If You Want Me to Believe that Myatt is Dead You’ll Have to Show Me a Body


I was initially notified of Myatt’s purported death by independent correspondents, and I naturally doubted the veracity of the claim to begin with (as I’m told that most people did). Once I became aware that the source of the claim was the author of “Sinister Polemics,” I became certain that the claim was a “jape” (that word means prank).

The reason that I put the word “jape” in quotations is that the japes made by the ONA are most often of a particular kind and the ONA is renowned for making them. If you are familiar with the website Scribd, you may know that the individual who posts those massive stashes of the ONA literature there there named himself “Dark Japer,” which is symptomatic of exactly how renowned the ONA’s pranks are. As is outlined in the essay Labyrinthos Mythologicus regarding the ONA’s tendency to conduct japes, it is specified that part of the intent behind them is “to test and select candidates.”

Examples of such japes occur in the ONA’s allegories. In Falcifer – Lord of Darkness, the protagonist Conrad is invited to a ritual by the nexion that he aspires to join. He participates in a simple ritual and is afterwards asked what he thought of it by Tanith, a senior member of the nexion (specifically the one who takes his virginity and convinces him to try alcohol for the first time). Conrad says that it was nothing special, that it was simple and unimpressive. He then manages to deduce that the ritual was deliberately made to be ineffectual as a test of Conrad’s spiritual faculties. If he could not sense the energy of a rite he would not make a suitable initiate.

Another such test is carried out in Balocraft of Baphomet – Grullyan’s Tale. The protagonist, Grullyan, who is being tested for his merits by the nexion considering initiating him, is provided with a time and place to meet up with a female member of the nexion. The female does not show, but an unassuming senior member of the nexion (once again an elderly woman) is watching him and using her spiritual faculties to follow his train of thought. After Grullyan makes up his mind to continue seeking initiation into the nexion, the woman, an empath, approaches him to converse.

Both protagonists deduce on their own that they are being tested and are thus shown to be worthy, “for like attracts like… If they have our particular character, they will just know, and thus understand beyond the words and disinformation that we have spewn forth,” as was written in Labyrinthos Mythologicus.

The Labyrinthos Mythologicus is the internet installment of the ONA’s tendency to test via jape. It is a web of disinformation which prospective initiates are required to see through, and a witch can “size up” a would-be Niner by seeing if he adheres to such disinformation. These japes are categorically different from the chicanery of Sinister Polemics, which is nothing more than self-indulgent faggotry, as I will substantiate.

If you follow my blog, you may remember that I posted a now-redacted article wherein I criticized modern ONA writers for holding up Michael Aquino and Anton LaVey as examples of non-ONA Satanism when they are no longer involved in it and no longer relevant. Criticizing LaVey in 2016 instead of criticizing, for example, Diane Vera or Ego Diabolus, suggests that the author has not actually studied non-ONA Satanism in depth and has rejected it just for the sake of conforming to Long’s teachings. Criticizing LaVey and Aquino, especially when you are writing for an ONA audience, is beating a dead horse. If the criticisms are merely reiterations of Anton Long (as they so often are), this reveals a lack of independent insight, and if an ONA author does so on multiple occasions, it is indicative of their irrelevance.

These observations were not made to talk about any group or person in particular, and I was not actually aware of how constantly SP opines about LaVey. She promptly wrote about me on her blog, excluding my name and not addressing my arguments, and revealing her character in several ways.

The essay was called Satanism Plebianized and O9A Pretenders, and it began as follows. “Contrary to the recent dehortations of some O9A critics, and in line with the polemical (and mischievous) nature of this blog, we republish here a 144 page pdf compilation containing old polemics which several years ago caused considerable controversy (and anger and annoyance) in certain Occult circles.”

A. A. Morain had told me on a prior occasion that SP was just a troll, and it was clear when I read this article that I had doubted his statements in vain.

One person whom the author (she refers to herself in the first person singular) has annoyed repeatedly is long-time ONA commentater Anna Czereda, who has referred to SP as a “bullshitter” and a “propaganist” multiple times on her blog. In her recent article Mad as a Hatter, Czereda recounts the “piles and piles” of insulting essays that SP wrote about Ryan Anschauung. Anschauung was deduced to be a fake Niner by various authorities for various reasons, so I was not surprised to learn that SP had hopped on the band wagon and spent countless hours regurgitating criticisms of him.

In the comments, SP wrote “Thank you, my dear, for yet again responding” and reminded us that her blog “is devoted, in the main, to polemics.” Remember, reader, that the word polemics just means controversy, and controversy just means attention. SP also objects to the “vulgarity” of Czereda’s criticisms. R. Parker once criticized Anschauung for devolving into vulgarity and vituperation with Niners he disagreed with online. SP is just aping this criticism because it does not require legitimate insight.

Czereda proceeds to respond and rebut SP’s faggotry. In a lame attempt to argue, SP uses an all-too-common and juvenile internet debate tactic: “Yay! You responded and our stats are bosted by three more views”. SP argues then that her constant attempts to piss people off on the internet “serve a useful purpose,” but since she also states that “the old crowd, the real OG – PointyHat, DarkLogos, et al – retired from such disputations on the internet”, leaving us to question exactly how useful this nonsense is.

SP then copy and pastes an old list of questions about Hebdomadry which are supposed to serve as a Niner-legitimacy test, despite the fact that such questions were topically irrelevant. She also whines about Czereda’s use of insults, calling them ad hominems (despite the fact said insults accompanied arguments instead of replacing them) because parroting internet memes is fun, and then goes on to repeatedly insulting Czereda for claiming to be a Christian, a claim which SP takes at face value for some ineffable reason. SP also wrote an article on her own blog about Czereda, wherein she tries again to prove Czereda’s illegitimacy by copy and pasting a post about her from an internet forum.

Now, we understand clearly that SP is just an attention-desperate shitstarter who constantly congratulates herself for advancing the “Sinister Dialectic” by way of picking internet fights and not using curse words (because daddy Parker told her that all the cool kids don’t cuss). Since we know that she only blogs to spread controversy and pat herself on the back for it, is there really any question that her claims of Myatt’s death are false? Her essay claiming that Myatt was dead was only a four or five paragraphs long instead of the remorseful eulogy that a post on that topic should be (unlike her astoundingly verbose comments on Czereda’s article), and no source is cited.

This “jape” of hers would be garbage even if it was not carried out so poorly. It was made in poor taste by a puerile and pretentious brat and it served no practical purpose. While I abbreviated much substantiation in this article for brevity, I am certain that what I provided is enough to shatter SP’s perceived credibility, not that Czereda has failed to do so herself.


V.K. Jehannum
2016 Anno Maleficarum



46 thoughts on “If You Want Me to Believe that Myatt is Dead You’ll Have to Show Me a Body

  1. It’s fun when someone gives just one meaning of terms such as “jape” and “polemic”, neglecting as they apparently seem to do the other meanings of such terms and thus neglecting the richness and diversity of the English language.

    As for why diatribes against Levey and Aquino? (i) Because they were and they still are influential in the milieux of modern Satanism and what is termed modern Western esotericism. Far more influential than ‘Anton Long’, and far more influential than all those other persons you mentioned put together. (ii) Because the O9A – in terms of both esoteric philosophy and Occult praxis – is a contradiction of the Satanism of Levey and the LHP propounded by Aquino.

    “Posturing?” “BS?” “A test?” The usual internet mantras. You et al seem to miss the points, as others have in the past. It’s about – among other things – irreverence, marketing, propaganda, provoking a response, having fun, being deceptive, sly, offensive, pissing people off, and of course not conforming to what’s come to be expected on ‘satanic’ forums and ‘satanic’ blogs. Is being deceptive, sly, offensive, provocative, mischievous, having fun at the expense of others, and pissing people off (via the internet and otherwise) somehow un-Satanic?


  2. It’s fun when someone pursues just one meaning of terms such as “Hebdomadry” and “the 7FW”, neglecting as they apparently seem to do the fundamentally simple task that is the ONA system and instead spends all their time online exhibiting classic narcissistic neurosis.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. What did I tell you Dave? Give a fool just enough rope and he will hang himself. Each year that passes by you get more childish and senseless with your online cry for attention. With your obsessive attacks on LaVey – who is long dead and can’t defend himself – and Aquino.

      Since 2013 you have successfully turned ONA into a one man – plus many socks – trollfest of “labyrinthos mythologicus,” wordpress vomit, and retarded shit you call “esoteric” stuff of ONA. Like how you explained away pathetically faking your own death as some clever way of revealing to those “in the know” clues about stupid words to stupid questions. LOL.

      I told you Dave that you will be the ruin and death of ONA as long as you hang around. You don’t seem to get it cuz you’re so full of yourself. In the past, the ONA was always good and doing well when it was looked over by people other than you: Beesty, Ford. The ONA did quite well too when you abandoned ONA to pretend to be a extremist Muslim.

      You’re so full of your fucking self you can’t come to realize that everything you have created has gone to shit and never became anything: not your Numinous Way shit, not your Folk Culture shit, not your Reichsfolk shit, not your Islamic shit. You’re a fucking failure: the fruit you bare indicates so.

      You got the touch of a fuck up and a failure Dave: and so long as you hang around ONA and keep doing what you are doing, you’ll ruin ONA as well.

      “Narcissistic neurosis” is a very accurate diagnosis of what you have. You’re so fucking full of yourself, you don’t realize your a fuck up and a failure. You think you’re better than LaVey, Aquino, and Crowley. Delusional dumbfuck.

      Your sock personas are anonymous unverified “people” and you can’t produce anything to prove that they exist: not R. Parker, not Julie Wright, not DarkLogos, none of them. Your stupid autobiography is mostly fabricated shit that will never be verified by any credible sources.

      And you expect people to take the shit you write and say at face value like dumbfucks without any capacity for critical thinking.

      Keep up the good work.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. That you still amusingly assume that “we” are “Dave”, and that you commit the fallacies of argumentum ad nauseam and argumentum ad hominem again and again is sufficient to dismiss your post for the paranoid rant and fantasy that it is.

        Even so, we’ll indulge you for a moment and ask you to favor us with proof, with actual factual evidence, that “we” are “Dave”. What, you haven’t got any actual proof to support that fantasy of yours? How very surprising.


        1. @Dave: You’re so fucking stupid, you can’t see shit LOL. You pretend to be some occult grandmaster with esoteric occult skills. Like you have “aeonic insight” Dave.

          You’re alive right now, and you’re collecting a crowd of people shitting on you, losing respect for you, even from within your own ONA following. And you are alive now to see this. When you are dead in a few years, without you animating your sock personas: Who will fucking defend you?

          You’re done Dave. You will be forgotten and irrelevant when you’re dead… really dead, and not fake dead. And what will happen to the ONA? Same thing that happened to your other creations. The most ONA will do is inspire, influence, and encourage individual people to take what they like from it for establish their own thing… which is what has been happening for a long while now anyways.

          You don’t seem to understand that people today associated with ONA don’t need you, don’t need your labyrinth of bullshit, don’t need your silly esoteric shit, don’t need your silly 10 or 13 questions, don’t need stupid fucking your inner circle.

          What’s you’re stupid inner circle of sockpuppets going to do about this? About people who associate with ONA shitting on you? About me? What are you going to do about it Punk? Fucking lame ass punk. What the fuck are you going to do about. Blog some more emotive shit? You fucking emotional idealist. Fucking faggot. Fuck you and your faggotry.

          What’s amusing Dave is: everytime you are asked to produce evidence to prove to everybody that your sockpuppet personas are real actual people, you deflect and weasel your way into a new subject.

          Learn to fucking communicate constructively: we stick with one thing at a time. I fucking asked you to produce evidence to show everybody that your sockpuppets are real people. If they are real people, then they are REAL “ADEPTS” of ONA. Produce that evidence… that socks like R Parker, Lianna, DarkLogos etc are real flesh and blood people. You can’t. Why not? Here’s why:

          1. They are your sockpuppets.
          2. There is no such thing as an ONA “adept” besides you. Ever since the ONA has been around… during all those decades there has never been an adept. Not even Richard Moult was became one. This is the power whore game you are playing with people. You are a passive aggressive Control Freak. Only you and your makebelieve Old Guards and Inner Circle can ever be ONA adept. And what makes someone an adept? That they have answers to stupid questions. Not what they have done, how sincere they have practiced ONA shit. ONA is a failure: in that it has never created or produced one single actual adept. Because only you Dave and your socks can be adepts… can have that authority you want to hold on to.

          That’s the game I’m talking about. You have handfuls of individuals who sincerely like your ONA… who have even associated with it for decades: and none of them can ever be “adepts” of ONA. No one has ever been an “adept” except you and the sockpuppet people you invent year after year.

          Prove me wrong Dave. Show me and everyone here that at least one of your Old Guard / Inner Circle people is a real person and hence is at least one real ONA adept.

          You can’t. Because I’m right.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. You wrote:
            {quote} You’re done Dave.{/quote}

            You were asked for proof of your claims that “we” are “Dave” and you respond with just another rant. So here’s the bottom line:

            Paranoia: characterized by a delusion or delusions; characterized by unreasonable or excessive suspicion of others. Delusion: a fixed false opinion or belief with regard to objective things.

            You have the unreasonable suspicion that “we” are “Dave”, and it’s an “unreasonable suspicion” because you have no actual evidence, only a suspicion.

            You have the fixed false belief that “Dave” writes about the O9A, puts up blogs about the O9A, and posts on forums about the O9A. It’s a false belief because you have no objective proof to support such a belief, and it’s a fixed belief because you have maintained it for years and continue to write promote it at every opportunity.

            Ergo, you are paranoid, in respect of “Dave”.

            You wrote:
            {quote} I’m right.{/quote}

            Which of course is what every deluded person believes about themselves and about their paranoid delusions.

            Now, where in my library is that book of sorcery in which was that spell which would send demons to give certain nightmares to the already deluded?


          2. “Prove me wrong Dave. Show me and everyone here that at least one of your Old Guard / Inner Circle people is a real person and hence is at least one real ONA adept.”

            Look Ms 352. They don’t have to prove anything to you because they’ve already done it. You know these people personally because you’ve met them at least once. So you know who they are, whether they are all “Davie” or not and whether they are adepts. Just say what you know instead of making up stories. But of course you won’t do that for one of the following reasons or, perhaps, both:

            1. You’re still on the payroll as their troll.
            2. They have something on you that you are afraid they will reveal once you start airing their dirty laundry.


  3. This essay has been remarkably well-received both on Facebook and WordPress, both by rather experienced ONA initiates and the all-too-familiar nobodies. And here I thought this shit would be controversial. I guess it goes to show exactly how unappreciated SP and her antics are.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. You wrote:
      {quote} experienced ONA initiates{/quote}

      By experienced ONA initiates, do you mean “anonymous persons who post stuff about the ONA on blogs and social media” and yet who didn’t know, for example, what Fayen meant until “we” recently published its etymology and who also had no idea about the esoteric importance of certain places in Gilf Kabir until “we” published CB’s note on the Green Damask Room painting and joined some dots about that area in the Sahara? Etcetera, etcetera.

      Is the fact that “we” sporadically release certain esoteric information from ONA aural tradition “hidden” among vast amounts of polemics (and occasionally in humorous stories) intentional? That everyone so far concentrates on – seems only to see – the polemics is interesting.

      You wrote:
      {quote} how unappreciated SP and her antics are{/quote}

      I refer the right honourable person to my previous reply…


      1. Re SP’s comment on initiates not knowing the meaning of fayen as an example- only one person was asked and gave an answer. That he answered erroneously proves nothing.

        It was known that it derives from fagen by all of us. The reference to Hitler was an alternate answer given by an established nexion to an initiate at the beginning of his quest.

        This bizarre, narcissistic online posting (whilst mocking others for online posting) would be amusing to those of us actively pursuing the 7FW were it not so disheartening.

        I truly hope you achieve the aims of the 7FW, which is all we ever hope of everyone who comes to these teachings. Till then, perhaps learn well from DaVinci’s parable of the oyster.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. You wrote:
          {quote} I truly hope you achieve the aims of the 7FW, which is all we ever hope of everyone who comes to these teachings{/quote}

          A truly sensible and contextual reply. Thank you. As “we” mentioned on the SP blog a while ago in the ‘Lighten Up People’ post, we who write the stuff on the SP blog are only at the beginning of our individual ONA quests along the 7FW way; we’re not adepts and never claimed to be. We’re learning; maybe making some mistakes in the process. The polemics we’ve published and the responses and reactions to them – the dialectic, the sparring – are part of this learning. As is our ‘satanist’ approach to having some on-line fun, causing offense, being mischievous and misleading and pissing some people off, including – it seems – some O9A people. We didn’t and don’t really care about the effect on others since we expected other O9A people to “get it” as it seems some have. That some others, outside of the O9A, committed the fallacy of illicit distribution regarding “us” and our blog was most amusing.

          That some paranoid nut with a hatred of “Dave” – who now has yet another “hate Dave” blog – was convinced we are “Dave” is perhaps the most amusing thing so far.

          A few of items we’ve posted – like the one from CB about the Myatt painting – are from sources we know and were published as received without any comments from us.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. @Dave/Sock: For someone admittedly beginning their way on the 7FW, you talk with/about other ONA associates around you – who may have walked the path longer than you – in a very condescending manner; as if your shit don’t stink; as if you know shit they/we don’t know.

            When a person is condescending with another, it gives away a hint at what thoughts and feelings the condescending person hides or harbours Dave. For instance, to “resent” a person and to have “contempt” for a person hints at different social class, perceived or otherwise. People “resent” those above them in social, economic, and political rank. People have “contempt” for those beneath them, who are inferior to them.

            —begin quote—

            That some paranoid nut with a hatred of “Dave” – who now has yet another “hate Dave” blog – was convinced we are “Dave” is perhaps the most amusing thing so far.

            —end quote—

            Not “was” Dave. It’s present tense: “is.” You don’t seem to fully grasp what the ad hominem fallacy actually is in practice Dave.

            Let me help you with that: http://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/

            If you are saying that I am a “paranoid nut” with the intention of dismissing or invalidating my argument or persuading others to dismiss my argument or see such as being invalid because of I am a “paranoid nut” then, yes, that is an ad hominem fallacy.

            You consistently dismiss, deflect, and backpeddle.

            “Mother, tell your children not to walk my way. Tell your children not to hear my words; what they mean, what they say…” — https://youtu.be/-S4Ymixkllk

            This ‘thing’ – this ‘dirty laundry’ – is actually just between me and you: as long as you know in your mind/heart that I know who you are…

            I’ll remind you of an interesting event that took place many years ago Dave:

            Remember long ago in the David Myatt yahoo group? This was back when I was still new to ONA and you as DarkLogos – along with Beesty/Audun – were still helping me and my friends out.

            There was a day when Kris/Ryan of THEM and you as DarkLogos got into some kind of fight. He seemed to be very agitated and angry. I assumed at that time that Kris had difficulty dealing with how you weren’t giving him the same kind of attention you gave him before I entered the picture.

            That one day Kris – in his state of agitation – referred to you as Dave and not DarkLogos, and he said some bizarre things. So I watched how you would act and behave with me this, to see if you would deny being Dave or insist to me that you [DarkLogos] was a real person.

            You wrote me an email that same day Kris went crazy on you, remember? It was a short but telling email; almost honest and sincere; and I honestly appreciated that implied honesty.

            What did you say/write? You said roughly to me: “What do you think about our friend from Oz? You know, Audun is a real other person.”

            And I said back to you roughly: “I know he’s a real other person. Let’s just drop the subject.”

            I said that because it wasn’t important to me who you are and who Audun was. It never mattered, and still doesn’t matter to me who any of these people associated with ONA are in real life. We all have our reasons why we use personas and pseudonyms. What matters and mattered to me was (1) that I learn about o9a from somebody more experienced than myself & (2) that the issue of who we each are needs to be pushed aside so that we can all carry on with Business.

            It’s easy for anybody to know it’s me behind any persona or nym I use. My old friends from the 600 Club and CoD are very good at it. They look for three things: (1) thought patterns, how we present or structure or articulate our thoughts has a signature or fingerprint, (2) the vocabulary [we] automatically use, and lastly (3) writing style.

            I don’t mean how we put our words together when I say “writing style.” What I mean are the little things we do, almost unconsciously when we write. For instance, I have a writing habit [unconscious/automatic] of doing the following things: (1) I use numbers to demarcate my thoughts, just like I’m doing here, (2) when I quote what other people have said or written, which quote is more than a sentence, I circumfix that quote with these: [begin quote] … [end quote], or something similar, (3) I have a very bad habit of capitalizing my Key words, (4) I have a habit of breaking down words etymologically to produce more clarity, (5) I have a habit of supporting what I am trying to get across with examples so the reader can better understand my thoughts; and (6) I have a distinct vocabulary which is peppered with Pali and Sanskrit words. All that is “style” that we usually do automatically or unconsciously, without thinking. These things combined makes it very easy for anybody to tell its me, regardless of what nym or persona I use. Interestingly, points 1-3 are memes/styles I picked up from interacting with “DarkLogos” and reading “his” stuff year after year.

            The same principle applies with you Dave. You have a habit of enumerating your list of thoughts, when you quote you use circumfixes, you have a distinct vocabulary usually peppered with neologisms and Greek, you have a unique thought pattern, etc.

            I don’t hate you Dave. What I hate is authority, special snow-flake inner circles, power games, and a person’s nature of having no sense of Loyalty. Over the years I have grown very disappointed with you because of your lack of simply Loyalty and Honour. You never had anything nice to say about Beesty or Kris, nor Hagur, or Ford, or anybody who helped you. You turned against them. It’s in your nature/physis. And you will turn against any of us, when it benefits you and your interests. You are a weak link Dave. People like you make something like ONA weak.

            My word of advice to you: Tread lightly from now on; there be vipers here. If your faculty of intuition/empathy works, you’ll know deep inside that those who today associate with ONA are growing less reliant on you and your “old guards” and adepts. Like anybody in ONA, you are not irreplaceable. They’ll/we’ll drop you to keep ONA healthy.

            You’ve been given a new length of Rope today Dave.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. You wrote:
              {quote} [Dave] wrote me an email {/quote}

              More paranoid fantasies: come on, post that e-mail from “Dave” complete with headers and of course giving the ‘From’ line. Did this mythical e-mail even exist? Doubtful. Did the ‘From’ line say it was from “Dave”? Of course not. Anyone – any anonymous person – could have sent you some e-mail using any nym. That you believe it was from “Dave” is just a delusion, and really quite amusing.

              You wrote:
              {quote} You turned against them.{/quote}

              That you persist in believing that “Dave” is everywhere, everyone, is paranoia at its best.

              When some O9A people may have said or wrote some negative things against some other people (O9A or otherwise) it was a test. Now, what part of ‘test’ don’t you understand? Heck, the O9A stated from the get go that testing candidates and even “members” was de rigueur. It’s all there, in O9A texts from the 1980s on, including in The Satanic Letters of Stephen Brown. It was a test of character, of loyalty.

              So, here we have it: it seems you may have been “tested” and took it personally, not esoterically, not as an essential part of an Occult quest and not as a means, a technique, to engender self-understanding and self-honesty. Instead, you felt insulted, let down, picked on, humiliated. So noviciate enthusiasm turned to hate.

              In other words, you failed the test and now whinge and whine and threaten via the internet.

              Take two cases: N913 and Mr McD. Both were publicly savaged, were tested according to O9A guidelines. Mr McD took it personally, and ranted and raved, including – incidentally – ranting and raving against “Dave”. N913, however, took some time off, went away, learned from the experience, understood it, and came back with more insight, more understanding, and didn’t rant and rave against “Dave”. Enough said?

              But here’s a thought: why don’t you publicly challenge “Dave” – if he’s still alive – to a duel with deadly weapons somewhere in Gelf Kabir? I’m sure “Dave” – if he’s still alive – would relish such a challenge in such a place, and what a good way it would be for someone to die. So, pistols, or swords?

              Oh, and BTW, Anton Long and CB are still the best of friends, which is unsurprising as CB is AL’s esoteric heir and always has been.


            2. @Dave:

              You said:

              [begin quote]

              It was a test of character, of loyalty.

              So, here we have it: it seems you may have been “tested” …

              [end quote]

              You make stuff up as you go along don’t you Dave? Funny how you start talking about tests of loyalty after I talk about Loyalty.

              Let me ask you a simple question and give you 4 multiple choice answers to pick from:

              A test of Loyalty to what, (A) David Myatt, (B) Anton Long, (C) the ONA, or (D) fellow ONA associates?

              If the answer is (A) then: funny that you of all people should be talking about character of loyalty, testing people for such… Peter.

              [begin quote]

              Then the servant girl who kept the door said to Peter, “You are not also one of this Man’s disciples, are you?”

              He said, “I am not.”

              Now Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. Therefore they said to him, “You are not also one of His disciples, are you?”

              He denied it and said, “I am not!”

              One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of him whose ear Peter cut off, said, “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?” Peter then denied again…

              [end quote]

              When everything was good and calm, you proudly associated with C18 and your comrades, Dave/Peter.

              But when your boy DK did what he did, and the cops and FBI were out for you guys, and the shit hit the fan: you turned your back on your boy DK, and denied anything to do with him and your comrades. Like how Peter turned his back on Christ.

              And during that Panorama interview with you on that bike, you again denied your boy. You had fear in your eyes that day. Had the look of a coward on your face. Rather than show your loyalty for your boys, you tried to save your own ass by denying, evading questions, deflecting, and crying to God: “blah blah blah… it’s between me and God.” And to make things worse for your character, after many decades have passed, you say shit like how people like DK are “dupes.” Not only did you turn your back on him, but you call him a dupe.

              And then you turn your back on your own Race, People, and Culture by becoming a Muslim. And then you turned your back on the Shahada LOL. You took a sacred Oath… and you couldn’t even stay loyal to Allah. You went back to teaching kids Satanism and Devil Worship.

              You turned your back on your best friend RM. Tried to erase him out of ONA history by down playing him, shit talking him, not ever acknowledging his contributions and his marketing efforts back in the day. You say shit like: “Oh, Moult only drew pictures… whereas I wrote 5000 pages! He should stick with art if you ask me.”

              Back in the early days of circa 2005 the ONA was basically only you as “DarkLogos” and Kris of THEM. He looked up to you, saw you as a teacher, put in his effort and energy year after year helping you keep ONA alive. There were times in the David Myatt yahoo group when he even wished you a Happy Father’s Day.

              And you turned your back on him [Kris], betraying him, and throwing him away, saying that he was duped to do your dirty work… like you said about your boy DK.

              And Magister Hagur? He helps keep ONA alive and interesting with his many productions, tarot cards and books. You have no sense of loyalty for him either. Never even once acknowledging his part in ONA and his help in keeping ONA alive.

              There is a saying that goes: “Action speak louder than words.” You do write a whole lot about honour and loyalty, sweet and idealistic. But in action and deed, and the fruit that your action/deed/behaviour bears, you know nothing about Loyalty: Loyalty is not a dharma of your Nature. You can talk and deny all you want, but your actions and their fruit don’t lie.

              And you are “testing” people for their sense of Loyalty???

              Your “inner circle” of socks are testing people to see if they are loyal to you? To a man of your Nature and Character??? Do you think that loyalty is a one way street? Do you actually expect for ONA people to be loyal to you, but you don’t have to return that loyalty?

              If the answer is (B) then: Are you telling me that you and your old sockpuppet guards are testing people to see if they are loyal to – or have the character of being loyal to – a fucking pen name? We all know that “Anton Long” is a fucking pen name and not a person right???

              Test me all you want. I refuse to be loyal to a pen name, which is a non-person.

              If the answer is (C) then: I thought we all clarified and understand that the “ONA” is a collection of writings attributed to Anton Long, a philosophy consisting of circa 5000 pages of stuff?

              Why the fuck are your old guards testing people and/or me to see if they/we are loyal to 5000 pages of writing? Tell me why the hell I need to be tested for this? I can’t just download an ONA PDF and read it? I have to pass a test of loyalty to be able to study Naos? Are you and your old guard sockies looking for people who will be loyal to ideology, rhetoric, doctrines, and your glorified opinions?

              Test me all you want. I refuse to be loyal to written shit. I’ll read the shit, study it and take what I need.

              If the answer is (D) then: There is a difference between me and you Dave. You live in some idealistic utopia, in which there exists no cuss words, no vulgarity. In which you never have fights or arguments with your 3 wives, with your son, grand children, with siblings, with your friend RM.

              I live in the real world. I have a large family, and I live with them. I get into arguments and fights with my siblings, cousins, uncles, and aunts. And I keep it real, like a real human being, where I express my anger, where i use cuss words to burn that anger away, to express that anger. And a day or two after we fight, we’re back to being family, loving each other like usual.

              I have things called friends also. Real friends, not drinking buddies. A “real” friend is a “tested” friend. What I mean by “tested” is that: you know you have a real friend when you and your friend get into a fight, and the next day you are still friends, your friend is still reliable and trustworthy. Because that bond was tight, and as humans, we get angry and fight.

              I can tell the difference between fighting and being angry, from hatred and being disloyal. You can’t.

              I’ve never been disloyal to my family and friends; friends in situ or in cyberspace. I’ll get into arguments with them, use cuss words, but we get over it.

              Dad Dread for example. In the early days I used to troll him, fight with him because he had different opinions than me, I cussed at him, whatever. We get over it, and my bond and loyalty to him is tight.

              I spent a few years in the early days fighting and cussing at Kris/Ryan of THEM. Most people know this. We get over it. I have a lot of respect for Kris and his level of intelligence, and his ability to produce all that he produces. If he asked me for a favour, I’d do it without question.

              Darryl/N913? He talked shit at me a few time. Being human I got angry and fought back, was mean to him, whatever. One day he came to ask me for the underground autobiographies [BS & MS], and I gave it to him. In fact, Darryl was the 2nd or 3rd person I gave those two MSS to.

              I don’t need you or your sock puppet old guards testing me to see if I have any sense of loyalty for my family, in situ friends; for my friends online and for fellow ONA associates. My actions, and the fruit they bear, speak for my affection and loyalty for these people.

              I might now say in writing – talk is cheap – that I am loyal to other ONA associates, but what little shit I have been doing for the past few years should do the talking. It’s symbiosis. I put in what effort and skill I have to promote ONA, to draw attention to it, so that more people take notice and come. In turn, those people find their way to find all of these nexions, find your PDFs to study, find musick ONA people make. And so on. In turn, what part other associates do – according to their proclivities and dharma – also brings people to ONA, and some of those people may find my own writings.

              I’ve never betrayed ONA associates. When wanna-be “leaders” come to ONA to try to make themselves the new leader of ONA, I do what little I can to chase them away. Why? because (1) I know many ONA associates, and they don’t like having leaders, or kissing ass, & (2) because ONA belongs to you and nobody else.

              That’s what Loyalty as a dharma looks like, as a recognizable phenomenon of a persons Nature and Ethos. But you are blind to that Loyalty, and such acts of Loyalty. You have no appreciation for that Loyalty. Because what you look for is the academic who will interview you and write a few paragraphs in their book, so you can reference it to expand your wikipedia article. The little shit we ‘anonymous’ ONA nobodies do to help ONA out, do for you, don’t even register in your mind. Unless they are doing your definition of “loyalty” with you. When you say “loyalty” Dave, what you actually mean in practice is Dick Sucking and Ass Kissing. I don’t do either. When N913 was ass kissing you publicly in the 600 club, you were all over him like a fag, praising him and everything. And, so I’m not surprised that he passed your test of “loyalty.”

              And that idealistic world you live in, make you blind to Loyalty, where you confuse anger, fights, human behaviour for hatred and disloyalty. You suffer from an inferiority complex Dave. You think everybody hates you, and you get all defensive. You live in such a utopian and idealistic mind-set, and you have such thin skin, that people being “real” with you, talking real English with you, makes no sense to you, shorts circuit your idealistic mind, where you think they hate you, want you dead, are jealous of you.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. Still waiting for you provide actual evidence that “we” – and so many others – are “Dave”.

              You wrote:
              {quote} You wrote me an email {/quote}

              Still waiting for you to publish the e-mails with full headers showing they actually were from “Dave”.

              You wrote:
              {quote} You don’t seem to fully grasp what the ad hominem fallacy actually is {/quote}

              Actually one of your many “Dave’s” defined that fallacy more academically some years ago referencing the likes of Habermas, van Eemeren, and academic articles in journals such as Theoria. That you seem to rely on some internet published definition is most moving.

              You wrote:
              {quote}when your boy DK did what he did, and the cops and FBI were out for you guys, and the shit hit the fan: you turned your back on your boy DK, and denied anything to do with him and your comrades. Like how Peter turned his back on Christ. And during that Panorama interview with you on that bike{/quote}

              These stupid allegations and assumptions have been answered before. At the time of the BBC interview DM was still on bail facing serious charges that could have led to a decade or more in prison. He was on bail for over three years while the international investigation into his activities went on, having to regularly report to Charing Cross police station as a condition of that bail.

              He made “no comment” because that’s what sensible people do when facing serious criminal charges and the investigation is on-going. To do otherwise is stupidity. You obviously have no extensive experience of being on the wrong end of law enforcement.

              Also, everyone – from Searchlight anti-fascists to those like Browning who hated Charlie (to whom DM stayed loyal) – knew where DM lived but no one came to face DM in person.

              DM, being loyal to Charlie, attended his trial as did Browning who – contrary to the code – gave evidence against him. Searchlight published a surveillance photos of Myatt at the trial which had a heavy police presence as violence between the different C18 factions was expected. One photo showed Myatt leaving the court, another shows him walking toward the court next to the wife of Charlie’s co-defendant, Martin Cross. Both Martin and Cross were found guilty of murder.

              After one court session several loyal supporters of Charlie, including DM, went looking for Browning and the others to settle scores, but Browning and Co had run away.

              You wrote:
              {quote} I live in the real world. I have a large family…I have things called friends{/quote}

              So says some angry anonymous person who rants via the internet. Yes, we really do believe you.


  4. For any readers who are not involved in this conversation, I do not think that it is a senseless endeavor to study the follies of LaVey and Aquino– in fact, I personally have learned unforgettable lessons in doing so and I would recommend that other LHP initiates seek these lessons as well. With that said, there are only four critiques of these individuals that I can honestly recommend perusing.
    (i) This article written by the late Reverend John Allee: http://www.churchofsatan.org/aslv.html
    (ii) Early critiques by OG ONA initiates, especially the Satanic Letters of Stephen Brown
    (iii) The book Church of Satan by Michael Aquino
    (iv) Any treatise on the subject that I personally write at any point in the future, as I will take great care to be original, informative, and relevant in my writing of it and because I am incredibly familiar with LaVey’s history.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Mr SP, please tell us more about how you’re actually pursuing the 7FW? Give us proofs please. Show everybody that you’re not only the fucking mean nobody hidden behind a screen that you are.

    Tell us about the real causal world.
    Tell us about tangible fact, and not about your polemical bullshits that any true devoted adept doesn’t give a shit about.

    For this is what being an O9A follower is all about.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You wrote:
      {quote}Mr SP… this is what being an O9A follower is all about.{/quote}

      It’s actually Ms SP, thank you. Although to be pedantic it should be the plural of Ms – whatever that is – since the SP blog is a collaboration of a small all female collective.

      AFAIK, (which really should be AFAWK), there’s no such thing as an O9A ‘follower’ only individuals interested in or inspired by O9A theory and/or praxis who – so interested or so inspired – begin their own, unique, Occult, and personal, and often covert, quest. Some follow the praxis of the 7FW, others don’t. Some even create their own O9A-inspired praxis.

      Whatever, and again AFAIK, no proofs are necessary, nor required, whether those asking are anonymous internet individuals or someone in the real world. The only exception – again AFAIK – is if and when some anonymous individual publicly boasts about their O9A status and/or their ‘sinister life’, or assumes or accepts a public position as some sort of “authority on the ONA” and thus drones on to academics and to others about the ONA and/or about their nexion and/or about their “sinister life”. Then we’re entitled to ask for some sort of proof, for the operative words in respect of this exception are “being anonymous” and “publicly”, which “publicly” of course includes e-mail sent to others.


    1. You wrote:
      {quote}Oh cool, more role-play fantasy.{/quote}

      Of course, for you surely must by now have heard of that new D&G style (RPG) board-game called “We’re All Dave Now” which features miniature figures of DM, Mr McD The Moac, Anna C, Michael Ford, Howard Levey, Michael Aquino, Dan Dread, and others, including an assortment of Vampire lesbians not to mention demon-figures such as Shugara and Azanigin.

      The conflict takes places in the mythical land of Nemicu where the forces of ‘good’ – symbolized by characters such as Howard Levey, Michael Aquino, Mr McD The Moac, and Anna C – battle the evil DM, his multitudinous minions, his Vampire lesbians, and demons such as Shugara and Azanigin.

      The game should be in the shops by Xmas.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Oh still obsessing over Anschauung. Just tell me when he raved mad at Myatt. During the entire drama he hardly said anything. Also when did you “test” Darryl/N913? You wrote about him only a couple of sentences and only once. All the flak Darryl got was from other people associating themselves with the ONA. And no it wasn’t a test. He genuinely pissed them off. I’ve seen him in action so cut your crap. He has a natural tendency to invite ridicule and make enemies. I’ve known him since 2011, others even longer.

        If getting butthurt online and disappearing from the internet to lick your wounds is for you passing the ONA test, then you have extremely “high” standards but not my circus, not my monkeys.

        Moac Gazette is run by Chloe for tech lulz. I doubt she is even for real, like you probably aren’t for real. But go on kids, manifest the sinister on the internetz.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Dear Persistent ONA Troll,

          How lovely to hear from you again, and so soon.

          You wrote:
          {quote} still obsessing… getting butthurt… cut your crap… go on kids {/quote}

          Yet more argumentum ad hominem.

          You wrote:
          {quote} no it wasn’t a test…{/quote}

          Thus spake the oracle of the ONA who knows all, sees all, hears all.

          You wrote:
          {quote} Just tell me when he raved mad at Myatt. During the entire drama he hardly said anything{/quote}

          How’s about dozens and dozens of rants on a FB group. How’s about e-mails sent to other people. How’s about accusing “Anton Long” of running a gang of pedophiles, etcetera.

          Of course it could be just a coincidence that he addressed many of his replies to “Dave”, just like the ranter with the anti-Myatt blogs . Also just like those rants his rants were full of silly accusations about DM, some almost identical to those posted on such blogs and now here.

          Love and kisses,

          The apprentice troll.


          1. Yeah I missed you. 🙂

            I don’t know, hear or see all but we’ve been on several networks together. We also had mutual friends on Facebook. Darryl always tends to annoy other people, be they O9A or not.

            So you know…I don’t know it all but I will tell you a secret. There is no such a thing as self-honesty and there has never been. We can achieve much better results by wholeheartedly lying to ourselves and others so Mommy Nature took care that a human mind works in a very funny way. As a result, there is not even one honest person on earth.

            To realize that is to have a real Satanic epiphany. Or call it endorkenment. Endarkenment, sorry. 😛

            Liked by 1 person

          2. @Dave: You were asked a simple question regarding your “test of loyalty.” I even gave you multiple choice answers to pick. Yet you – as per your established tradition – evade, deflect, and weasel your way into new subject matters.

            You can’t answer that question. Cuz you’re a smartass. Because you don’t think before you open your mouth/type. You’re an idealist and a romanticist: when you saw me talking about Loyalty, you liked that idea from an idealistic vector; so you used it – without thinking – to come up with some “test” of loyalty. A sign of senility is when you don’t finish your sentences and thoughts. You forgot to think your silly “tests of loyalty” all the way through. Because what exactly are your “inner circle” of socks doing (1) testing people, & (2) what or whom are they/we being tested for loyalty to. And tell me/us why we need to be loyal to you. Provide a good reason.

            You’re a passive aggressive Control Freak, and that quality of your Nature bleeds through your posts and sockpuppets. “Tests of loyalty?” Only your socks can be “ONA adepts.” Excommunications. If people fail the test, what of them? They aren’t ONA to you? You kick them out? You run around the internet trying to convince people they aren’t ONA? That’s Control Freak behaviour.

            I can’t be my own person and judge for myself that Kris/Ryan – or anybody else – is or isn’t “ONA”? I need the judgement of your holiness? We need to pass tests conducted by your sockpuppet priests and bishops? To study a philosophy? I study Taoism, and nobody tests me to see if I qualify to read the Tao Te Qing? I study Buddhism, and no inner buddhist circle tests me to see if I’m qualified to learn from Buddhism, or if I’m loyal to the buddha??

            As per your tradition, you equivocate at your convenience Dave. ONA is “just a corpus” only when it serves you. Other times ONA is an “organization” run by adepts and inner circles, overseen by you, when such serve your interest. And this behaviour of equivocating at your convenience is very telling. It reveals your self-centered mentality. Your selfish mentality.

            Regarding your socks: We all know its you. It’s been known. Even Monette knew you were behind DarkLogos, etc. I know so because I spent a few months in communication with him. We talk about you, and your sockpuppets. Monette had a “pet name” he calls you by when he talks to me about you and your socks. He referred to you as “Our Fearless Leader,” which is funny because that pet name is lightheartedly sarcastic. Sarcastic because a grown man such as yourself must hide behind an army of sockpuppets to feel comfortable socially interacting with others. Not just an army of socks mind you Dave: “a small, collective of all females.”

            Over the years I interacted with a lot of ONA associates in private. In private all of the associates I encountered know/knew that you are behind your socks like SinisterMoon, DarkLianna, DarkJaper, DarkLogos, DarkThis, DarkThat, R.Parker, Richard Stirling, Racheal Stirling, JB, Kerry Scott, Scott Liddel, Julie Wright, etc. Like Kris/Ryan once told me long ago: “We just play along, out of sympathy or whatever.” You were productive back then.

            You aren’t productive anymore. Since 2013, you have turned the ONA into an institution that spends most of its time writing ONA MSS that attack Anna C, Ryan of THEM, N913, LaVey, Aquino, and 600 Club members LOL. That’s Petty. because you’re petty minded.

            I find it absolutely hard to believe that you [Dave] have 20 people [your socks] around you who spend year after year online defending you from critics, reviewing everything you write, make piles of wordpresses and freesites dedicated to you.

            20 whole people… can you believe that? I can’t. LaVey didn’t even have 20 people defending him and reviewing his writings and making websites dedicated to him. Aquino doesn’t even have 20 satellite people around him. But you do. It would be funny, if it weren’t so pathetic.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. You wrote:
              {quote}@Dave… We all know its you {/quote}

              Still waiting for some actual evidence in respect of your fantasy that “we” – et al – are “Dave”.

              As Anna C said a long while ago in a universe far far away: “[Myatt’s] online communications are controlled by various security agencies, Myatt doesn’t participate in the forums or social networks.”

              You wrote:
              {quote} you’re a passive aggressive Control Freak…you’re a smartass… so pathetic…your selfish mentality…{/quote}

              Anna C said it best: “One can keep throwing mud at Uncle Myatt but it is then quite pointless to call oneself ONA.”

              She also said, a long while ago in a universe far far away: “push him till he breaks.”

              Well, you certainly seem to have been broken and – in possibly some attempt at rehab – you have fixated on “Dave”and for several years have launched tirade and rumor after tirade and rumor about “Dave”. For isn’t it an axiom of pop psychology that fixation on and hatred of a person makes you feel better about yourself and gives you a purpose in life?


  6. Dave ( 39yvr2pmq or whatever ) seems nervous lately.

    Probably, at this point, those interested in ONA can feel that Dave’s approach follows a pattern of selfishness and lust for control…

    Many of them have noticed what Dave ( actually ) tried to do, and, for what it seems, this awareness has unstoppable systemic consequences.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Well… no matter what “Dave” thinks and does, the ONA without him is like Christianity without Baby Jesus. Some have tried this experiment and it didn’t turn out well.

      Sure one can keep throwing mud at Uncle Myatt but it is then quite pointless to call oneself ONA.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. “Dave” and Jesus…
        Hmm…the sociological mechanism of messianism and the inevitable rhetorical despotism. In the shadow of such schema often lurks an inquisitor, don’t you think?

        Plus, there is a problem when the “feet of clay” are so obvious…

        So, are you implying that all people in the “ONAsphere” is dependent of such kind of messianic schema? I don’t know.

        Perhaps call oneself ONA it’s not the important part…

        Probably, for those who honestly resonate with that specific path, the important is:
        “Meanwhile, the 7FW remains as a valid system…”


        1. ““Dave” and Jesus…
          Hmm…the sociological mechanism of messianism and the inevitable rhetorical despotism. In the shadow of such schema often lurks an inquisitor, don’t you think?”

          That blew right over your head.
          As for following the 7-fold Way, there is no need to stick to the path created by the guy or people you hate or despise. Arrange together your own occult path, your own tradition. Crowley did that too. That shouldn’t be difficult. Heck, even LaVey and Aquino did it for better or worse. Shitting on someone while using their work is pathetic.

          That aside, defending poor Kris after the whole three years is a lil bit too late. There is a time and place for everything. I honestly hope you and Ms C are trolling because I doubt anyone is going to take you seriously.


          1. You said:
            “…ONA without him is like Christianity without Baby Jesus.”

            In the context of your own comparison, my question remains: are ONAers, and their esoteric path, dependent of personality cult and messianic vectors?
            It’s a sincere question.

            You said:
            “As for following the 7-fold Way, there is no need to stick to the path created by the guy or people you hate or despise”

            I didn’t said if I follow the “7-fold Way” or not, and…lol, I don’t hate the guy or people who “created” that path. I’m pointing that an excessive controlling behavior, or psychological inflation, etc… – by the creator of a system – can be, and often is, counterproductive for the development and implementation of that system.


            1. I have never encouraged the cult of personality. Everyone should be subject to criticism but this is something different from having emotional meltdown. Besides, we need some evidence that Ms Kerri Scott is Myatt in disguise. I seriously doubt it. Mocking some specific Niners or even members of the Old Guard is one thing but I doubt anyone will also go as far as poop on Myatt or ONA tradition in general.

              Liked by 1 person

      2. Much as I am like to disagree with Anna C she makes a good point here. She has also made some other good points about the O9A and Myatt, one of which was that you have to separate DM the man from the O9A-created myth about him. The man writes stuff like the following taken from his 2015 collection of essays ‘Sarigthersa’: {quote} “The truth is that I am not of any significance, particular or otherwise: being only another emanation of ψυχή; one so fleetingly presenced on this planet we terrans have deigned to term Earth; one whose dying and death is just that of another mortal some years past three score […] Despite my hopes I have so easily – so very easily, month following month these past few years – strayed from what I should have been and now must be: silent, eremitic; living day to day as a vagabond, mindful of my mortal insignificance in the vastness of the Cosmos and dying when and how I die, clutching as I then hope to do the memory of that numinous beauty of personal love which I so briefly and so fortunately shared with several other humans before I in my hubriatic stupidity and selfishness ruined everything.” {/quote}

        So, while some kook seeks to defame DM here and elsewhere, anyone who takes the time to actually read Myatt’s own post-2012 words finds an eloquent rebuttal to the lies the kook spews forth apparently out of hatred and jealousy.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. “Separate DM the man from the O9A-created myth about him. ”

          I personally believe the writings of David Myatt (Also the Post 2012 ones which hold the most significance to me) to be entirely compatible with the Order of Nine Angles as a whole and this, even though David Myatt might not be Anton Long. I do understand that some people could disagree with this.

          I also believe that there is an interesting and healthy ‘Shuffling’ happening for anyone studying and trying to seriously follow the Seven Fold Way. What I mean by that is that the lack of ‘apparent’ authority/organization/head and the abundance of MSS & hints is what could be termed as the ‘Thesis’. There is then a necessary freedom imposed upon the ‘student’ to go out there to experiment, study, adapt, morph, sometimes go back to the MSS and the hints, Sometimes to rebuke them (…) This is the ‘Antithesis’ which leads to the inevitable ‘Synthesis’ (Beyond Abyss, Beyond Denotatum, Fullfiled Wyrd …)

          Needless to say that these three process could be compared to the ‘Tria Prima’ (ego, self, beyond self) and more often than not, take a lifetime. And so I believe it is vain to try and create a boundary between Myatt and the Order of Nine Angles as a whole since there is this constant shuffling between the Thesis and the Antithesis which ultimately breaks free into something greater. Just like a butterfly freeing himself from the cocoon. The same could be said of Christianity perhaps with Jesus christ and the individual ‘faith’ of the follower. A cyclical path instead of a linear one as stated in my article on the Matrix which deals with similar concepts:


          As for Myatt post 2012 emanations, I believe them to be the synthesis, the culmination as Sinister Polemic(s) has already stated in a previous article. Unfortunately, these post 2012 emanations have been surprisingly ignored by most of the O9A community which is a shame since if David Myatt is not Anton Long, they had quite the similar life and lexicon. My humble writings have been dedicated mainly to the ‘Numinous Way’ and the ‘Goodmanian Perspective’ which is in the line of Myatt philosophy. Interestingly, the correlations between certain conclusions O9A and the conclusions of the ‘numinous way’ are extremely similar, if not identical: The necessity of empathy and Pathei-Mathos, The underlying unity of the Cosmos, The logical axiom of the acausal (…)

          Such are my own juvenile conclusions, both theoretical and practical.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. At last, someone else seems to understand and intuit “the essence” of both the O9A and DM. Kudos.

            Perhaps there is, after all, some hope for we humans. For such “hope” is what the 7FW is esoterically, in terms of individuals and aeonically, all about.

            BTW, your conclusions are certainly not “juvenile” but rather are an intimation of the sinisterly-numinous. Would that some others had such insight.

            Liked by 1 person

  7. Meanwhile, the 7FW remains as a valid system, above and beyond the interplay of human emotion and passion. See you all on the path, when you decide to come back to it.

    Liked by 4 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s