail to understand, the most incomprehensible is human intent.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 22nd, 2014 at 3:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    @Kerri Scott

    Thanks!

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 23rd, 2014 at 2:25 am Reply | Quote
  • Dorothy Says:

    100% accurate Kerri, regarding the Homer quote, especially about this thread. Intentions are not easily seen..

    But intentions aside there’s probably a lot else that can be discerned from the comments.

    [Reply]

    Kerri Scott Reply:

    You wrote: “But intentions aside there’s probably a lot else that can be discerned from the comments.”

    One lives in hope…

    As for discerning things about the O9A, beyond the exoteric, outer, appearance: can or should the O9A be classified under NRx or viewed as not necessarily incompatible with NRx? Possibly, or possibly not: depending of course on how one understands both NRx and the O9A.

    On the “possibly not” side:

    1. There is a disdain, in respect of the O9A, of denotatum, and thus a disdain of the consequent identification with “appearance” (with some-thing, such as a category) rather than the necessary wordless and personal apprehension of beings and Being. Hence, vis-a-vis the O9A, the appellation ‘the sinisterly-numinous tradition’, which is of course itself a denoting implying a “division” and a “belonging” and possibly an “essence” (or some-thing) beyond appearance, and which thus is – esoterically – still fallacious.

    2. There are the exoteric and esoteric techniques designed (recently or anciently) to get the individual to experience – and thus know – a wordless and personal apprehension of beings and Being. Hence, of course, confusion, paradox, uncertainty, propaganda, laughter, pathei-mathos, challenges, insight roles, exeatic living, adversarial dialectics, and an anados.

    On the “possibly” side there is:

    1. A recognition of “mundane-ness”; of the fact that the majority of human beings are still rather primitive (i.e. unintelligent, uncultured) beings who have not significantly changed over the past millennia despite science, education, “the lessons of history”, and so on and so on.

    2. That one possible way to so change this is to (a) evolve, over decades and centuries, individuals individually (via, for example, esoteric – an occult – gnosis) and (b) to champion various ‘aeonic’ concepts, and strategies, as a means of achieving certain strategic goals such as changing such outer forms, or developing new forms, as might evolve significant numbers of humans on a time-scale of a century or two.

    3. Aeonic concepts such as those related to the evolution of the human stock (an evolution than could be conceptualized via culture, intelligence, civilization, and so on), via (and to give just one example) harnessing technology to achieve the goal of space exploration with the consequent development of more diverse, and probably more complex, human civilizations.

    4. The strategy of developing new types of societies, here on Earth, via the ethics of ‘kindred honor’ and the consequent formation of cultures which usurp the authority of “the State”.

    5. The exoteric and esoteric techniques designed (recently or anciently) to get the individual to experience – and thus know – a wordless and personal apprehension of beings and Being. Hence, of course, confusion, paradox, uncertainty, propaganda, laughter, pathei-mathos, challenges, insight roles, exeatic living, adversarial dialectics, and an anados.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 23rd, 2014 at 4:31 am Reply | Quote
  • Toto Says:

    Woof! Woof!

    (non-literal translation) I agree with Dorothy 🙂

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 23rd, 2014 at 4:33 am Reply | Quote
  • Scarecrow (Post-Brain) Says:

    Cool, gang’s all here. Yeah, great quote, Kerrie. So true.

    I like this one of Homer’s;

    I detest that man who hides one thing in the depths of his heart, and speaks forth another.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 23rd, 2014 at 6:54 am Reply | Quote
  • Lion Says:

    Hi all! Ever since I found my courage I like this line from Homer’s ‘The Iliad’

    The skin of the coward changes color all the time..

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Your taste for irony is getting lost under the blizzard of fake identities. Still, I’m enjoying it.

    [Reply]

    Kerri Scott Reply:

    @admin: Agreed. As we get older we tend to ramble on for too long… Time then perhaps to wander off somewhere else.

    τό θ᾽ ὑπέργηρων φυλλάδος ἤδηκατακαρφομένης τρίποδας μὲν ὁδοὺς στείχει παιδὸς δ᾽ οὐδὲν ἀρείων ὄναρ ἡμερόφαντον ἀλαίνει.

    [Reply]

    BluegrassScholar Reply:

    yeah, mosey on, get a new MO with your next avatar, this one’s older than you ‘say’ you are.

    Here’s some other eloquent words more “apposite”

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1095912/posts

    Posted on October 23rd, 2014 at 7:23 am Reply | Quote
  • Tin Man Says:

    Wow! What a reunion!

    My favorite Homer quote:

    Wolves and lambs can enjoy no meeting of the minds.

    It reminded me of another ancient line ….’beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing’.

    With that, it’s an exit from us here in OZ, and I suggest all other lambs do the same…

    (LOL@admin…this is the last one I promise – And I really do hope the irony isn’t lost on everyone)

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 23rd, 2014 at 8:46 am Reply | Quote
  • simon Says:

    Peter A. Taylor said:

    “I did not find either of these quotations helpful. Neither Bing nor Google translators was able to render either one evenly remotely comprehensibly.”

    Sorry for delay in answering, Peter.

    מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין is an idiom and won’t translate well with google.

    It is a phrase from the Hebrew bible. It appeared on the wall of a king, after being written there by a disembodied hand, immediately before the king’s end

    The story is where we get both of the English phrases, ‘The writing is in the wall’ and ‘Your number is up.’

    [Reply]

    Kerri Scott Reply:

    LXX: μανη θεκελ φαρες.

    The content and context of the two chosen quotations perhaps well sums up our differences, in terms of φύσις and otherwise. The content of one being somewhat harsh, certainly masculous; the other, certainly philosophical, somewhat reflective.

    [Reply]

    simon Reply:

    ..thanks for the compliment; ‘philosophical’ and ‘reflective’ are words I can live with….

    This previous quotation from one of your earlier posts is what sums up our differences.

    “You obviously either (i) have not properly researched O9A culling, or (ii) you are disseminating disinformation. Because O9A texts – from the 1980s on – make it clear that all potential opfers must be given “a sporting chance” (i.e. three tests) in order to determine their suitability. Furthermore, they are chosen initially – before such tests – on the basis of actual deeds they have done.”

    For clarification (for anyone who remains interested), ‘culling’ means killing and the word ‘opfer’, well, you can check out its meaning yourself:

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=opfer

    and btw, don’t be so hard on yourself, I wouldn’t remotely describe you as masculous, kerri

    [Reply]

    Kerri Scott Reply:

    It is most amusing, as well as possibly indicative re your φύσις, that you – jocularly or otherwise – associate yourself with my quotation (and its philosophical, reflective context and meaning) while attempting to dissociate yourself from your quotation (and its harsh, masculous context and meaning). Enough said, already.

    Kerri Scott Reply:

    @Simon: It is (or so it seems to me, at least) perhaps indicative that you resort to linking to some un-scholarly, uncultured, internet definition of a word such as opfer rather than to (a) its scholarly meaning and (b) its esoteric meaning as evidenced by a scholarly study of ancient texts from the Hellenic, to the Christian, to the gnostic, to the alchemical, to its relevance in European paganus religiosity, to its etymology.

    One hint, from so many: Negel, Joachim: “Ambivalentes Opfer: Studien zur Symbolik, Dialektik und Aporetik eines theologischen Fundamentalbegriffs” (Paderborn, München, 2005).

    Posted on October 23rd, 2014 at 10:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • simon Says:

    Yeah, ‘most amusing’ … I can just hear your laughter through your chattering teeth

    [Reply]

    Kerri Scott Reply:

    You wrote: “I can just hear your laughter through your chattering teeth.”

    If you psychologically need to so make such a pejorative and unwarranted assumption about someone whom you have declared (or whom you assume or believe) is your “enemy”, then you do. Which assumption surely is, of itself, indicative.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 24th, 2014 at 12:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • simon Says:

    Yes, ‘sacrifice’ makes everything better…so glad you explained that one

    May I suggest that before posting you try saying this stuff out loud, while looking at yourself in the mirror..you know, just as an experiment.

    I don’t remember ever encountering someone within whom the marriage of intelligence and lack of awareness was so successful.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 24th, 2014 at 12:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • simon Says:

    “My enemy?” You wish, lol. I bet you’ve lain awake for half your life dreaming up ways to gain such acknowledgment.

    [Reply]

    Kerri Scott Reply:

    Simon opined:

    1. “Yes, sacrifice makes everything better”.

    Which (IMO) is a propagandistic attempt at deflection which obviously does not (i) address the issue of you offering an internet (i.e. a mundane) definition of opfer, and (ii) of there being – as I indicated – a scholarly interpretation of the term.

    2. “I bet you’ve lain awake for half your life dreaming up ways to gain such acknowledgment.”

    Which is yet more of the same – and now so obviously psychologically needed – pejorative and unwarranted assumptions by you about someone, or about “various individuals” concatenated (via your imagination) into one “enemy”.

    As someone once wrote: ταῦτα πρώτως οὐκ ὀρθῶς οὐδ᾽ ἀληθῶς ἀξιοῦται πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ οὐ δούλου τὸ ‘μὴ λέγειν ἅ τις φρονεῖ,’ ἀλλὰ νοῦν ἔχοντος ἀνδρὸς ἐν καιροῖς καὶ πράγμασιν ἐχεμυθίαςκαὶ σιωπῆς δεομένοις ὥσπερ αὐτὸς ἀλλαχόθι βέλτιον εἴρηκε σιγᾶν θ᾽ ὅπου δεῖ καὶ λέγειν ἵν᾽ ἀσφαλές

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 24th, 2014 at 12:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • simon Says:

    The constant need to differentiate (heighten) oneself above the masses of ‘mundanes’ is clinically textbook. There are many in our contemporary world who understand this at a blink. (Tis not the first time..)

    Could it be you just would like to be taller? I mean, I got an email the other day from a company that offers that type of service. I could pass it on..

    “Persons of high self-esteem are not driven to make themselves superior to others; they do not seek to prove their value by measuring themselves against a comparative standard. Their joy is being who they are, not in being better than someone else.”

    Dr. Nathaniel Branden (psychotherapist/author)

    Although, I cannot recommend him with 100% confidence..(psst: I’ve heard an unconfirmed rumor he’s a mundane.)

    [Reply]

    Kerri Scott Reply:

    Simon opined: “Could it be you just would like to be taller?”

    Yet another pejorative assumption by you, which (as with all your other such assumptions about me and other individuals you have never met, and your argumentum ad hominem) simply amount to diversionary tactics. The topic is the O9A, about which you have demonstrated a singular lack of understanding, with such tactics employed when such a misunderstanding by you is mentioned or revealed, a recent example being the term opfer, and earlier ones your many pejorative (evidentially unproven) assumptions regarding Myatt.

    Thus the answer as to why I have not responded to many of your diversionary comments/pejorative assumptions should be obvious. But here is the two-part answer anyway: (i) because they’re irrelevant, and (ii) because, given their nature, they are IMO undeserving of a reply.

    As for aforementioned indicative and pejorative assumption of yours re “height”, it is most indicative since (i) you have apparently (and amusingly) assumed that I am a particular person, and (ii) you have made such a claim about the height of that particular person many many times before, and (iii) such a claim, in respect of that person, is quite contrary to the proven reality, and (iv) that particular claim, and the many pejorative assumptions and other claims (and threats) made by you regarding said person indicate both an obsession with and a hatred of said person.

    That said, I’m no longer expecting a serious – let alone a scholarly – debate with you either about the O9A or about it’s relation, if any, to NRx.

    [Reply]

    simon Reply:

    ..maybe you think too much… i gave up imagining you were anybody in particular quite a while back…as for the height comment, it was just my intention to use it to highlight the issue of this fallacious ideology of superiority over others…Actually, I was thinking of Adolf, who had a poor body image while he was growing up, being that he was of short stature and slight build and with only one nut. Sorry, using ‘nut’ is UN-scholarly of me. He only had one testicle. That of course does not relate to you at all so cannot possibly be offensive. As you, being a woman, have no testicles…(unless, kerri, that’s another secret society you’re part of ….)

    As for my hatred and obsession of said person, again, I must say that I do not doubt that for him and you such acknowledgement has probably been a lifetime pursuit. In the absence of real, genuine validation – especially as a child – becoming someone’s scourge or enemy is, very nearly, the next best thing.

    But alas, I am not capable of the hatred you ascribe to me. I am very capable of hating a cowardly and cruel ideology, though. And I will stand in the gap, unmoving, on behalf of those who have or would be the victims of such an ideology. I am not alone in this.

    I cannot comment on NRx’s. I have said some things here that I hope some, at least, heard. I think anyone bothering to read this thread would recognize me as someone who knows just a few things about a few things. I wish Outside in nothing but the best in their goals and dreams for a better world.

    Threats of the kind you think I made are filtered through a distorted perception. They were of a spiritual nature. ‘Sow the wind reap the whirlwind’. Like clockwork.

    It was never a scholarly debate. It is within the realm of the invisible.

    Again, as before, I offer help if you ever find the bondage you are in too overwhelming and if you truly want to be free.

    [Reply]

    Kerri Scott Reply:

    You wrote: “I cannot comment on NRx…”

    …nor, it seems, with any understanding of or insight into the O9A.

    You wrote: “I do not doubt that for him and you such acknowledgement has probably been a lifetime pursuit. In the absence of real, genuine validation – especially as a child – becoming someone’s scourge or enemy is, very nearly, the next best thing.”

    Your hubriatic phrase – “I do not doubt” – is indicative, because yet again you (i) are indulging in diversionary tactics/propaganda, and (ii) are making biased assumptions about individuals you have never met. Indicative especially in relation to your continuing remarks and assumptions about (and apparent obsession with) DM given your failure to answer a previous relevant question of mine: since you have lambasted Myatt and have made and continue to make assumptions about him without providing any evidential proof whatsoever, it is only fitting to consider how your documented experiences and documented deeds compare to his. Or do you not have any similar documented – and both ‘sinister’ and ‘numinous’ – experiences and deeds?

    But now, and for the benefit of others who may be reading these comments, to return to the topic in question: the paradoxical, confusing, enigmatic, adversarial, O9A.

    For, in respect of some of the things that ‘Anton Long’ may have written: τὰ κατὰ τὸν ω9α ἤτοι ἱστορικῶς ἐκληπτέον ἢ πλασματικῶς καὶ ὑποθετικῶς διὰ τὸ εὐπρόσωπον τοῦ λόγου. Which, in a peripheral yet possibly interesting not to mention paradoxical way, may also go some way to explain the O9A mythos that seems to be developing incorporating as it does the weird life of a certain person.

    Which developing mythos is aided (in however small a way) by comments (‘propaganda’) such as yours (and, to a much lesser extent, by ripostes such as mine), generating as they do – among other things – interest in that mythos and that individual. With the sagacious, of course, being “inclined to dismiss the pretensions of the individual intellect and will” (and see through such propaganda) to thus make (or discover) the necessary ‘dark connexions’, with such propaganda also serving to fool, distract, confuse and lead away those naturally inclined toward mundane-ness or possessed of a mundane Φύσις. Which rather neatly brings us full circle.

    ultraZEN Reply:

    Okay, Simon. As an outsider to this ‘discussion’, I must confess that your ‘arguments’ appear increasingly hard to dechiffer as anything else than juvenile self-congratulatory and pompous shallow pop-psychology analysis of perceived subjects (ie. Myatt, ONA).

    Now you even declare that you stand, as some mighty guardian knight, “in the gap, unmoving”, on behalf of past and future ‘victims’. And what a shining sword you wield! Slashing, evading and swirling, with self-importance and imagined moral superiority as your shield, dashing out ad hominems and dancing away from trivialities such as civility and scholary understanding.

    Slash! Slash! Adolf Hitler’s missing testicles! Slash! Slash! Love and understanding! Slash! Slash! Within the realm of the invisible! Slash! Slash! Slash!

    Posted on October 24th, 2014 at 11:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • simon Says:

    How come you quoted all my lines except this one?

    “I don’t remember ever encountering someone within whom the marriage of intelligence and lack of awareness was so successful.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 24th, 2014 at 11:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • simon Says:

    well, I understand your POV, UltraZen, and if I was looking on from your angle, I’m sure I would agree.

    I hope there is enough room to allow time to answer some questions.

    and for that matter, Kerri, comparisons of deeds done.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 25th, 2014 at 11:48 am Reply | Quote
  • Kerri Scott Says:

    “@simon ‘arguments’ appear increasingly hard to dechiffer as anything else than juvenile self-congratulatory and pompous shallow pop-psychology analysis of perceived subjects (ie. Myatt, ONA).”

    Agreed, ultraZEN.

    Furthermore, perhaps Simon doesn’t appreciate that some O9A’ers – like some NRx’ers – are “inclined towards arcane cultural games”. Indeed, it is possible to argue that Anton Long has been playing one particular arcane cultural game, of his own devising, for over four decades – and I don’t, of course, mean The Star Game.

    Is Anton Long’s arcane cultural game (manifest as it in both the O9A and in his own strange ‘sinister-numinous’ life) part of – and a positive contribution to – what has been termed Western civilization, going back as that civilization does to classical Greek culture with its pagan, exeatic, yet scholarly/rational ethos? Possibly…

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 25th, 2014 at 5:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kung Fu Tzu Says:

    No research into the vast psychological domain and labyrinthos of the Order of Nine Angles is technically “complete” without reading the writings and musings of “Kryptonymus”:

    1. https://archive.org/details/NexionZine1.3
    2. https://archive.org/details/NexionZine2.1

    She is a Traditionalist, Monarchist, Neo-Feudalist, has Fascist leanings, writes extensively about Enlightenment, disbelieves in democracy, representative government, and modern materialist science.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 12th, 2015 at 3:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • Vague Pronouns – ossipago Says:

    […] to a statement of ethics I’ve been able to extract from this blog is a statement in the post Occult Xenosystems “Xenosystems micro-ethics is uncomfortable with soliciting belief (or invoking expectations […]

    Posted on August 17th, 2016 at 9:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • neocameralism and constitutions – Antinomia Imediata Says:

    […] of the universe and horrorism that accompanies XS’s writing are not mere musings (I mean, seriously). mythology helps us think (as this elderly French […]

    Posted on August 31st, 2016 at 7:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • Xenosistemas Ocultos – Outlandish Says:

    […] Original. […]

    Posted on September 4th, 2016 at 11:35 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment