The Long Mynd in Hebdomadry

Update: Many of my readers have asked permission to post my material on Facebook or other social media, or to translate it to another language. I would like to publicly state that it is my intent to see my literature reach as many people as possible, so not only do my readers have my permission to translate and post literature wherever and whenever they want (so long as the article is attributed to me by name, I am content), they can consider themselves to be doing me a personal favor whenever they do so. The broader my audience becomes, the more opportunities come my way. I have already been approached by three separate publishers desiring to see my literature in (online) bookstores, but none of them have been able to get their shit together long even to see my writings appear on the shelves. So by all means, share my essays– I’ll thank you for doing so.

What follows is a newer version of a redacted article regarding the finer points of the ONA’s esotericism. If the ONA is not a source of intrigue for you, you are better off just skipping this article.

“No more secrets.” -Aleister Crowley

There are ten questions which have been issued publicly, many of which can only be answered by one privy to oral tradition. One of the easier questions of this set is why the incense known as petrichor is used for the “Rite of Afsana.”

The novice will flinch– he’s never heard of the Rite of Afsana, has he? Well, the Rite of Afsana is just an odd title for the Sevenfold Way’s initiatory rite. In the initiatory rite, the celebrant repeatedly chants “Agios o Noctulius” to call upon Noctulius’s auspices.

Noctulius is the Lord of Initiation in the Septenary Way and he corresponds to Qamar [Arabic: the sphere of the Moon]. He presides over black witchcraft and death magick, and he is known to guide the witch through harsh exercises in torture magick and self-transformative rites of sadomasochism.

The incense known as petrichor also corresponds to the sphere known as Qamar, so the reason that the witch uses petrichor in the Rite of Afsana is the same reason she calls upon Noctulius: Qamar is the sphere which is conducive to initiation.

Afsana is an Urdu word which can mean “incantation”, “enchantment,” or “legend.” Perhaps the best English rendering of Afsana is “the Mythos.” The use of such Arabic nomenclature hearkens again to the significance of Arabic theology to the Sevenfold Way.

The reason that the initiation rite is referred to as the Rite of the Mythos is the emphasis on the sigil which the celebrant is required to draw in her blood. This symbol appears throughout ONA literature variously as being the sigil of the Nekalah, the sigil of the Dark Tradition, and the sigil of Vindex. This symbol, which appears to resemble to the sigil of Algol (with the two spheres representing the two eclipsing stars which Algol is composed of), stands for the ONA’s esotericism and Aeonic goals. By drawing this emblem in her blood, the witch binds herself to the tradition. The fact that the ONA would rather the fledgling witch remain ignorant of this reality is indicative.

Other versions of the ritual exist which use juniper instead of petrichor, which is most likely an ill-considered and reprehensible jape.

That was one of the easier questions. One of the more difficult ones deals with someone/thing called Yusra and where Yusra is to be summoned.

An allegory called Eulalia: Dark Daughters of Baphomet depicts the meeting point of a coven of nine witches: “the slight slope of that almost South facing hill among the mamelons of South Shropshire not far from where an ancient trackway marked the ancient border with the land of Wales.” This passage forms the first paragraph of the allegory’s “Part 0.” The rite that takes place at this location is the Baphometic variate of the Nine Angles Rite.

The Nine Angles Rite is ideally performed in a location fitting three different sets of specified parameters, and the Sapphic nexion’s performance of this rite fits the first step, which the instructions for the Nine Angles Rite delineates thus: “on a hill-top of pre-Cambrian rock which lies between a line of volcanic intrusion and another rock – in Britain, this other rock is Buxton.”

The Precambrian era was when the Earth began to form, according to modern theory, ergo Precambrian rock would be 4.6 billion years old. There is a sixteen mile ridge in the hills of Shropshire known as the Long Mynd with geology that dates back to the Precambrian era, and at the time that it formed, it would have been sixty degrees south of the equator. One often neglected aspect of Cliology is the postulation that every aeon has a causal location which it can call its center– Stonehenge, for instance. This aeon, the Thorian aeon, is centered in the Long Mynd.

So what’s Yusra? Based on the allegorical depiction of the Nine Angles Rite, you’d guess Baphomet. After all, Kerri Scott once described Baphomet as “the archetype of that new aeon, with Vindex being her mythological son or daughter.”

According to Myattian Cliology, we live in the Thorian aeon, and this aeon’s acausal influence has been drastically corrupted by the influence of Abrahamic religious forms. The extremism which underlies the Septenary Way is a means of counteracting the aeonic infection of Magian esotericism. One could presume that the Thorian aeon was originally supposed to focus on Norse Paganism prior to distortion.

The witch should remember that the Aeonic distortion of the Semite is the raison d’etre for the ONA’s extremism and the reason that their esotericism emphasizes the Darker Half of Mother Earth. Baphomet, as an entity, represents both the baleful and beneficent aspects of Mother Earth. She is the Earth’s planetary spirit and her symbol is the averse pentagram.

Er… One of her symbols is the pentagram. The other is the Dreccian Moons of Baphomet, a union of two black and white crescents. The reader should compare this sigil to Eliphas Levi’s representation of Baphomet of Mendes, which depicts the Mendesian Goat pointing both to the black moon of wrath and the white moon of mercy. The reason for this (mimetic) parallel will be explained in a future article.

The name Yusra, which means “Left”, refers specifically to the darksome aspect of Baphomet which may be called upon to counteract the Magian infection– if such a thing exists at all.

If you think I’m overestimating the significance of the Long Mynd, perhaps you haven’t read Myndsquilver.

-V.K. Jehannum

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.

Advertisements

25 thoughts on “The Long Mynd in Hebdomadry

  1. Not bad- but where in the ONA rite of Initiation does the practitioner chant the Noctulius chant?
    We’d be inclined to say, given Afsana supposedly means ‘enchantments’ that because enchantments is Noctulius’ sphere of influence (among other things) this is why petrichor is used.

    As to Yusra, whilst interesting, we’d disagree- and suggest you look up Arabic astrology to find the actual answer (won’t spoil it anymore!)

    Also your final point- consider the ONA not as a group, just several initiates and grouplets associating from time to time over common ethos. That’s akin to saying wolves will never evolve because wolf packs always fight when they encounter each other…

    Like

        1. Since the Long Mynd is purportedly the causal epicenter of the Thorian aeon, whatever ritual is to be performed there and only there must be of extreme cliological significance. Since Rigel is not one of the stars which is said to have a star gate by it, its influence is not of significant cliological influence. Since the Blood Mistress is specifically pertinent to this aeon, and since the allegory depicts her being summoned there, it seems most logical to conclude that this is the ritual which is described by the phrase “call forth Yusra.”

          Look at the phrase “call forth.” A star can’t be called forth. It can be called upon. its PRESENCE can be called forth. If this phrase refers to Rigel, it is an amphigory.

          Moreover, there is no reason that I am aware of which would make the Long Mynd auspicious for the calling of Rigel.

          Remember, the question states that the Long Mynd is the “ONE” and only location wherein Yusra can be called, so even if you can find evidence that Rigel and the mynd are connected, you will not have done enough. The significance of the Blood Mother to the Mynd has already been substantiated within orthodox O9A literature– both the instructions for the C9A and the allegory I cited support my point. I do not think that anything supports yours.

          I think that this question was designed as a deliberate pitfall for people like you– people who are content to Google a word like “Yusra” and then affirm whichever possible answer is contextually relevant. Look deeper next time.

          Liked by 1 person

    1. You’re exactly right when you wrote: {quote} consider the ONA not as a group, just several initiates and grouplets associating from time to time over common ethos. {/quote}

      It’s remarkable that this still isn’t understood despite it being mentioned again and again over many years in many ONA texts. I guess it’s down to the fact that most people who comment about the ONA don’t bother to read the complete ONA corpus.

      Years ago someone commented that you should {quote} [consider the] Order of Nine Angles as a Von Neumann machine but one with an open source code which allows mutation when replicating. As such, the only necessity for such a self-replicating device to work is putting it out there. After that it will do its work no matter if the creators are still involved or even if they remain alive. Once such a machine is set into motion, it remains active. {/quote}

      To which someone else replied: “Which is a good metaphor for how, exoterically, the O9A works, and has worked, both in the real world, and in cyberspace, with the virtual O9A Von Neumann machines that operate in cyberspace inspiring many, over the past decade, to build their own O9A machines in the real-world and, sometimes, develop newer models.”

      Like

    1. Good observation.

      I think that the title “Rite of Enchantment” is borderline redundant. Furthermore, when Myatt uses a foreign word, he generally uses it because it has nuanced connotations which the English equivalent lacks. If the correct translation were as simple and straight-forward as “Rite of Enchantment,” there would have been no reason to use a foreign term.

      Like

      1. P.S. I wouldn’t suggest he’s referring to something which transliterates as ‘Rite of Enchantments’ but I understand your skepticism with this answer.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Given your continued depletion of our posts, the point is that you for some reason cannot seem to admit that your assumptions about Afsana where not entirely correct.

    This is not the first time your assumptions about aspects of ONA esotericism have proved to be incorrect. Instead of acknowledges your mistakes you resort to argumentum ad hominem – castigating those who have pointed out that some of your assumptions are invalid – or you just delete delete our posts. Par for the course, re modern occultists and their prejudice regarding the ONA.

    No doubt you will delete this comment of ours. So why is that modern Occultists – and especially self-described satanists – just cannot admit that their esoteric, their Occult, knowledge, is limited and therefore that their assumptions and knowledge about the ONA may well be wrong? Would that be down to their masculous, their posturing, egoism?

    Or perhaps it is down to how you – with your apparent attempts to mix up anti-Magian ONA with Magian occultism – desire to obfuscate how so very different and original the ONA, in terms of Western occultism, actually is. Be aware that we may well publish our responses here and the fact that you have, for whatever reason, deleted our responses. Which beggars the question, what are you hiding and just what is your agenda? As if we didn’t already know…

    Liked by 3 people

    1. You seem to be getting a little carried away here, and it looks like I’m gonna have to reeeeally spell things out for you. I do not give a shit if I get proven wrong– Lianna publicly proved me wrong about Fayen back in the day, and an article wherein I fess up to the mistake in an update is still available.

      My WordPress stats say that you have 27 comments on my blog which are currently visible. Oddly enough, the other commenter present, Yorkshire Rounwytha, has left 27 as well. K. Scott left 19 back in the day too, and almost all of these seventy-something are directly critical of the articles they appear on. I deleted a couple of YOUR comments because you tried to advertise your blog on my site. I deleted two of YR’s comments as well, once again, for advertising.

      I don’t have to “beware” your ass. 27 all publicly available comments, many unresponded to and several unread, should make it pellucid that I don’t give a fuck. You Niners are always so eager to draw the most blatantly inaccurate conclusions about your detractors and competitors.

      Throughout my long, tedious discussions with you, you’ve made it clear that you do not have the perspicacity, the “sympatheia” if you will, to ‘read’ my character. To your credit, you do a better job than YR in that regard, but still a consistent series of failures. (The reason I’m so dickish about having Niners misread me is all of the ONA’s chest-thumping about their “dark empathy”, which I have seen so few of them (Kaos Butterfly, for one) to be truly capable of.)

      Oh, and the ONA isn’t original. At all. Get your head out of your ass. Are you aware that Myatt was in the OTO? That’s why he knows who the obscure demon Zamradiel is (that demon is mentioned in the allegory Temple of Satan and originated in Crowley’s Liber 231).

      The emphasis on tetrahedrons is clearly borrowed from the Thoth tarot deck. The attribution of a quasi-antichrist figure to the sphere of the sun is borrowed from Crowley. The attribution of Atazoth/Azathoth to the sphere of the sun was borrowed from Kenneth Grant. Azanigin and Azathoth both appear in the Typhonian trilogies, as I have demonstrated in my article about the latter of them. The Baphomet-calling blessing in the Black Book of Satan uses the commonplace “Banishing Pentagram of Earth” which is used in the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram (an incredibly common developmental rite in mainstream Western spirituality).

      So, when you say that the ONA is “original”, you’ve made it clear that you are not knowledgable regarding Occult matters. At all. My knowledge of the traditional Western Occult is indeed limited– very limited. My excursions into traditional Thelemic and Typhonian literature have been brief and desultory. Do you know what that means? The list of borrowed concepts that I provided you with is most likely just a small portion of what Myatt has borrowed. It’s a shame that the ONA can’t use their “dark empathy” to figure out how DM duped their asses.

      Like

      1. There is hypocrisy here, by you. You criticize not only ONA folk in general who in your words are “too stupid to read the back of a cereal box” but also those ONA folks who polemically defend the ONA. Yet you – and other ONA critics – never ever criticize those who have for over the past decade polemically, and via argumentum ad nauseam and the fallacy of illicit distribution, have attacked the ONA, despite the fact that their attacks and their anti-ONA polemics vastly outnumber ours.

        You wrote: {quote} “Are you aware that Myatt was in the OTO?” {/quote}

        Most amusing. You’re obviously are just repeating two rumors. First, that Myatt is Anton Long. Second, that Anton Long was in the OTO. Where is your actual evidence for either rumor? You say that “we” have been been duped yet it is seems it is you who have been duped by believing unverified rumors about Myatt.

        You also wrote: {quote} the ONA isn’t original. At all. {/quote}

        That you repeat a mantra of latter-day satanists is most indicative. That you have made no informed (scholarly) comment about the ONA septenary system predating the qabala is most indicative. That you have made no informed (scholarly) comment about ONA esoteric chant, or about the seven fold way as a hermetic (Greco-Roman) anados, or about ONA rituals such as Internal Adept, or about the historical (Persian, Indic) antecedents of the term ‘nine angles’, or about the Greek etymology of the name Baphomet, or about the alchemical and hermetic antecedents of the ONA seven fold way, (and so on and so on) is also most indicative.

        Now, unless and until you back up your assumptions about the ONA with actual evidence, using primary sources, you’re simply repeating mantras of latter-day satanists.

        Why?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. You keep using that word, “indicative.” Just like K. Scott and DL9. This shit is why so many of your critics fallaciously believe that you’re all sock accounts for a small group of people– your writing style and ratiocination are all so weirdly identical. Aren’t yall a little anti-Semitic to live in an echo chamber?

          Alright, alright, I just wanted to make that joke. I know the ONA isn’t really anti-Semitic. But speaking of echo chambers, why the fuck would I rehash the Hellenistic and Indic origins of Hebdomadry? What purpose do I have in regurgitating things which the original ONA literature has already laid out?

          These irrelevant distractions about esoteric chant and whatever else do not constitute an argument, and yet some reason every apologist for the ONA brings it up regardless of how irrelevant it may be. I do not have to understand esoteric chant for the other arguments I have made to be accurate. This argument is a textbook logical fallacy called the “Red Herring.”

          But hey, by the ONA’s logic, all ONA criticisms of modern black magick may be dismissed out of hand until one of them can criticize the demonic enns or something. After all, the ONA really hasn’t critiqued any modern Satanic or para-Satanic texts, has it?

          Oh, and I’m not obliged to delve into David Myatt’s historical and etymological hypotheses on the nature of Baphomet. They have no academic or archeological backing and they were posited by a known liar, so I am perfectly at rights to dismiss them out of hand, especially since I have a viable hypothesis of my own which is perfectly fits the character of the ONA’s magickal efforts (mimetic inversion). Ditto for the hilarious claim that the Tree of Wyrd predates the Sephiroth. According to Qabbalah, Qliphoth, and Goetic Magic by Thomas Karlsson, the rumors of an original Greek schema which was lost to time are speculative.

          I do not see the need for me to discuss the stupid comments made by people who denigrate the ONA. First of all, theya aren’t worth my time. Secondly, such a discussion would constitute an entry-level discussion of the ONA and most of my articles about the ONA attempt to tread new ground.

          As for AL = DM, Myatt’s signature appears on a lot of old ass manuscripts and you’ll stumble across them one day. I’ve read some of David Myatt’s Islamic literature– he bounces from Arabic pseudonym to Arabic pseudonym whenever people find out who he is. While their (AL + DM) writing styles are identical, that’s kind of a theme for the ONA (excluding Thornian), so that won’t help us. Either way, feel free to posit an alternative identity for AL and raise some arguments for it.

          But you are right about one thing– I posited ABG Lodge’s rumor about Myatt being OTO with more certainty than it deserves. Nonetheless, my previous articles make it pellucid that Myatt was learned regarding the Typhonian Tradition– a hint of this appears in his book Temple of Satan which adduces the archfiends from Crowley’s Liber 231, which demons were among the most obscure corners of Thelemic demonology. Kenneth Grant’s book Nightside of Eden is the only place where you could actually find real information about them back in the day.

          You’ll find the descriptions of Aza and Azathoth in Outside the Circles of Time by Kenneth Grant. Herein Azathoth is attributed to Tiphereth (the solar sephira) as well as the reference to Aza as the “mother of all demons”.

          As for why I’m doing this, I didn’t plan to write a series of articles denigrating the ONA when I originally announced my departure from it, but the response I got was so puerile and dickish that I decided to reconsider.

          Like

          1. So, you’re basically dismissing links regarding the O9A seven fold way and Hellenic hermeticism, and esoteric chant, and other ONA stuff because you can’t be bothered to research them properly given that you believe they’re not original and were borrowed from magian inspired modern occultists. When you do try and make links, you either get it wrong as you did for example with Afsana or you just make sweeping generalizations (without evidence) and equate something ONA with something from magian occultism.

            Asking you to provide evidence for your claim that nothing ONA is original is asking for evidence. That you classify asking for proof of you sweeping claim as a “Red Herring” says it all really.

            You wrote: {quote} the rumors of an original Greek schema which was lost to time are speculative {/quote}

            You seem to have missed the fact that the Greek septenary schema is mentioned in the Pymander text, and referenced in early European alchemical works, some images of which were reproduced in various ONA texts.

            You wrote: {quote} I’ve read some of David Myatt’s Islamic literature– he bounces from Arabic pseudonym to Arabic pseudonym whenever people find out who he is {/quote}

            Yet another false accusation. Where is your evidence from Myatt’s writings? Myatt only ever used the name Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt (sometimes just signing stuff with Abdul-Aziz or Abd al-Aziz). Anyone can see this because a lot of Myatt’s Islamic propaganda is still available at http://web.archive.org/web/20101111104858/http://www.davidmyatt.info/

            There’s also a ‘fan-site’ at http://www.geocities.ws/abdulazizibnmyatt/ although I don’t really know who put that up. But expect people to assume – without any evidence – that “Myatt put up that site”, even though there was a rumor years that it was a young English convert from Telford.

            As for Myatt and the OTO, you’ve provided a possible answer for non-involvement: the book “Nightside of Eden”. So it’s possible that the author of an ONA text did some research beforehand and read that book.

            As for Myatt’s signature appearing on some old ONA MSS, it doesn’t prove anything. Anyone could have affixed Myatt’s name on them and until the original documents are made available and examined in a forensic way by a professional qualified to do so then it’s just speculation; just another rumor about Myatt.

            You wrote: {quote} While their (AL + DM) writing styles are identical {/quote}

            Several academics disagree with this claim: Monette, Kaplan, Sieg. Again, until someone qualified publishes evidence in the form of actual similarities it’s just speculation.

            You wrote: {quote} I didn’t plan to write a series of articles denigrating the ONA when I originally announced my departure from it, but the response I got was so puerile and dickish that I decided to reconsider.{/quote}

            There are two errors here. First, as has been pointed out, no one can “join and then leave” the ONA because there is nothing to join or leave, since the ONA is an esoteric philosophy and three basic practical occult ways. Second, the fallacy of illicit distribution, because no one speaks on behalf of or can represent the ONA and anyone can write stuff about the ONA, so the responses you got were just the personal opinions of others and had nothing to do with the ONA. Just as my replies here are my personal opinion and do not “represent the ONA”.

            By all means crusade against an esoteric philosophy and certain practical occult ways on the basis of being annoyed by the personal opinion of a few people.

            Liked by 2 people

            1. “Asking you to provide evidence for your claim that nothing ONA is original is asking for evidence.” My original statement did intend for the phrase “at all” to be taken literally. This should have been clear from the casual tone of the entire post, as should the list of borrowed concepts which I provided. You appeared to have understood that when you made your original comment.

              “That you classify asking for proof of you sweeping claim as a “Red Herring” says it all really.”
              My comment about distractions was made in reference solely to your use of the all-too-common mantra of “criticize esoteric chant,” which is completely pellucid from the context I made it in.

              Your previous postulation that the term “nine angles” originated in Indic & Persian belief is also false. While Persian and Indic belief postulate a nine-emanation composition of the Cosmos, these are not described as angles. The term “nine angles” originates in Aquino’s ritual in reference to the Black Flame, and since the ONA often uses the concept of a nine-angled nexion in description of the mechanism of intercausality which exists latent in humankind the same way that Aquino did, we have an unacknowledged debt.

              The incorporation of two divinities from a Typhonian text is just one instantiation of clear influence by Kenneth Grant. The fact that Myatt borrowed the planetary affiliations of the antichrist and Azathoth from “Magian” sources is significant in this context because

              A) OTO involvement has been hinted at by a leading nexion
              B) Myatt has demonstrated strong familiarity with the Typhonian tradition in Temple of Satan
              C) The ONA’s desire to return to primal religious recognition is also a goal of the Typhonian Tradition
              D) The ONA’s belief that Lovecraft’s literature exemplified flawed but real spiritual knowledge was previously posited by Grant & Crowley

              Instantiations such as Azathoth are the final nails in the coffin which justify a postulation that would have been tenative without them.

              A known OG Niner by the name of K. Scott provided a list of three Arabic pseudonyms which Myatt has taken up, including al-Haqq, on her now deleted blog entitled “Sinister Polemics.” Your claim to the contrary means nothing.

              As for the weird demand for forensic analysis of original ONA manuscripts, it is interesting that you do not apply such autistically stringent standards to the etymological and historical delineations of Baphomet. Do you only demand evidence for things which are blatantly obvious? The fact that a few uninitiated academics have questioned the majority narrative is not significant. AL should be discussed as if he were Myatt because

              A) Myatt has a habit of abandoning pseudonyms to remain anonymous, as was attested by Kerri Scott
              B) Myatt’s signature appears on multiple original manuscripts
              C) Myatt’s alteration of Satanism is carried out with similar tactics and intents to his alterations of Islam and contributions to neo-Nazism
              D) No alternative identity for AL exists
              E) Long’s claim that the ONA originated with a series of likely nonexistent subgroups is similar to the changing stories of religious upbringing which Myatt presents to validate his religious commentary

              “no one can “join and then leave” the ONA because there is nothing to join or leave, since the ONA is an esoteric philosophy and three basic practical occult ways.” You are referring an the esoteric use of the title ONA (as a philosophy) when I am obviously using the title in its exoteric sense (as a movement). Autistically fixating on one definition for a term which has many is blatantly senseless.

              Like

            2. “By all means crusade against an esoteric philosophy and certain practical occult ways on the basis of being annoyed by the personal opinion of a few people.” I am not bashing Hebdomadry itself– what I’m attacking in this article are the countless lies which the ONA promulgates about their esotericism. Since I have been attacking a MOVEMENT along, I have refuted the lies which the MOVEMENT tells about their esotericism to further support the criticisms I have made about the MOVEMENT. Not only has every one of my articles on the subject of the ONA made this abundantly clear, by my inclusion of ONA chants in recent posted rituals as well as my continued hosting of obscure ONA mss on my blog. This argument of yours is one amongst the many instantiations of your consistent inability to understand what I am writing, which you’ve demonstrated all throughout these incredibly tedious debates.

              And yes, I’m writing a few mean articles from time to time about a group that I’m pissed at– specifically a group that wants to get rid of all of the demons I worship. That’s not even a little bit strange– pull your head out of your ass.

              Like

  3. You wrote: {quote} Your previous postulation that the term “nine angles” originated in Indic & Persian belief is also false.” {/quote}

    Actually the postulation was made by Professor Monette. Have you scholarly – etymological – evidence to disprove his postulation? All you seem to have are assumptions – a belief – that Anton Long borrowed the term from Aquino when it’s clear that they use the term angles in completely different ways. Anton Long used it – from the 1970s on – as a synonym for emanations (of the acausal in the causal), that is, as a protrusion or projection of the acausal into the causal (cf. the Armenian ankiwn). The term angle as a protrusion or projection is etymologically valid. So the term angle means and implies more than some simple Euclidean intersection of two or more lines, as used by Aquino.

    The term angle – ἀγκών – occurs in Iamblichus in relation to the character, and characteristics, of various gods, and is contrasted with the monad signifying Apollo. Interestingly, in Latin – angulus – is, metaphorically, a “hiding or lurking place”. Also, the term angulus occurs in some Latin medieval alchemical texts.

    You wrote that someone {quote} “by the name of K. Scott provided a list of three Arabic pseudonyms which Myatt has taken up.” {/quote}

    So someone alleged that Myatt used three Arabic names, the operative word here being “alleged”. You repeated the allegation without providing any proof; KS provided no actual evidence, like as in actual articles written using those names plus proof that Myatt wrote them. So it remains an unproved allegation about Myatt whoever made it or repeats it. Just like many allegations made about Myatt.

    You wrote that {quote} [I was] referring an the esoteric use of the title ONA (as a philosophy) when I am obviously using the title in its exoteric sense (as a movement) {/quote}

    What did you join? Did someone accept your membership? Did you take some oath of membership in front of witnesses? Were you welcomed into ‘the movement’ by an already existing member? And so on.

    No, you just decided one day that you were ONA and then announced it to the world. So all you did was agree with the esoteric philosophy developed by Anton Long (or some of it anyway) and then decided (or not) to follow one of the three occult ONA ways. You cannot ‘join’ and then ‘leave’ an idea and a methodology derived from that idea. Now had you personally joined say an established nexion after having met people in that nexion in the real world then you would have joined that nexion, not the ONA, because nexions are totally independent and inspired by or follow ONA esoteric philosophy or some methodology derived from that philosophy. A good example here is the tempel ov blood; if you join that nexion you join that named nexion, not the ONA, for that nexion although inspired by the ONA has its own methodology and presences (and is evolving) aspects of the ‘O9A current/idea’ that other nexions may have neglected.

    You wrote: {quote} what I’m attacking in this article are the countless lies which the ONA promulgates about their esotericism. {/quote}

    Like we’ve repeatedly said, their is no ONA to promulgate anything. All anyone has (with one exception) are the writings of Anton Long from the 1970s to around 2011. Everything is an interpretation of those, an analysis of those, an evolution of the ideas and methodologies found in those, the personal opinions of others about them and sometimes squabbles about them.

    The one exception is the learning and experience of those very few who have followed the ONA seven fold way to at least Internal Adept, who only (if you find them) offer advice, person to person. Consider Mr Moult, who actually reached Internal Adept. He did not ‘leave’ the ONA, nor did he ‘join’ it. He was only personally guided by Mr Long after he began following the seven fold way. After over a decade, Moult stopped following the seven fold way, and turned his attention to other matters. Now had he decided to continue and form his own nexion you might possibly be able to join that nexion, but you wouldn’t be joining the ONA because you can’t join the ONA because in physical terms it’s only a collection of autonomous cells/nexions who all have their different ways of presencing the O9A current with no one cell having any authority to decide ONA policy because there is no policy, only the idea/current and how it is presenced.

    If you don’t understand the difference between an esoteric idea/current, methodologies based on that current, and between a movement, group, or a physically existing ‘order’, then you don’t.

    Finally, you keep using Myatt and Long interchangeably, yet neither you nor anyone else, academic or otherwise, has provided actual evidence that Myatt is Long. Until such evidence is available your whole crusade against the ONA is based on a shaky assumption. The burden of proof is on you to show that Myatt is Long.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I return from a busy week of real world living to see an innocent question set of mine taken as veiled insults and the following having devolved into outright ones.

    Once again, seems few- very few of us are taking the practical stages of the 7FW serious. Disappointing.

    Also when you say things like ‘Remember, the question states that the Long Mynd is the “ONE” and only location wherein Yusra can be called, so even if you can find evidence that Rigel and the mynd are connected, you will not have done enough. The significance of the Blood Mother to the Mynd has already been substantiated within orthodox O9A literature’, I am sometimes confused and ask where exactly you get such ideas. You often never respond to those (qv. My question about Noctulius being summoned during the Rite of Initiation.) This simply began as curiosity so I haven’t followed this online discourse close enough to know if it’s my comments being deleted. If so, that is also disappointing.

    Like

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