• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How is human sacrifice a Satanic practice?

kerriscott

Member
My knee jerk reaction to this subject (and the O9A overall) is that it continues to give satanists and modern pagans (as there are still stereotypes that all pagans are satanists) a bad name
Yes indeed, which was one of the intentions behind publishing such material. The O9A was/is being heretical, adversarial, and presented/presents a different version of modern 'satanism' to that of LaVey and Aquino and others. Anton Long said as much way back in a letter to Diane Vera dated 28th May 1992:

"By making certain material available – on sacrifice, for example – and by writing certain MSS dealing with that and other dark topics, I and others have done two things. First, made it clear that such material is part of my tradition and that it recounts what was/is done. Second, returned to Satanism that darkness and evil which really belongs to it (at least in the novice stage).

I have no desire to give Satanism a 'good name' – on the contrary. I wish it to be seen as I understand it to be – really dangerous and difficult." Source - The Satanic Letters of Stephen Brown, 2 vols, Thormynd Press, 1992​

Also, in a letter to Aquino dated 20th October 1990:

"There may be the adoption of an adversarial role in order to attack accepted (or even unconscious) dogmas within the broad spectrum of the LHP movement - but that is as it should be, for individuals questing after knowledge who refuse to meekly believe. Once again, a 'role' is only a role, played out in the quest for understanding." Source - The Satanic Letters of Stephen Brown, vol i. 1992.​

Isn't murder in the name of self-enlightenment or religious commitment pretty rotten
Terms such as 'murder', self-enlightenment, religion, and 'rotten', need defining and understood in relation to various -isms and -ologies, and also need to be understood in relation to the accepted norms (and prejudices) of our current societies. All this can induce some self-reflection.

Again, to promote such understanding and such self-reflection was/is another of the aims of such adversarial material, and of the adversarial O9A.
 

AnnaCzereda

Active Member
Guitar's Cry said:
My knee jerk reaction to this subject (and the O9A overall) is that it continues to give satanists and modern pagans (as there are still stereotypes that all pagans are satanists) a bad name

Do you think it's possible for Satanism to earn a good name? Since when has Satan been a good guy?
Moreover, if some idiots out there can't tell the difference between Satanism and modern paganism, why bother about them?

So my question (as I'm not an LHPer :)) is what would the overall purpose of human sacrifice (or any other life sacrifice) be?
Here, you can read for yourself:

http://www.o9a.org/wp-content/uploads/o9a-culling-texts-v7a.pdf
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
Do you think it's possible for Satanism to earn a good name? Since when has Satan been a good guy?

I personally think it is. Satan is who we need him to be, right? There are traditions that emphasize Satan as the freer of slaves and the upholder of the individual. Afterall, wasn't it the murdering, torturing Christians of the Inquisition that brought together the various ideologies and pagan symbols that became what we call "Satan"?

Moreover, if some idiots out there can't tell the difference between Satanism and modern paganism, why bother about them?

Some of them may be important to some of the Pagans, LHPers. There are plenty of similarities and commonalities between Satanism and modern Paganism. We share some of the same ideologies and influential figures.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan

From what I gathered from this text, it appears that O9A is seeking to develop a satanic character created by medieval Christian theology for the purpose of establishing a system of eugenics to weed out behavior that is deemed unfit for a stronger human race.

Is this accurate? I can see why other LHPers don't care for this ideology. In what way would "Satan," as either a literal or allegorical figure, fit in to something that has the feel of Christian propaganda to discredit other LHPers?
 

AnnaCzereda

Active Member
Guitar's Cry said:
There are traditions that emphasize Satan as the freer of slaves and the upholder of the individual.

True but for the majority of people, especially Christians, Satan is the embodiment of all evil. You can try to educate people but they will believe whatever they want.

There are plenty of similarities and commonalities between Satanism and modern Paganism.
Hell, if I wanted it badly, I could find some similarities between Satanists and Christians. There are some things common to all religions - archetypes. But it's not the reason to put people into one bag. All the information is out there; online, in bookstores and libraries. All one needs is some critical thinking.

From what I gathered from this text, it appears that O9A is seeking to develop a satanic character created by medieval Christian theology for the purpose of establishing a system of eugenics to weed out behavior that is deemed unfit for a stronger human race.
More or less, but it is the character of people that is judged, not the physical disability or financial and social status.

Honestly though, I don't think culling takes place at all. Just imagine gangsters advertising themselves and rambling about their activities online. The real bad guys are not on the forums.

I can see why other LHPers don't care for this ideology. In what way would "Satan," as either a literal or allegorical figure, fit in to something that has the feel of Christian propaganda to discredit other LHPers?
Most of the victims of the Satanic Panic were... Christians or people who had nothing to do with Satanism or LHP. Go figure. The paranoid and deluded people usually accused their parents and relatives.

There is more to the ONA than culling and silly online drama, for example, its esotericism, Tarot, Myatt's latest writings and so on. It's an open source. You take from it what works for you and discard what you find unpalatable.

Just like one person on one forum once wrote that the ONA is a gorgeous pool. There is one problem though: it attracts all the noisy kids who can't stop shouting and peeing into it.
 

jeff77

Member
There is more to the ONA than culling and silly online drama, for example, its esotericism, Tarot, Myatt's latest writings and so on. It's an open source. You take from it what works for you and discard what you find unpalatable
For once I completely agree with you!

one person on one forum once wrote that the ONA is a gorgeous pool
A poor - a mundane - metaphor in my opinion. It's more like a tropical lagoon which occasional tourists may well **** into and enjoy for a while before they move on as they must move on given that they're just tourists doing what modern tourists now do. Sometimes someone - once a decade maybe - may like the place so much they decide to stay. But when there's too many such newcomers, the few remaining original residents find another un-infested lagoon and move there.

it attracts all the noisy kids who can't stop shouting and *****
And such immature behavior matters - because? Most flavors of Satanism and the LHP attract such types but you don't or you shouldn't judge those flavors by the opinions or by the online behavior of some kids who don't really understand Satanism and the LHP. Same with some of the fans of Death Metal and similar groups - you don't judge the music by the behavior of those fans or take the opinions of such fans seriously do you?
I don't think culling takes place at all... The real bad guys are not on the forum
Doesn't the second part of your statement contradicts the first part? If there are "real bad guys" in the O9A - who don't associate themselves online with the O9A or with any group or even with Satanism - then some of those "real bad guys" could have done such stuff as part of their "bad guy" living.

There's no evidence either way so it's all supposition or personal opinion or personal belief. Or - as I see it - it's a question of mythos.

Over the past decade many non-O9A Satanists have given their personal opinion about the matter - most agreeing with you re it doesn't happen - and given their opinion usually because they don't want culling to associated with their flavor of Satanism or because of some beef they have with the O9A or because of whatever. But since it's a mythos such opinions don't really matter because some people like to believe a mythos while others find a mythos interesting - it engages with their imagination - or even inspiring.

Even if O9A culling - like someone said - is only incitement or propaganda or adversarial heresy then it doesn't now matter because that stuff has worked. Hence why we're discussing it now and why it's been discussed quite a lot in the past if only to try and dismiss it. But mythoi - legends - have a habit of not being affected by disbelievers.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
True but for the majority of people, especially Christians, Satan is the embodiment of all evil. You can try to educate people but they will believe whatever they want.

Hell, if I wanted it badly, I could find some similarities between Satanists and Christians. There are some things common to all religions - archetypes. But it's not the reason to put people into one bag. All the information is out there; online, in bookstores and libraries. All one needs is some critical thinking.

More or less, but it is the character of people that is judged, not the physical disability or financial and social status.

Honestly though, I don't think culling takes place at all. Just imagine gangsters advertising themselves and rambling about their activities online. The real bad guys are not on the forums.

Most of the victims of the Satanic Panic were... Christians or people who had nothing to do with Satanism or LHP. Go figure. The paranoid and deluded people usually accused their parents and relatives.

There is more to the ONA than culling and silly online drama, for example, its esotericism, Tarot, Myatt's latest writings and so on. It's an open source. You take from it what works for you and discard what you find unpalatable.

Just like one person on one forum once wrote that the ONA is a gorgeous pool. There is one problem though: it attracts all the noisy kids who can't stop shouting and peeing into it.

Thanks for your responses!

I agree that similarities can be found in most religions, but Paganism and Satanism have some real connections. Not only in the arbitrary and historical use of the term "witch" but in some of the key figures like Anton LeVey and Aleister Crowley and occultist connections.

I was specifically exploring the culling part because that is the subject of this thread. :)
 

AnnaCzereda

Active Member
Jeff77 said:
And such immature behavior matters - because? Most flavors of Satanism and the LHP attract such types but you don't or you shouldn't judge those flavors by the opinions or by the online behavior of some kids who don't really understand Satanism and the LHP. Same with some of the fans of Death Metal and similar groups - you don't judge the music by the behavior of those fans or take the opinions of such fans seriously do you?

Please, do understand that I, myself, don't judge the philosophy or even all the people associated with it, only a few individuals who accuse others of having no culture, yet their own culture, as shown here and elsewhere, leaves a lot to be desired. People who claim in public and in private to be the Inner ONA, to have achieved wisdom and adeptship, yet their hypocrisy, pettiness and overblown egos point to the contrary. People who accuse others of being judgmental, yet they can't refrain from casting judgements themselves. People who don't want to be judged on the basis of their online behavior, yet they still judge others on the basis of what they do online. People who condemn others for being aggressive and vulgar, yet they can't help participating in online drama.

All this can make many folks (especially those deluding themselves that the ONA is some sort of the dark elite) disappointed not only in the ONA and those associated with it but humanity in general. On a more positive note though, disappointment is the nurse of wisdom.
 
Last edited:

jeff77

Member
Please, do understand that I, myself, don't judge the philosophy or even all the people associated with it, only a few individuals who accuse others of having no culture, yet their own culture, as shown here and elsewhere, leaves a lot to be desired. People who claim in public and in private to be the Inner ONA, to have achieved wisdom and adeptship, yet their hypocrisy, pettiness and overblown egos point to the contrary. People who accuse others of being judgmental, yet they can't refrain from casting judgements themselves. People who don't want to be judged on the basis of their online behavior, yet they still judge others on the basis of what they do online. People who condemn others for being aggressive and vulgar, yet they can't help participating in online drama.
In the end isn't it down to individual perception? You and others may think X has started and continued a petty "online drama" while X thinks and openly states it's a "adversarial dialectic" that gets someone to admit stuff about themselves and provides a future example. You and others may think Y is being hypocritical and egotistical even though Y has openly stated that as an amoral Satanist they see nothing wrong in being on forums for propagandistic or recruitment reasons and also nothing wrong - from a Satanic point of view - in being inciting, japing, condescending, adversarial, duplicitous and deceptive.

We all tend to rush to judge because we want to believe or we all assume our perception of things and our judgment of others is the correct one. We all tend to think that we "know" and that we're right. We also fall back on excuses - even though we're mostly anonymous online - like we have more "experience" or whatever.

In the case of X and Y we therefore think we "know" that s(he) or they are just making "excuses for their behavior" and really are being hypocritical when they openly state stuff like "it's an adversarial dialectic" or that they're "spreading propaganda" or that they "enjoy confusing and testing people" and that it's OK and natural for Satanists to be "inciting, japing, condescending, adversarial, duplicitous and deceptive" both online and in our everyday lives.

In other words it seems to me that there's a tendency to judge some avowedly amoral Satanists by conventional and expected moral standards - or by some standard we think Satanists should adhere to - and to complain when X and Y don't abide by such standards.

Thus it seems to me that your statement that "people who claim in public and in private to be the Inner ONA, to have achieved wisdom and adeptship, yet their hypocrisy, pettiness and overblown egos point to the contrary" implies two things. First that you expect them to behave in a way consistent with how you think an "adept" or a "wise" person would or should behave. Second that you imply that an "adept" or a "wise" person would not or could not or should not be duplicitous and deceptive or propagandistic - or whatever - and most certainly wouldn't indulge in what you consider to be a petty "online drama" even though "those people" have openly stated they enjoy "toying with mundanes" and confusing and testing people and are in fact - in specific instances - involved in or have started an "adversarial dialectic".

For there's "the small matter" of intent. Why are X and Y here and why were X and Y on that forum there and last year? We presume to "know". But "know" based on what?

Yet does any of this analysis really matter? Isn't the reality that - years after someone claimed "the ONA is dead and they killed it" - people keep talking about the O9A if only to moan about it among themselves and air their prejudices and assumptions about it, and often now - as on another forum - without any help from anyone O9A? Do we factor in how many PM's X or Y received asking about the O9A and about "joining" the O9A?

So, is all the negative publicity - and all the negative comments generated - really such a bad thing, and can negative publicity and negative comments really affect a mythos and is the O9A now or has it always been a mythos?

Also isn't there one important thing that all those making assumptions about the likes of X and Y ignore?

Which is the now accepted open source nature of the O9A. The fact that nobody "owns" it or officially or otherwise "speaks" on behalf of the O9A. This means that what X or Y says is not and cannot be "official" just personal opinion - so how can such personal opinions affect the O9A? They can't - so why do people keep assuming they can and they have?
 
Last edited:

jeff77

Member
People who claim in public...to be the Inner ONA, to have achieved wisdom and adeptship
I think that's an assumption you've made. For I've now searched through the relevant posts and I can't find where KS - she who began for whatever reason the on-line saga you took a dislike to - ever publicly claimed to be "inner O9A" or "wise" or an "adept". But if I missed it then maybe you could point out where.

Or did you mean someone else and if so who and where?

Personally I've never come across anyone O9A who claims or who has ever claimed - online - to be an adept or to have achieved "wisdom", whatever "wisdom" is. For isn't such a public claim against O9A rules? In all of the writings by Anton Long that I've ever read he never once claimed to "wise" or "an adept" and never even gave himself any occult title or "grade" at all unlike so many others past and present. Not even in his two last writings - dated 2011 - did he claim to have "achieved wisdom" or to be a Magus or a Magister Templi or "Grand Master" although of all modern occultists - LHP, Satanic, or otherwise - he is probably the most qualified especially by dint of his practical life experience of the "sinisterly-numinous" and his "new logos" and the scholarly knowledge that's evident, for example, in his initiated commentary on the Pymander text.
 

AnnaCzereda

Active Member
Jeff77 said:
I think that's an assumption you've made. For I've now searched through the relevant posts and I can't find where KS - she who began for whatever reason the on-line saga you took a dislike to - ever publicly claimed to be "inner O9A" or "wise" or an "adept". But if I missed it then maybe you could point out where.

She implied it in public and openly claimed it in private messages. Of course, she could be lying but it's not that important. The most important thing is she spoke as if she were some sort of an authority figure, the official tribunal of the ONA authorized to pass judgements who is ONA and who is a pretender. This folly has been called out many times.

In other words it seems to me that there's a tendency to judge some avowedly amoral Satanists by conventional and expected moral standards - or by some standard we think Satanists should adhere to - and to complain when X and Y don't abide by such standards.
First of all, it has nothing to do with morality but being mature and having some class. I can **** talk people too (after all, it's not that difficult) and claim they are my minions, but it doesn't mean I'm adversarial or that my claims are grounded in reality. It only means being silly and childish. If you have to brag on and on about how adversarial and manipulative you are, it usually means you aren't.

Second, there is nothing wrong in being deceptive, unless your ******** is so transparent and inconsistent that people either start calling your *** out on it or simply say "meh". How many people did you manage to convince R.A. is not ONAnish enough?

Yet does any of this analysis really matter? Isn't the reality that - years after someone claimed "the ONA is dead and they killed it" - people keep talking about the O9A if only to moan about it among themselves and air their prejudices and assumptions about it, and often now - as on another forum - without any help from anyone O9A?
Actually, many people on that another forum are genuinely interested in the ONA and appreciate it. It doesn't mean, however, we are all obliged to approve of someone's antics. Calling people muppets for mere participation in discussions is lame as people usually sign up on forums to... participate in discussions. But yeah I know it's really shocking that people discuss Satanism on Satanic forums. :sarcastic

Which is the now accepted open source nature of the O9A. The fact that nobody "owns" it or officially or otherwise "speaks" on behalf of the O9A. This means that what X or Y says is not and cannot be "official" just personal opinion
That's true.
 
Last edited:

jeff77

Member
She implied it in public
No she didn't, I think you've just assumed that. For what she implied - and openly stated - was that she had more knowledge and more "insider info about the O9A" than you and certain other people. As here -

"Ash Delphini: Let it not be said that I cannot admit when I am wrong. RM has indeed responded to my inquiry, in the affirmative, confirming that one of the four things encoded in the painting is in fact in reference to "Yusra." This confirms that June and Kerri do in fact have access to information not readily available to the public [...] Kerri Scott and June Boyle thus have my sincere apologies." http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3786423-post20.html .
That's very different from claiming or even implying "adeptship" and "achieving wisdom" or claiming to be "inner o9a". So your claim about her stating such things in public was wrong.

and openly claimed it in private messages
Where and when? Post or send me a copy of the PM's. I'll only believe it if given some proof.

But the point is that you claimed both public and private - and it's the public claim that's important re O9A rules isn't it.

Like I said:

I've never come across anyone O9A who claims or who has ever claimed - online - to be an adept or to have achieved "wisdom", whatever "wisdom" is. For isn't such a public claim against O9A rules? In all of the writings by Anton Long blah blah blah
You wrote -

It doesn't mean, however, we are all obliged to approve of someone's antics
But "approve" and "disapprove" implies some criteria by you and perhaps shared by that "we". What are the criteria? Why are there criteria?

See, here's the problem. You and possibly "they" have some criteria by which to "approve" or "disapprove". But can Satanists - and even those following a LHP - have criteria by which to judge and "approve" or "disapprove" of others who state they are Satanists or following a LHP?

Which brings us back to questions such as - is there a Satanist or a LHP morality (guidelines to approve or disapprove of others and their behavior and actions) and if there is what is this and furthermore given the individualistic nature of Satanism and the LHP can there even be a Satanist or a LHP morality?

First of all, it has nothing to do with morality but being mature and having some class
Yet "being mature" and "having some class" mean there must be criteria by which you judge others. What does "being mature" and "having some class" mean if not some "morality" which after is just what is considered - by someone or by some society - to be acceptable or unacceptable, and which personal qualities are considered to be correct or are approved of.

There are it seems to me fundamental LHP and Satanist issues here. Which people have a tendency to evade. Some of the issues are:

If you judge KS - and you have - then by what criteria and is that criteria Satanic and LHP? Can there even be a Satanic or LHP criteria applicable to others? If not then it means - like I said before - that you and others are just giving your personal opinions about KS and what she did or was alleged to do. If that's the case, then what is all the fuss about?

For it's just X and Y and Z - self-avowed Satanists or LHP'ers - doing some stuff via the internet and other people - self-avowed Satanists or LHP'ers or whatever - personally disagreeing with them.

So where's the beef? What Satanist or LHP principle have X and Y and Z transgressed?

In my view, none - because there can't be any Satanist or LHP principles other than what we devise and accept for ourselves.

So in the Satanist and LHP universes there's no "petty online drama" - nor any "approval" or "disapproval" - but only some individuals - who may be self-avowed Satanists or LHP'ers or whatever - disagreeing about some stuff.

Now here's my cents about that whole internet saga thing that you have apparently gotten so upset about. You seem to have made a big issue out of what is just some online and Satanic phising and people disagreeing among themselves because you - apparently - judge others or at least KS by some personal criteria which you think makes your personal opinion somehow "correct" in respect of the Satanic and LHP communities.
 
Last edited:

AnnaCzereda

Active Member
Jeff77 said:
No she didn't, I think you've just assumed that.

Some things are said between the lines.

Post or send me a copy of the PM's.

You're joking now, right? I'm pretty sure you're joking.

But can Satanists - and even those following a LHP - have criteria by which to judge and "approve" or "disapprove" of others who state they are Satanists or following a LHP?

Yes, they can. People do pass judgements. It's human nature. Of course, these judgements are purely subjective, just like yours. Actually, it's been you and KS complaining about others being judgmental, while you are both judgmental too.

In my view, none - because there can't be any Satanist or LHP principles other than what we devise and accept for ourselves.

This is my view too. Yet you devised some arbitrary LHP principles and criteria by which you judged KHK as a poser and those that supported him as mundane and plebeian. Back-paddling now?

Now here's my cents about that whole internet saga thing that you have apparently gotten so upset about.

Yeah, keep telling yourself I'm upset. Whatever floats your boat.
 

jeff77

Member
Some things are said between the lines.
Nah, you've just made assumptions about KS and haven't provided any evidence for your assumptions about the "private" communications or for her publicly claiming to be an adept or to having achieved wisdom. So they remain assumptions - a personal opinion.

You're joking now, right? I'm pretty sure you're joking.
No I'm not. You claimed something about someone and I asked for evidence. Where's the evidence? Without evidence it's just a claim - a personal opinion.

these judgements are purely subjective
Exactly. Therefore your judgment of KS and about that saga are purely subjective aren't they. End of that story. Or at least it should be but I guess we'll see.

it's been you and KS complaining about others being judgmental, while you are both judgmental too...Back-paddling now?
Your point being? That a Satanist or someone on the LHP or someone O9A - or someone following their own interpretation of any of those paths - can't be duplicitous or deceptive or amoral or adversarial or condescending or annoying or whatever?

You might judgmentally - subjectively - cry "hypocrisy" although those following their own interpretation of any of those paths - LHP, Satanic, O9A, whatever - would say "we're only being evil and amoral and duplicitous and individualistic and annoying as we understand evil and amorality and duplicity and individualism and being annoying".

For there's the rub - again. Who is to say they are wrong and you are right? You judge and complain - but according to what criteria? Certainly not a LHP or a Satanic or even an O9A one. For there are no LHP or Satanic other than our own - and the O9A criteria are as they are for those criteria describe who is and who isn't O9A.

So no one is "back-paddling" for it's just what it is and what some people have said all along that it is - i.e. being amoral and duplicitous and adversarial and propagandistic and annoying and troublesome and individualistic and blah blah blah.

In other words - it's being Satanic or LHP or O9A.

At the end of the day your judgment of KS and that saga - and even about me - is just your own subjective judgment. Just your opinion about things and people.

Yet you devised some arbitrary LHP principles and criteria by which you judged KHK as a poser
I have not devised anything and neither did KS. Anton Long devised O9A criteria back in the day - as had been mentioned here many times. Go read what he wrote around 2009 onwards about the 'five O9A principles'.

As for "LHP principles and criteria" - is the O9A Satanic or LHP? Sure, the O9A have criteria - a logos, from whence their code. But if the O9A is a new tradition, a new logos - sinisterly numinous or a pagan mysticism or whatever - there's no problem because in essence the O9A is neither LHP nor Satanic. Those two ways are only relevant to the early stages of the O9A path - to the initial parts of the sinister phase (the first two to five years of the O9A journey) - and form a necessary pathei mathos.

To sum up. Your judgment of KS and that saga is subjective - a personal opinion. That personal judgement is neither "Satanic" nor "LHP" - because there are no supra-personal Satanic or LHP criteria. So - unless you're adhering to some conventional morality - you can't castigate KS for being devious, duplicitous, deceptive, amoral, adversarial, misleading, sly, condescending, annoying, "evil", or whatever, for such "bad behavior" is - or could be interpreted by someone as - Satanic or LHP.

You claim that there are no "O9A criteria". Evidence from the writings of Anton Long back in the day refute this claim of yours. Since there are O9A criteria we're led to conclude that the O9A is either #1) not in essence either LHP or Satanic but something different, like a "sinisterly-numinous tradition" or a new logos or whatever term we or the O9A want to use, or #2) that the O9A, like two academics wrote, present "a recognizable new interpretation of Satanism and the Left Hand Path" (and having thought about it I think #2 the best explanation because it chimes with all the available writings of Anton Long re the O9A).

If KS is O9A then you can't castigate her for doing what O9A people do - as described by Anton Long and others. Which is being devious, duplicitous, deceptive, amoral, adversarial, misleading, sly, condescending, annoying, "evil", & stating what O9A criteria are and judging someone by those criteria.

Is there therefore anything to argue about any more?
 
Last edited:

AnnaCzereda

Active Member
Jeff77 said:
you've just made assumptions about KS and haven't provided any evidence for your assumptions about the "private" communications

I don't reveal private messages, point. Maybe some people do but I don't roll that way.

Exactly. Therefore your judgment of KS and about that saga are purely subjective aren't they.

Of course, they are. Have I claimed somewhere that I'm a spokesperson for Satanism?

Anton Long devised O9A criteria back in the day

Which criteria can be interpreted by the ONA folks the way they see fit, using individual judgement. Even AL is not the highest authority. The only authority here is the individual judgement of each person following the ONA path.

The issue here is you and KS trying to speak on behalf of the ONA, passing authoritative judgements and trying to convince everybody that this and that person is a pretender, that this and that person is a mundane and so on, instead of letting the ONA people decide for themselves.

If KS is O9A then you can't castigate her for doing what O9A people do - as described by Anton Long and others. Which is being devious, duplicitous, deceptive, amoral, adversarial, misleading, sly, condescending, annoying, "evil", & stating what O9A criteria are and judging someone by those criteria.

I have already addressed this in my previous post. If you both think you're <<devious, duplicitous, deceptive, amoral, adversarial, misleading, sly, condescending, annoying, "evil">>, then by all means keep deluding yourselves. After all, most people do that.
 

jeff77

Member
Which criteria can be interpreted by the ONA folks the way they see fit, using individual judgement. Even AL is not the highest authority. The only authority here is the individual judgement of each person following the ONA path
See, that's where you seem to have fundamentally gone wrong and why you refuse to admit you're wrong. For that's just the personal opinion of an anonymous outsider.

The facts are that you're not O9A and your knowledge of O9A esotericism has been proven to be very limited and you don't have access to O9A oral tradition. Thus it's just your personal opinion about the O9A based on limited knowledge.

The issue here is you and KS trying to speak on behalf of the ONA
You again for whatever reason avoid the issue - which is that it's been proven that KS has access to certain insider info about the O9A including its oral tradition and therefore knows more about the O9A than you or any other outsider.

She was not "speaking on behalf of the ONA" - and never claimed to be - but just speaking about the O9A with more knowledge of it than you.

The fact that you don't accept this means that you're claiming that you understand the O9A better than her even though you can't answer questions about O9A esotericism and even though you have no access to O9A oral tradition.

Even AL is not the highest authority. The only authority here is the individual judgement of each person following the ONA path...letting the ONA people decide for themselves
Again, that's only your personal opinion and your interpretation. Your own outsider interpretation of what you believe or assume the O9A is all about.

What is such a cerebral opinion worth, given that you haven't followed any O9A praxis and can't answer questions about O9A esotericism and don't have access to O9A oral tradition?

Your outsider interpretation of - your personal opinion about - the Order of Nine Angles means that you don't accept that the Order of Nine angles is #1) the esoteric philosophy developed by Anton Long between the 1970s and 2011, and which esoteric philosophy has embedded in it a new logos, and #2) the practical methods - like the seven fold way and the rounwytha way - devised by or inherited by Anton Long.

For that's the current esoteric understanding of what the O9A is and what being O9A means, and if you don't agree with it then it's up to you to prove your case. Merely stating and repeating your opinion is not proving your case. Where's your closely argued - scholarly - proof of your interpretation based on either your personal experience of O9A praxis or on a detailed knowledge of O9A oral tradition and O9A esotericism?

Your opinion - your interpretation - is way off because the O9A path - being O9A - means accepting and living by the O9A logos. No O9A logos, no O9A. Living by the O9A logos means living by the O9A code -

Our kind are made by their acceptance of the principle of personal honour and by living according to this principle. Hence, someone becomes of us when they pledge to live their lives according to that principle. Thus, our behaviour toward our own kind is guided by our Law of Kindred Honour." Anton Long, The Five Core ONA Principles Explained, 122 Year of Fayen
Here's a very simple example. Being Muslim means reciting - and believing in and living by - the Shahadah. Someone who says they don't accept the authority of the Koran and the Sunnah - who doesn't follow the Allah given guidelines in the Koran and the Sunnah - isn't a Muslim even if they claim they are.

Yet again all this comes down to something very simple. Which is this -

You as an outsider have an opinion about what the O9A is and what the O9A isn't or shouldn't be. Your opinion about what the O9A is and O9A isn't happens to differ from the understanding of the O9A articulated by someone else. This someone else happens to have access to the O9A oral tradition and has shown a better understanding of O9A esotericism than you.

If you still insist that your opinion and interpretation of the O9A are correct then there appears to be only two reasonable courses of action open to you - which are for you to write a detailed and documented treatise explaining and proving your outsider (cerebral) interpretation, or for you to undertake an O9A praxis, gain some relevant esoteric pathei mathos, and then start your own "reformed" or "authentic" O9A chapter, coven, nexion, sect, temple, or group, by means of which you can promulgate your interpretation.
 

AnnaCzereda

Active Member
Jeff77 said:
Again, that's only your personal opinion and your interpretation. Your own outsider interpretation of what you believe or assume the O9A is all about.

The authority of individual judgement is one of the fundamental axioms of the esoteric philosophy of Anton Long and thus a fundamental principle applicable to how that esotericism is presenced in the praxises of the Order of Nine Angles (O9A/ONA).
This axiom means that even the writings of Anton Long, and his esoteric philosophy, are only guides, a necessary beginning, and possess no ultimate authority...

"I claim no authority, and my creations, profuse as they are, will in the end be accepted or rejected on the basis of whether they work (Satan forbid they should ever become dogma or a matter of faith). I also expect to see them become transformed, by their own metamorphosis and that due to other individuals: changed, extended and probably ultimately transcended, may be even forgotten. They – like the individual I am at the moment – are only a stage, toward something else.”

June | 2014 | templewilderness

So what was wrong in what I wrote about the authority of individual judgement?

The fact that you don't accept this means that you're claiming that you understand the O9A better than her even though you can't answer questions about O9A esotericism and even though you have no access to O9A oral tradition.

I don't claim to be all-knowing and I do comment from the position of an outsider. But I also know you are making **** up as you go along.

R. Parker before Chris drama:

The axiom the authority of individual judgement also means that each O9A person, nexion, group, or cell, will use their own judgement in respect of what they do; in how they, individually and/or as part of an O9A nexion, not only ‘presence the dark and manifest the sinister’ in practical ways but also how they interpret and understand – and manifest, in their living – the Logos of The Order of Nine Angles: the Code of Kindred Honour...

Thus, if some person or some nexion did some deed or deeds that some other O9A person or people considered was dishonourable, would that make that deed or those deeds wrong from an O9A perspective? Not necessarily, for it would be a matter for each individual and/or nexion to decide for themselves.

R. Parker in the middle of Chris drama:

The one exception regarding individual interpretation, and changing everything O9A, is the O9A Code of Kindred Honour. It is exempted because it is the Logos of the O9A – the unique perceiveration that distinguishes the O9A – and thus defines who is, and who is not, O9A. For to be O9A is to live by the O9A code and thus to manifest that logos by one’s manner of living.

Of course, people can change their views like they change their panties but the timing here is interesting. And you both claim there is no new game afoot. As if.

You as an outsider have an opinion about what the O9A is and what the O9A isn't or shouldn't be. Your opinion about what the O9A is and O9A isn't happens to differ from the understanding of the O9A articulated by someone else. This someone else happens to have access to the O9A oral tradition and has shown a better understanding of O9A esotericism than you.

As I said many times, if you dealt with all the drama in private, there would be no issue and nobody would judge the poor ONA. Since you decided to drag this through public forums, it's natural that people express their opinions, doubts and criticism. Why then become all butthurt about it and complain people are judgmental?
 

jeff77

Member
So what was wrong in what I wrote about the authority of individual judgement?
What was wrong is basically that you don't really understand the O9A - you only assume you do. To understand the O9A you have to know - in detail - the esoteric philosophy of the O9A and know about its logos and how these relate to the three practical O9A methods of "internal sorcery".

What for example do you know about O9A esoteric languages and how they relate to the anados and the abyss? What do you know about the aeonic perspective? About the sinisterly-numinous? About causal abstractions? About logos? About the star game? About Camlad? About O9A ontology and thus about how the O9A understand physis? What do you know about physis sorcery? About adunations? About the baeldraca? About azoth and its relation to enantiodromia? About the relationship between a rounerer and acausal knowing? I could go on and on and on and haven't even mentioned anything relating to O9A oral tradition.

Sure you can read some O9A material on the net - and even google all of the above - and then form an opinion about the O9A but that doesn't mean you'll understand the O9A. To really understand, to know, the O9A you need to #1) know about all the things I mentioned above - and much more - and then discover all the connections that make the esoteric philosophy - and the "why" of O9A practical methods - and thus see the whole wyrdful picture, or #2) you need practical, hands on, experience - over a period of several years - of one or more of the three practical O9A methods of "internal sorcery", or #3) you might emulate Anton Long and go live a practical sinisterly-numinous life for a couple of decades.

That you can't answer particular questions about O9A esotericism should be a hint that your knowledge and understanding of the O9A is limited.

It's like someone quoting some verses of the Koran - in some translation - and thinking they "understand" Islam and know all about Muslims. They don't take into account that they can't read classical Arabic - so have to rely on the interpretations of others - and that those verses have to be understood in the context of the rest of the Koran and in the context of the Sunnah and also don't take into account things like Ijma and Adab.

Sure "the authority of individual judgement" is one of the exoteric axioms of Anton Long's esoteric philosophy but it's not the whole philosophy - or even the only exoteric axiom - and therefore needs to be understood in esoteric context. Part of this esoteric context is the logos, the particular perceiveration which makes the O9A unique and which thus - like some academics have said - means that the O9A presents "a recognizable new interpretation of Satanism and the Left Hand Path".

Naturally you can dismiss all this and continue to claim that you - having read some O9A material - really do understand the O9A and so claim stuff like the exoteric axiom of "the authority of individual judgement" is the foundation and the essence of the O9A and has priority over the O9A logos and thus over not only the whole sinisterly-numinous tradition with its roots in Hellenic mysticism but also over things such as the Rounwythian way of life.

Now if that remains your interpretation of the O9A then that's your interpretation of the O9A and we'll leave it at that.

As I said many times, if you dealt with all the drama in private, there would be no issue and nobody would judge the poor ONA
So some people - yourself included - and most of whom were anonymous, gave their personal opinion and proceeded to judge the O9A on the basis of their understanding of the O9A. So what? Not one single person - yourself included - who so gave their personal opinion and so judged the O9A during that whole "saga" could answer detailed questions about O9A esotericism. Neither did they have access to O9A oral tradition. So what is their opinion and their judgment worth?

As for public v private - the reasons has been mentioned so many times in the past 8 or more months that anyone who is still the least bit interested can go find them. Hint - I even repeated the reasons in a post here this week :)
 

AnnaCzereda

Active Member
I see you're trying to impress me and the general audience with your erudition but what has it all to do with the guy you judge solely on the base of what he posts on the internet?

C'mon, who's gonna be the next victim?

And most important thing: Why not let the people following the ONA path decide for themselves who is a pretender and who isn't? Do they really need the mommy to lead them by the hand, to interpret the logos for them, to cure their confusion? You spent a lot of time trying to convince them Chris is a pretender. If he really is a pretender, then they should know it without your help. But it's not so obvious since you've been giving so much **** about it.

As for public v private - the reasons has been mentioned so many times in the past 8 or more months that anyone who is still the least bit interested can go find them. Hint - I even repeated the reasons in a post here this week :)

Yeah yeah I know. We are all the ONA minions preaching the ONA Gospel in the Satanic forums, because Kerri Scott has ordered us to do that. :rolleyes:
 

jeff77

Member
I see you're trying to impress me and the general audience with your erudition
Just pointing out that someone - who has an opinion about and their own interpretation of the O9A - has a limited knowledge of the O9A.

but what has it all to do with the guy you judge solely on the base of what he posts on the internet?
Why are you repeating a question you have asked many times over the months given that the question has been answered many times by KS?

Here's a simplified version of the answer - and I'm reposting a quote that KS posted over 6 months ago on another forum.
"There are and have been certain unwritten rules - an etiquette concerning how O9A people interact, via mediums such as internet, with others of our kind or claiming to be our kind or who are seriously interested in our sinister tradition. A necessary etiquette given that many or even most of these interactions are between anonymous or anonymized individuals. The rules have remained unwritten because (a) they are transmitted aurally, one O9A person to another in the real world, and/or (b) our kind, or those with the nature to become of us, can and should be able to intuit what they are or be able to deduce them from the law of kindred honor, and which basic law (the Law of The New Aeon, the Logos of the Order of Nine Angles) is what binds those 'of the O9A' together."​
All we need now is for you to repeat what you said months ago in response to that quote and then for me to repeat what KS said in reply - and so on and so on.

Why not let the people following the ONA path decide for themselves who is a pretender and who isn't

Again you're asking a question you have asked many times over the months and which question has also been answered many times.

Here's a simplified version of the answer - The whole point of a public narrative was to allow them to do this!

Now it's your turn to repeat what you said months ago in response to that quote and then it'll be my turn repeat or to paraphrase what KS said in reply to you - and so on and so on.

Therefore let's sum up shall we?

#1. Person X presented an interpretation of the order of Nine Angles and gave their version of some "internet saga".
#2. You gave your personal opinion about person X - questioning their motives - and your opinion about that "internet saga" and also presented your interpretation of the O9A.
#3. Person X asked you some questions about O9A esotericism.
#4. You didn't answer the questions but did repeat your personal opinion of X and again gave your interpretation of the O9A and again claimed that X's interpretation was wrong.
#5. Person X then contradicted your interpretation of the O9A and questioned your understanding of the O9A.
#6. You claimed that the interpretation of the O9A by person X and their version of that saga were wrong, and you again questioned the motives of person X and again presented your interpretation of the O9A.

Repeat #1 to #7 several times over 8 months with some minor variations of content and expression. Toward the end add person Y who basically said what person X said, and also add you responding to person Y in almost the same way you responded to person X. Finally, add that X got inexplicably banned (so couldn't respond to you anymore) and that Y is getting bored.

Your opinion and interpretation (repeated again and again) verses the opinions and interpretations of persons X and Y (also repeated again and again).

That's it - except for two interesting facts:

A. You presented your own interpretation of the O9A even though you can't answer questions about O9A esotericism and don't have access to O9A oral tradition and don't have any experience of an O9A praxis.

B. Person X can answer questions about O9A esotericism and does have access to O9A oral tradition and has experience of an O9A praxis.
 
Last edited:
Top