Anti-Cosmic Satanism & the O9A: Observations, Contrasts, Criticisms

Various Satanists have been treating the Order of the Nine Angles and the 218 Current as if they were somehow synonymous or congruent forces and groups, largely based on the fact that they are both amoral and Sinistral groups which attempt to further human evolution by co-opting various pre-existent religious forms. These Satanists are very, very mistaken.

For the sake of clarity, Sinistral means Left-Handed. I am aware that the Order of the Nine Angles is not inherently Sinistral, but it is still primarily Left-Handed because the Sinister is what they consider to be the appropriate tool for the correction of the Aeonic flow.

According to the Order of the Nine Angles, this current Aeon is the Thorian Aeon and it has been corrupted at the spiritual level by an infection deriving from Semitic mysticism. While the Order of the Nine Angles wants all current religions and spiritual forms to be completely abandoned by humanity as a whole, but it expresses singular contempt for any spiritual form which is Jewish in origin. This is the reason for the contempt they express for the Goetia and Kabbalah. To them, any use of such methodologies, even when inverted as in Qliphothic Kabbalah, perpetuates the Aeonic distortion.

Update: The overwhelming majority of my critics within the ONA honestly believe that my quarrel with the Order is how “evil” it is, or that I am lamenting its “extremism.” In truth, my objection to their “Sinister Dialectic” is that the majority of its partisans are unfit for the pursuit of an Aeonic agenda. My concern was and always has been that a group which exhibits this level of internal instability is not fit to herald a cultural and political overhaul. Moreover, a group whose majority is apparently unacquainted with the ideology they purport to represent simply has no business conducting nationwide ecumenical efforts. I am earnestly demoralized by the apparent reality that the majority of the ONA is too stupid to read the back of a cereal box.

The reason that the Order of the Nine Angles espouses National Socialism and White Supremacy is that these two political “forms” foster strength and progress and are thus, in their minds, the optimal countermeasures to the social and political manifestations of the Semitic Aeonic infection.

The term “Nine Angles” is a structural description of any connexion between the spiritual/acausal and physical/causal. This connexion, called a nexion, is an intercausal bridge between the four-dimensional causal plane and the five-or-more-dimensional acausal plane. That’s a total of nine or more dimensions (“angles”) coming together.

The word Dhar means “realm” and signifies the four causal angles of a certain kind of nexion, or the causal vehicle through which spiritual forces are manifesting. This current political system is thus, to the O9A, a Magian Dhar, or a sociopolitical manifestation of the Semitic Acausal infection. This is the reason the Order of the Nine Angles champions White Supremacy and National Socialism– it is seen as the most appropriate sociopolitical countermeasure to the Dhar ul-Magi.

The O9A’s political extremism is the leftward-facing swastika of a Neo-Thorian Rebellion. The acausal harbinger-force of the coming Aeon is the Cronian Star-Gate known as Falcifer. This gateway saturates the cosmos with acausality from its position near Saturn. The Romans called this planet “Deus Falcifer,” the Reaper God, and named it after “Satu” or “to sow.”

The Order of the Nine Angles intends to presence the energies of the stellar nexion known as Falcifer within a planetary nexion known as Vindex, a name meaning “the Avenger.” Together, these two nexions form the force of Aeonic transition. The Order of the Nine Angles exoterically describes Vindex as a human insurrectionist who will bring about the upheaval of our Jew-soiled Aeon and government. However, this insurrectionist is just a metaphor– an allegorical myth which sensationalizes their plan for a gradual and voluntary political transition. This transition will beget the Imperium– the Vindexian Dhar ul-Falcifer from which humanity will explore the stars.

The O9A’s version of Satanism is described in their literature as “a presencing of dark forces/acausal energies – a form/mythos – only relevant to the current Aeon.” As racialist fascism is used to undermine the causal Dhar ul-Magi, blasphemous inversions of Christian hymns and sacraments combat the problem acausally. For this purpose, a new Satan is needed: the vengeful son of Yusra-Baphomet whose religion and cult will usher in their Avenger in the garb of an Antichrist. If a Nine-Angled Satanist were to take up Goetic evocations or Qliphothic Kabbalah, they would, in so doing, completely forfeit the perceived Aeonic benefits of Satanism, which benefits are the primary raison d’etre for Nine-Angled Satanism.

With that said, the ONA’s criticisms of Goetic and Qliphothic sorcery are completely insufficient, not to mention outdated. The ONA came into being before the modern Left-Handed systems of Demonolatry, Theistic Satanism, the Draconian Tradition, Traditional Ahrimanism, and Luciferianism. The founder of the ONA based his condemnations of Kabbalah upon his experience with the OTO, so the ONA’s continued use of his theories to debunk the modern Left Hand Path is thoughtless and lazy.

The biased nature of these theories is openly displayed in the allegorical novel Temple of Satan, which personifies black magickal Kabbalah as Ezra Pead, a man who summons the entities of the Tunnels of Set and is given nothing but consistently meaningless and inaccurate information. Ezra also routinely evokes a demonic personification of Gematria, who feeds him more incoherent garbage. Due to my own experience with the Tunnels of Set and Gematria, often performed in groups and in accordance with modern LHP praxis, I say with full confidence that anyone who cannot achieve precise and consistent results through them is failing on their own merits.

I once guided an experienced Niner through the evocation of several entities he did not know were from the Tunnels of Set, and their power greatly impressed him. He later described Ithdabquh’s album “Qliphoth” as the most powerful ritual music he had ever heard, even though he routinely performed Sinister chant by sheet music either with a perfect quartz tetrahedron or an imperfect model of the same which he had smeared in his own blood. This individual can also answer multiple questions from the ONA’s little pop quiz, and, in all honesty, he’s a damn gifted psychic and he managed to channel detailed gnosis about multiple demons. This individual talks shit about the Qliphoth to this day, regardless of the fact that its demons helped him noticeably alleviate his mental issues, which he apparently had not managed to do in his extensive workings with the ONA’s Dark Gods.

The O9A is, in truth, a certain group’s plan to subvert multiple religious and political forms and thereby re-orient them towards the furtherance of their own Aeonic desires. If a Niner tells you that Nine-Angled Satanism is “genuine Satanism” or refers to other denominations of Satanism as “pseudo-Satanists” or “self-described Satanists” in good faith, he is nothing more than an unwitting puppet. Send him this article. And then sacrifice him.

The 218 Current takes many cues from the Order of the Nine Angles, furthering its own aims through countless religious forms. Their primary forms are Thursatru or Norse Devil-Worship, Draconian Sethianism, Anti-Cosmic Satanism, and Sumerian Devil-Worship. In their minds, all of their deities are just causal forms or descriptions of the Anti-Cosmic Impulse. This is why they argue that the Asmodeus of the Qliphoth is likely not the Asmodeus of the Goetia– they consider the entity which they call Satan to be separate from the Satan which most Satanists venerate.

Like the Order of the Nine Angles, the 218 Current aims to end this current Aeon, but their reasoning is very separate. The Order of the Nine Angles believes that their Day of Wrath constitutes the deracination of the Jewish Aeonic infection will unfetter humankind’s evolution and thus allow for our rebirth as homo galacticus– a star-faring race of conquerers governed by Imperium. The 218 Current believes that their Day of Wrath constitutes the forced conclusion of this Aeon will destroy the Cosmos, unfettering humankind’s evolution and thereby allowing the rebirth of whichever humans have reached adepthood as immortal deities of the primordial Khaos. This is why Anti-Cosmic Satanists do not openly endorse terrorism or Nazism the way that the Order of the Nine Angles does. They have no reason to counteract modern sociopolitical trends because they are striving against all of creation itself.

Another difference between the groups is the O9A’s intent to evolve humanity as a species. While they do see most humans are useless imbeciles who are suitable for human sacrifice, they are still humanistic in their goal of creating the homo galacticus. While the 218 Current agrees that most of modern humanity is disposable, they do not seem to work towards their eventual evolutionary betterment.

The reason that I willingly utilize magickal techniques from both groups and analyze and integrate aspects of their demonologies is that I do not view the various descriptions of Asmodeus as being similar causal forms for separate acausal essences. I think that Asmodeus is a coherent entity who, like all gods, is willing to patronize human misunderstandings of his nature and intent out of respect for independent thought. Asmodeus knows that most of his followers’ misconceptions about him will be left behind when we transcend causality.

The first spirit who taught me about necromancy (summoning dead witches specifically) gave me an interesting statement: “There is no light after death.” I asked what he meant. “White witches do not carry their scruples beyond the grave.” Humans, viewing the world through a causally limited philosophy, erect values and morals which an immortal who understands the occurrences of reincarnation and True Will is not going to agree with. Asmodeus is  understanding of the faults and shortcomings which his disciples struggle with, ideologically and otherwise. We are all being patronized in one way or another and we are better off for it.

The 218 Current is trying to destroy something which it does not understand. I’ve sought my own gnosis about the subject and you should too. I work extensively with demons which the 218 Current espouses and I have even repeatedly summoned a prominent member of the 218 Current who has passed after attaining adepthood. I have personally and in-person initiated multiple witches who have gone on to take on to take some of the entities praised in Liber Azerate and Liber Falxifer as their patrons. Two of them have surpassed me and they all denounce the Anti-Cosmic agenda.

As for the Order of the Nine Angles, as one highly intelligent ex-Niner said, “The ONA couldn’t get a pig dirty – they squabble like bitches – act like children – and they want to build spaceships?” I wrote a discussion of the ONA’s puerility and in-fighting which you can read here: https://vkjehannum.wordpress.com/2016/12/23/i-am-leaving-the-order-of-the-nine-angles/ 

While the magickal systems employed by the Order of the Nine Angles and the 218 Current are commendable and I personally incorporate elements of both traditions, I hold the long-term aims of both orders in contempt. Now that I’ve made my point, I need to kill the elephant in the room and address the Lilin Society.

The Lilin Society haphazardly stitches together the agendas of the 218 Current and ONA to form an incoherent philosophy which works to enact systematic disruption in order to construct the Imperium, which they see as a stepping stone to the eventual destruction of the Cosmos. When I was 21 years old, I was appointed to the rank of master in the Lilin Society. I was flattered, but I considered it something of a red flag, especially considering that the vast majority of the inner circle’s other members were relegated to the order’s lowest ranks. After being in the group for about two months, I was the second highest member on the hierarchy and I was asked to join its leading council.

Asha’Shedim has made his real name, John Putigano, publicly known. When one Googles this name, they find that he is the author of the esteemed novels Torture Porn and Torture Porn 2. While a prolific author, Asha’Shedim is not a good one. One would think that the Grand Master lives in a state of perpetual writer’s block, consistently recycling essays and rituals from his older publications to put in his new books. Much of his literature simply regurgitates older O9A material alongside watered-down versions of the MLO’s mythos, usually without personal contributions or original insight. Even the treatise which Asha’Shedim wrote about his own Patron spirit (Belial) is incredibly simplistic, primarily regurgitating Nagash’s treatise on the entity.

A recent publication by Asha’Shedim entitled Mark of Qayin has two one-star reviews. As bad as that is, the final reviewer called it Asha’Shedim’s best work to date and gave it five stars. An even more recent publication entitled Liber Rudra purports to release insights from the Sect of Angra Mainyu, a defunct group which Asha’Shedim was kicked out of many years ago, suggesting that he has not been able to make new breakthroughs without them.  While Mark of Qayin does impart a few decent insights into the spirits of the Goetia, his gnostic revelations pale in comparison to those made by authors such as E.A. Koetting and S. Conolly.

Amazon reviewers still have given a pretty decent number of very positive reviews to his books, even enough that some of his books have more positive reviews than bad ones. Unfortunately, most of the positive reviews describe his books as “good for beginners.”

It appears that the ONA’s contempt for intellectual property strongly influences Putigano’s conduct, as two books of his have been withdrawn for plagiarism– or so the Amazon reviewers say. Steven Bragg alleges that Asha’Shedim plagiarized his work and it would not surprise me if Nagash were to make a similar case.

According to Asha’Shedim’s book Liber Chavajoth, most Satanists experience depression and suicidal ideation, which claims I have not seen evidence for, anecdotally or otherwise. Once, in debating a priestess from a cabal I dislike, I jokingly used the phrase “fuck my life”, to which an adherent of hers who had Down’s Syndrome responded “Fuck my life? Said no Satanist ever!” I am a Southern-raised, five-foot-six twenty-something who has to both attend and volunteer at church to maintain my facade, and I personally do not exhibit either.

Asha’Shedim’s original chants and rituals, while simplistic and unimaginative, are often very powerful, even to an uncanny degree. Unfortunately, a large amount of his rituals are hypothetical human-sacrifice instructions which never have and never will be performed.

Welp, I can stop dodging questions about the Lilin Society now. I’ve written a few more paragraphs worth of revelations about the ONA’s mysticism which I intend to release as a separate essay due to the length and complexity of this one. Stay tuned.

Primary Sources
An Essay called The Practical Esoteric Aims of Traditional Satanism
An Essay Compilation called Nexion – A Guide to Sinister Strategy
An Essay called Aeonic Notes IX
The initial chapters of Liber Azerate
The Temple of the Black Light’s essay Lucifer is Satan

Advertisements

40 thoughts on “Anti-Cosmic Satanism & the O9A: Observations, Contrasts, Criticisms

  1. You know, I’ve been reading about extreme right-wing political movements such as the “alt-right”, white supremacists and neo-fascists as well as Islamists, all of whom seem to have a major problem with Jews for some reason and think that the Western world, if not the world as a whole, is controlled by Jewish elites. I read your account of the ONA’s anti-Semitic and fascistic worldview and I can’t help thinking “why are all of these guys not on the same side?”.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. David Myatt thinks the same. His written a lot of essays encouraging Islamic jihadis and National Socialists to work together. One of the Quran’s best critics is Doctor Bill Warner, and by his count, the Quran dedicates nine percent of its content to Jew-bashing whereas Mein Kampf dedicates seven percent of its content to Jew-bashing.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I suspect the only reason they wouldn’t get along is because of tribal lines, ie racial differences (after all, a white supremacist would probably not make alliances with brown people) and religious differences (mostly centering around Islam, but I imagine some white nationalists would be Christian and refuse to cooperate with Satanists).

        Liked by 2 people

      2. I’d be interested to know if Mr Warner can read the Koran in Arabic and whether he’s also studied books of Ahadith in Arabic. If he can’t then he has to rely on the interpretations of others making his opinions about the Koran and Islam those of a dilettante.

        Like

        1. Your criticism is overly pretentious. But more importantly, it is irrelevant to the point I made by adducing Dr. Warner’s percentile comparisons. The Anti-Semitism which is central to Islam is further instantiated by the common Sufi myth of a certain species of rats having been Israeli people prior to castigation by Allah (this myth originates from outside of the Quran). When ISIS circulated a photograph of three dead Jewish https://widgets.wp.com/notifications/2762400063#children and referred to the deceased as “dead rats”, this was a reference to the Sufi myth. If you would like to contest the observation that Islamic scripture promotes anti-Semitism, you should substantiate that belief rather than adducing the significance of language, which borders on being an argument from ignorance.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. My point was and is that if someone who pontificates in public and in books about the Koran and about Islam can’t read Arabic then that person is just giving his or her ill-informed opinion about such matters since being able to read Arabic is essential to understanding the Koran and Islam.

            So, what is “pretentious” about pointing out that some well-publicised critic of Islam is an ill-informed opinionated person?

            Bill Warner is a pseudonym. The real person hiding behind those anti-Islamic books, articles, and websites is someone called William French who, research reveals, can’t read Arabic; who hasn’t talked to learned Muslim scholars about Islam (most of whom only speak Arabic and their native language such as Pashto, Urdu, and Farsi), and who hasn’t studied Ahadith in Arabic.

            That so many people in the West seem to have been duped by some well-financed anti-Muslim propagandist is quite indicative and rather amusing.

            The really relevant questions are who finances and who hypes such an obvious propagandist, and why do so many people take the opinions of such an ill-informed person seriously.

            Like

            1. “My point was and is that if someone who pontificates in public and in books about the Koran and about Islam can’t read Arabic then that person is just giving his or her ill-informed opinion about such matters since being able to read Arabic is essential to understanding the Koran and Islam.”

              I don’t know what school you attended but using translations is totally permissible even at the academic level, provided you cite your sources. In fact, relying on the research of others, at least partly, is an essential part of the university life and education in general. Being such an “expert” as you are on classical literature and ancient Greek and Roman culture, you partly rely on the archeological findings, which I assume you didn’t conduct yourself. So using your distorted logic, your opinions about the ancient Graeco-Roman world are ill-informed and those of a dilettante because you cannot be 100% sure you haven’t been duped by the wise-heads, the archeologists.

              “So, what is “pretentious” about pointing out that some well-publicised critic of Islam is an ill-informed opinionated person?”

              VK Jehannum’s point was that your criticism is irrelevant. In other words, your argument is fallacious. Just because Warner can’t read Arabic, it doesn’t mean his claims are not valid. I haven’t read his works so I’m not going to discuss them. All I’m saying is that in order for your criticism to be on point and your reasoning to be correct, you have to address the actual points he’s making and, if necessary, provide legitimate counterarguments. Otherwise, all of your opinions are mere illogical ravings of a propagandist.

              Like

          2. You mention percentiles – a statistical analysis – yet the question which remains unasked is what language was used in such an analysis? Since French/Warner – or whoever he is – can’t read Arabic it is a logical assumption that his analysis was done in English. Therefore, what English interpretation of the Koran did he use?

            Since he obviously used an English interpretation of the Koran – where, to give just one example, a particular Arabic word is invariably misinterpreted as “terror” – what value does his statistical analysis have? Not much, if any.

            Now, had French/Warner – or whoever he is – done a statistical analysis of an Arabic Koran then – and let’s say he used the Uthman codex – his analysis might have some scholarly merit for then scholars might find how frequently certain Arabic words and phrases were used. However, such Arabic words and phrases would then still have to be interpreted into English for Westerners who can’t read Arabic. In other words, the interpretations – the opinions – of someone else would be used as the basis for non-Arabic speakers judging the Koran and Islam. Now that’s not being self-reliant is it? Isn’t it better to say/write that we just don’t know than jump to some conclusions based on the opinions of someone else?

            BTW, I assume you’re familiar with Myatt’s essay – titled Translation and Al-Quran – where he (who actually can read and speak Arabic) takes issue with English (mis)interpretations of Koranic verses such as Ayah 151 of Surah Al ‘Imran, and in which essay he goes on to provide his own (more accurate, and quite poetic) interpretation of the Arabic of that Koranic verse: “Into the hearts of they who disbelieve We shall hurl redurre because they, without any authority revealed about such things, associate others with Allah; and for their home: The Fire, that harrowing resting place of the unjust.”

            Some readers may now want to google the word “redurre” but Myatt explains the meaning of the word in the aforementioned essay which he included as part of an appendix to his translation of the Pymander chapter of the Corpus Hermeticum: https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/mercvrii-trismegisti-pymander/

            Like

            1. annaczereda wrote: {quote} I don’t know what school you attended but using translations is totally permissible even at the academic level, provided you cite your sources. {/quote}

              It may be “permissible” today in many places, academic or otherwise, but being able to read primary sources in their original language is the mark of the scholar. If some modern academic relies on the translation of someone else then they are citing secondary not primary sources, and their conclusions or opinions are therefore of secondary importance compared to the conclusions of a scholar who has used – and understood – primary sources.

              annaczereda also wrote: “Just because Warner can’t read Arabic, it doesn’t mean his claims are not valid.” {/quote}

              It means his claims rely on the interpretations of meaning of someone else so that he is merely expressing his personal unscholarly opinion about those interpretations and not expressing what the Koran actually says. I repeat: “expressing his personal unscholarly opinion”, and “not what the Koran actually says.” He like so many others these days is just some Western person who can’t read Arabic telling us what he believes the Koran may mean. Again I repeat: he is yet another unscholarly person “telling us what he believes the Koran may mean,” not what the primary source – the Koran – actually means in its original language.

              That you don’t seem to understand the scholarly difference here is most indicative. That you (like so many anonymous internet others) also use argumentum ad hominem is of itself also indicative.

              If you and others want to take seriously the personal unscholarly opinion of someone regarding the Koran – over and above what some actual scholars have concluded about the Koran – then you and those others do. But if you really want to know what the Koran actually says then go travel to somewhere like Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo and ask a learned Imam and then go to Qom in Iran and ask a Hawzah scholar, for then you’ll get an actual scholarly and a balanced view. Until you do – or until you spend years studying Arabic so as to be able to read the Koran in its original language – then what you believe or assume about the Koran (based as such a belief or assumption might be on the opinion of unscholarly others) is just your ill-informed personal opinion.

              It appears that you and so many others just aren’t prepared to – or just can’t – admit that you lack the scholarly knowledge to make reasoned judgements about certain matters. Be such matters the Koran, or the ONA. Hence, I guess, your use of argumentum ad hominem.

              Like

            2. ” If some modern academic relies on the translation of someone else then they are citing secondary not primary sources, and their conclusions or opinions are therefore of secondary importance compared to the conclusions of a scholar who has used – and understood – primary sources.”

              Not conclusions but credentials. You are talking about credentials here whereas I’m talking about the legitimacy of arguments. Calling into doubt someone’s credentials doesn’t invalidate the arguments that person is making. It’s the basic stuff.

              “It appears that you and so many others just aren’t prepared to – or just can’t – admit that you lack the scholarly knowledge to make reasoned judgements about certain matters. Be such matters the Koran, or the ONA. Hence, I guess, your use of argumentum ad hominem.”

              Actually, it is you using argumentum ad hominem all the time and all the time it is being pointed out to you.

              Like

            3. Your personal definition of scholarship, which you have attributed to no source, is of no value whatsoever. I have cited a credible source, a doctor, and adduced extra-Quranic literature and even a modern interpretation to further substantiate a trend which needed no further substantiation whatsoever. The fact that you are continuing to dispute an over-substantiated point based upon your individual concept of scholarship is only demonstrating your own self-absorption.

              And speaking of providing further evidence for a point I’ve already made, I could thank you for coming here to publicly represent the ONA. I could, if I found you less annoying.

              Like

          1. NAH Fuck No Bro, I have my wordpress, as well as My Youtube links as My Sig, We are not Big on rules over there besides Spamming, and Trolling arguments are ok to a point but stay on track, If you offer spell works or anything like that we have a market place, Ill find your profile now and rep You up

            Liked by 1 person

      3. For sure in David Myatt’s course it is only past and generated a great amount of experiences that are still utilitaty magick in action, for other side, our real action in at the top of Eulalia’s actions and overdrive, a sympathick form ov effects that transcends the common grunge forms in dynamic, of esthesis generating the nomos concept in a different order constituted for Anton Long that explained through the O.N.A> Tarot like Christos Beest, the acausal autonomic positions of order in life or death, in a rite of weltanschauung with ontological performances in the mind reflexes, or phisis reflections; this is understimated.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Perhaps stop wondering and start reading up why every major religion and great thinker has had issue with the Jews.

      Maybe read up what the Jews say about non Jews while you’re at it.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. >The Order of the Nine Angles intends to presence the energies of the stellar nexion known as Falcifer within a planetary nexion known as Vindex, a name meaning “the Avenger”.

    You have a creative way of interpreting Sinister tradition. Whilst I’d disagree a little with this as a sole explanation for the matter, are you aware of the Morgatha principle?

    Also, I wouldn’t be so quick to judge the merits of the ONA from the few kids you met online.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. None of the three persons behind Yorkshire Rounwytha have any place to complain about judging people over the internet.

      As this article focuses on the lore which is central to the Order of the Nine Angles, there is no relevance to a subgroup-specific character such as Morgatha.

      In regards to your other comment, which I deleted, I have read the essay packet about Sinister demonology. My use of the word “demonology” herein was for convenience, and I do not think you can think of a more accurate synonym. I am not going to pull a word like “Nekhology” out of my ass and then proceed to define a term which has henceforth never been used, however catchy such a word may be.

      For any readers, this is the second one of my articles that Yorkshire Rounwytha has tried to use to advertise their own blog on. While I have deleted both “i can haz publiclity” comments, I did not want my readers to miss out on the cringe factor.

      Since I’ve come this far, I may as well answer the A’S comment here as well. The saddest part about his publications is that he sells them all (excluding Luber Rudra, on account of Martinet Press) at cost value and gives them freely to even Outer Circle members in PDF, suggesting that he is sincerely doing his best.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. You have a refreshingly original take on aspects of the ONA, but I disagree with the focus on the ONA being simply “anti-Jewish” since in truth the ONA is “anti-Magian”, which is the term “used to refer to the hybrid ethos of Yahoud and of Western hubriati, and also refers to those individuals who are Magian by either breeding or nature. The essence of what we term the Magian ethos is inherent in Judaism, in Nasrany, and in Islam.”

    So the ONA opposes all forms of Hebraism, such as the kabbalah, the materialistic masculous ‘satanism’ of Howard Levey, the Nazarene and Islamic religions, Freudian psychology, Jewish influence in politics and finance and of course “the Zionist entity” occupying Palestine.. Instead of a Hebraic influenced occultism, the ONA champions Western – Faustian – pagan values, mysticism, and occultism. Which is why it supports National Socialism seeing it as a manifestation of the Western, Faustian, ethos albeit (as it turned out) a flawed one.

    As for the ONA supporting Muslim Jihad while declaring that Islam is part of the Magian ethos, it’s on one level purely tactical; the ‘sinister dialectic’ in action. Cue cliche about the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” and so on. Cue also cliches about “challenging of the status-quo” and so on. But what seems to have been forgotten is “the other level”, the more important level, where tactics and strategy are irrelevant. This is the personal level of Insight Roles, of individuals living in an exeatic way to “learn from experience” and it’s in that pragmatic light that ONA support of Muslim Jihad should really be understood at least by occultists.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I am familiar with the concept of Magian influence. The reason that I was using simplified semantics such as “Jewish” and “Semitic” was that I had promised to break describe all of the nomenclature I was using, and I did not want to have to describe the most hackneyed concept in ONA literature. My understanding of the concept is made pellucid by the ways I use the words Jewish and Semitic in the article. I expected Niners to know to mentally replace these substitute words with “Magian.” Would you have anything to correct me on if you had done so?

      I have also already proven that I’m cognizant of Myatt’s deliberate manipulation of Moslems in my previous comparison of his Jihadi literature to other articles he has allegedly written. This comment seems pointless. (Note: I’m neglecting to simplify my vocabulary here ONLY out of convenience, not to be a dick. I am aware that I’m not speaking over your head)

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Well, all I can say is that by “using simplified semantics” – as you term it – you obfusticate the matter you are writing about. For the terms “Jewish” and “Semitic” are not equivalent to “Magian”. The term Magian means implies far more, and since it is a central concept in understanding the ONA that term really should be used if one is trying to rationally explain – or is presenting a rational critique of – the Order of Nine Angles.

        In addition the ONA – well, perhaps the often pedantic Mr Anton Long – stated many times that the term “Semitic” is not philologically correct when writing or speaking about Jews and Judaism.

        Like

        1. Well, I can only be seen as misrepresenting the word if you completely ignore the way I use it and what I mean by it and focus on the most common pre-existent definition of the word. Since “Magian” means a completely different thing to the public than it does in ONA nomenclature, this criticism is invalid as well. The words which I misused are, to the public for which I was writing, easier to interpret than the word which you would prefer I misused (in the eyes of the public).

          But since we’re on the subject of vocabulary, the word you’re looking for is “obfuscate.” When you say “obfusticate,” you sound like Forrest Gump.

          Liked by 1 person

  4. @annaczereda
    In fact you and I are talking about the personal opinions of someone – French/Warner or whoever he is – who does lack the credentials in respect of knowledge of the Koran and Islam. To have an academically credible, scholarly view of those subjects the person needs to be able to read the source material – in this case the Koran and Ahadith at the very least – in Arabic.

    You and others may take his analysis and conclusions seriously and consider them academic, but scholars don’t.

    You miss the importance attached to the fact that all non-Arabic versions of the Koran are interpretations not translations. Every interpretation has some bias, personal or cultural or political or religious. So my objection stands: the person in question (French/Warner – or whoever he is) did a statistical analysis of someone else’s interpretation of the Koran. Now, had he run an statistical analysis on all available English interpretations and compared the results it would have mildly interesting to compare the similarities and differences but would still not be a primary, scholarly, source.

    In respect of translations in general, you may or may not be aware that the study of translations is a specialized – a scholarly, and fairly recent – academic area of research with someone such as Eugene Nida (possibly influenced by Chomsky) taking an approach which concentrated on the importance of the message and the intended audience rather than on accuracy, a methodology he possibly derived from his role as Baptist minister preaching the Bible in the vernacular. In opposition to this are those who contend that primary sources are most important and that provided the cultural milieu and the language of those sources can be understood in its historical context then some degree of accuracy may be approached. This latter methodology is far more time consuming and to translate just one text can take years while to translate a work such as the New Testament might well take decades.

    Obviously French/Warner – or whoever he is – has an agenda with both he and his financial backers apparently more interested in the message and the intended audience than in being scholarly and unbiased.

    Like

    1. It’s all nice and dandy. I totally agree with you. There is only one problem. Your argument is irrelevant thus fallacious. It is an ad hominem fallacy because instead of countering the writer’s arguments you attack the person, namely his background and credentials. Even if he lacks scholarly background, that doesn’t invalidate his arguments. In order to prove him wrong you have to directly address the claims he makes.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. @annaczereda:
        That you apparently don’t seem to understand – or perhaps for propaganda reasons choose to ignore – the actual context is quite amusing. The context is that the arguments of French/Warner – or whoever he is – derive from an analysis of secondary (not primary) sources: that is, from the opinions and interpretations of others – and not from primary sources. So, he is just presenting his interpretation, or his reinterpretation, of the interpretations and conclusions of someone else.

        That makes his work quite un-scholarly. Why? Because his “background and credentials” are – at least in respect of Islam and the Koran – really are un-scholarly.

        Now, you either understand this, or you do not. Apparently you do not.

        One of the attributes of modern scholars is that they have a detailed knowledge of primary sources (note: primary sources) acquired from reading such sources in their original language and thus do not rely on the translations or interpretations of others.

        One of the attributes of non-scholars in the milieu of academia is that they base their writings on secondary sources (note: secondary sources) and thus in the main just interpret or reinterpret the interpretations and conclusions of others.

        Now if you and anonymous internet-based others want to continue to carry a torch for – and continue to hype – those who just interpret or reinterpret the interpretations and conclusions of others then you will, despite what the likes of me have to say about primary and secondary sources and about scholarship.

        Fact:
        French/Warner – or whoever he is – used a secondary source. To wit, an interpretation of the Koran by someone else. He did this because he didn’t have the credentials, the scholarship, the knowledge, to go to a primary source (such as the Uthman codex) and then provide his own interpretation and then use his own (his original, his scholarly) interpretation in a statistical analysis.

        Conclusion:
        His interpretation, his data, are quite un-scholarly. And thus are – despite what some anonymous internet individuals seem to believe – just personal opinion and/or propaganda.

        Either you understand this, or you do not. Apparently you do not. Meanwhile, a friend of mine has to go and give a seminar on hermeneutics…

        Like

        1. “Now if you and anonymous internet-based others want to continue to carry a torch for – and continue to hype – those who just interpret or reinterpret the interpretations and conclusions of others then you will, despite what the likes of me have to say about primary and secondary sources and about scholarship.”

          I already told you that I know nothing about French/Warner so I’m neither defending nor criticizing him. I’m only pointing out to you that your criticism (focusing on the writer’s qualifications instead of his arguments) is a classic example of an ad hominem fallacy; something you accuse others of doing. Say what exactly he got wrong and correct it. Provide legitimate counter-arguments. Only then your criticism will be valid. Otherwise, it’s bullshit, albeit in a sophisticated package.

          Like

          1. Dear Anna C wrote: “I’m only pointing out to you that your criticism (focusing on the writer’s qualifications instead of his arguments) is a classic example of an ad hominem fallacy.”

            His knowledge – or lack of knowledge – of Arabic is essential to the question of whether he used primary or secondary sources, and which question regarding sources is the essence of my criticism of his analysis. That you deem this question regarding sources to somehow in some way to be an ad hominem fallacy is astounding, for you (i) don’t know what an actual ad hominem fallacy is (which I doubt) or (ii) you’re just being a troll, or (iii) you really really don’t understand the difference between, and the consequences of, using primary and secondary sources.

            I’ll opt, sister, for option (iii). In which case your accusation of an ad hominem fallacy is in truth an ad hominem fallacy itself.

            Like

            1. Sigh, talk to the brick wall.
              But I will try again.
              In order to do legitimate criticism of his analysis, you have to address the claims he’s making. Where is your critique of his arguments? Shit or get off the pot.

              Liked by 1 person

  5. @V.K. Jehannum

    You wrote {quote} Since Magian means a completely different thing to the public than it does in ONA nomenclature, this criticism is invalid as well.” {/quote}

    Since you are writing about the ONA and since the ONA has it own vocabulary then the use of ONA terms is suitable, to be preferred, especially as the ONA had published a glossary of ONA terms which can easily be referenced. You after all use some ONA terms – such as nexion, acausal, aeonic – in your writings about the ONA. So why not use Magian and write a few words in explanation, given that countering Magian influence in all spheres – exoteric and esoteric – is core part (but not “the” core part) of the ONA.

    By using a term such as “Jewish Aeonic infection” – instead of something more accurate such as “Magian distortion of the Western ethos” – you are probably misleading people about the ONA.

    Like

  6. Sincerily, I have a degree in quantum physics and my only question toward anticosmic satanists is “Have you got a single clue about how much energy is required to destroy the Multiverse?”. Such a power-level belongs only to multi-dimensional entities, and such powerful beings (comparable to Lovecraft entities) are probably very keen on eating the multiverse away, but are utterly un-accessible by human soul. It is NOT them who answers your invocations. Everything in the Cosmos is “Cosmic”, and to summon something from beyond you would need the energy of a Big Bang. I think that in the end Cosmos will be terraformed/devoured by such limitless (anticosmic) entities, but it will happen in billions of years, not tomorrow, and even those from the fire bloodline will be devoured and digested unwithstand they proved themselves worthy. Anticosmic energies destroys existence because it is their wyrd. But “anticosmic” means that you are from Beyond existence, and only multidimensional entities can travel between the layers of existence and evocation power level scale is the identitiy card of the entity you are summoning. Does the Solar System splinters when the entity arrives? NO? Then it is not from beyond cosmos. It is from inside of it. And a cosmic entitiy that hate existence does not do that because it is her wyrd but because it is delusional.

    To me, Cosmos is not an enemy, nor it is builded by a delusional demiurge. What I think that is builded by the demiurge is our perception of things: Earth astral is filled with demiurgic lies and energies. As soon as you step out of this planet, the Demiurge is there no more. He is an astral egregore not a multiversal overloard of existence, But I never noticed much of a scientific approach in MLO. They are too urged to despise this demiurgically imbued world to analize the fact that Cosmos is just an outskirt of Chaos and has Chaos’ pedigree in its veins. What I have to admit they are “right” about is the fact that, on a subtle level, we all are mind fucked by the magian ethos. We do not even understand how deep that spoiling is. And 218ers had understood that, They care not for wordly accomplishment because they feel the world is not the setting we should strive for. They feel that there is something Beyond our perceptions and that “something” is our core and destiny. What, in my opinion, they do not understand, is that this opposition between perceived existence and spiritual pathworking derives from the magian ethos imbuing the world, and NOT from the fact that Cosmos is a furuncle on Chaos’ ass. With Liber Falxifer they seem to begin to understand that interesting energies can be found also in the material world, regardless of the fact that they believe that those energies are not native from this place and are just fallen from Chaos the same way fire-souls did, What is interesting to me is the fact that they are starting to find something good in this world.

    To me, anticosmic entities do not HATE existence, they EAT existence. And They watch over every living being, evolving through difficult processes. ONA and 218 are, to me, two faces of the same coin: ONA teaches to believe in something and to forge ourselves on every level; 218 teaches to remain a bit distasteful toward mundane existence, while ONA sometimes gets too drown into it. My experience pushed me to believe that anticosmic entities are less enemies of creation and much more its apex predators: so the ONA lifestyle is good to follow their foosteps. While at it, however, is good to watch over what we want as predators, because there are times when we get sucked in by excessively aggressive goal-reaching attitudes, and in those cases, 218 ethos of “fuck the world what really matters is not there” is a genious pitch.

    Like

    1. Someone wrote: “I have a degree in quantum physics.”

      Really? Now, as a pedantic academic one has yet to learn of an undergraduate degree “in quantum physics”. One has of course heard of degrees in Physics which include components/courses titled “quantum technologies” or something similar, but one is not aware of an actual undergraduate degree in just “quantum physics”. One has obviously also heard of post-graduate courses in “quantum physics” (such as those offered at Harvard) so perhaps that is what you meant?

      Like

      1. I was just trying to speed things up by cutting it short, and If you are up to a web-flame, I am the wrong person because I am a very tranquil guy, and like to chat.

        Can we stick to the subject? I sincerely did not want to disrespect anybody, since I feel at home between LHP pratictioners.

        My adfirmation about my study curriculum was just to simplify. What I was really interested in discussing about is the fact that, in my opinion, such a real antithesis between Cosmos and Chaos cannot exist, because entities which responds our call are, considered from a power level scale perspective, quite terrestrial. So, if entitiis which are totally 3-dimensional, and so totally cosmic, teach an “anticosmic” stance, probably what they really mean by “anticosmic” is different from an all-out opposition between manifestation and Void.

        Detachment from this world, relinquishment of excessive attachment, are the best way to LIVE, not only to LEAVE. I like this world (I hate it, but I prefer to embetter it that to get out) and like ONA plan to purify it from such a decadent society, but I have to admit that the inner voyage of “anticosmic” pratictioner is the only way to refrain from an excessively quick interpretation of our Wyrd. It is true that the “formless essence” command respect and force us to realize that almost 99% of what we desire is futile/materialistic, or is desired for futile/materalistic reasons.

        Like

  7. Obviously there is one thing I have the duty to admit: I have never partcipated of those groups, MLO nor ONA either. I do not want to claim that, or to be murky about that the way I was about my study curriculum.

    The opinion I have given is mine and mine alone and I want to apologize if I disrespected anybody

    Like

  8. annaczereda wrote: “I will try again.”

    FYI, pointing out that someone used secondary rather than primary sources – and doesn’t know Arabic – is not argumentum ad hominem. If you believe it is then you really don’t know what argumentum ad hominem is.

    Those who use the internet as a source will assume it simply means a personal attack on someone; that is, argumentum ad personam. However it can also have another meaning, argumentum ex concessis. Neither of these meanings apply to what I wrote.

    My argument was that an examination of his methodology and his academic experience regarding the Koran and other Islamic texts showed that his analysis was flawed. At best, his work is a tertiary source.

    His statistical analysis used an English interpretations by someone else, not the actual Arabic texts. He did not use his own interpretation of the text of the Koran because he can’t read Arabic and in addition hasn’t studied Islam using primary sources (such as the Arabic texts of Ahadith) which can aid one to interpret the Koran. So, to repeat myself yet again, his conclusions are just his personal opinions about the interpretations of someone else and thus are not of any scholarly use. Their use so far has been propagandistic, as witness his own articles and books about “political Islam”.

    That you and others seem somehow annoyed when such facts are pointed out is rather amusing.

    Like

  9. Qliphothic Kabbalah and Kabbalah in general – is a medieval syncretic remake originally but not “authentic Jewish tradition.” Qlippoth in particular – is an inversion of some aspects of Christian Gnosticism, transformed by a quasi-Judaism. Qlippoth – this is the scope of parody archons related to vulgar “material.” The entire Kabbalah refers to borrowing from the Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians and others. The Jews did not known even a concept of immortality of the soul – all of their concepts were originally essentially materialistic, and the method of allegorical interpretation was borrowed from the Greeks and Egyptians. Hebdomadry simply takes the original concept as a basis, and not distorted copy.

    Much of Kenneth Grant’s texts, for example, is based on the false pseudo-historical data and pseudo-linguistic structures. The same can be said about the 218.

    Chaos – this is not an anti-cosmos, because 1 – Chaos involves Cosmos, that is, we are all originally in Chaos, which only seems primitive human consciousness as “order”; 2 – Chaos in there can not be “opposites” because it is holistic (conditionally as “pleroma-Completeness”), and therefore “order” can not act “opposite of Chaos”; – And the main thing: as what is _supreme_ in quality, that is, the Spirit can be “caught and retention inferior archons matter”?

    I allude to the fact that this is a false “opposition”, just “anti-cosmos theme” allows “to rely on non-existent” – is a faster way to adjust itself to the perception of what lies beyond causality (3 + 1 dimensions) – all it is present at the same time; exit in Acausal – this is the realization of the Spirit in Chaos ( = becoming one of the aeons of the Pleroma), that is, going beyond the seven spheres and beyond 4 dimensions.

    In earlier articles of MLO had a lot of the actual copy-paste from the ONA texts it is – there are whole paragraphs were taken almost word for word.

    It’s funny and what they are ordinary pagan deities such as Baal-Peor, and Baal Cenote, announced a sudden “anti-cosmos”, whereas in the original it was a cosmic deity of so-called “order” (the same as Baal – conventional analogue Thor ).

    Homo Galacticus – it’s about _new_ type of “humanity” (false term – there is no “common humanity” is not and never will be) – not about _modern_.

    Liked by 1 person

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s