Order of Nine Angles

[1137]

Im helping out some new members by mediating and trying to avoid any rule violations. See origin thread here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-dir/163372-explaining-order-nine-angles.html

Kerri's answers

1) Question: explain the reference to χῡμεία. Answer: esoteric alchemy (al-χημί&#945 and thus in respect of Petriochor the symbiotic relationship between the person preparing/making the perfume and Nature.
2) Question: why is each piece of the 'advanced' star game itself is a nameable star. Answer: because it is a 'stellar pointer' as outlined in 'The Grimoire of Baphomet, Dark Goddess'.
3) Question: where is part of the answer to the question regarding Yusra encoded, in public view, and has been for years. Answer: In Moult's painting of Myatt, and which is a location in North Africa.

Ash's answers

The answers to the questions I asked are fairly straightforward and require little in the way of in depth knowledge or insight to answer. The exercise here was not to have questions answered but rather to provoke the series of responses that were provoked when I asked them. These responses were and continue to be indicative.

1. What are the Dark Gods?

The Dark Gods are a means of self-evolution and self-fulfillment. They can be considered a projection of our own consciousness, symbols which re-present the energies of the Acausal. They can also be considered as acausal beings, actually existing in themselves, in the acausal universe. Whether either, both, or neither of these is correct is discovered by each for themselves during the ordeal of the Abyss.

2. What form is beyond the Advanced Star Game?

There is no form beyond the ESG. The ESG is capable of re-presenting all forms individual, aeonic, and cosmic.

3. What Aeonic changes has the ONA presenced?

I have discovered no evidence of any Aeonic changes presenced by the ONA.

4. Why would a person choose to invoke Aosoth and when?

There are a few possible answers to the question. One might choose to invoke Aosoth for works of passion and death, to experience her energies, or for a number of other reasons consonant with her nature. One answer to when might be during the fifth week of the Dark Pathways ritual.

5. What makes Petriochor unique?

The process by which it is produced, the interaction of the worker and the thing worked, is what makes Petriochor unique.

6. Why is civit appropriate to Jupiter?

Civit is a feminine carrier vibration and has associations with wisdom and wealth. This nature is reflective of the energies associated with the sphere of Jupiter.

7. Why were essays by Pete Carroll and others reprinted in early issues of Fenrir?

At the time the editor seems to have been influenced by Chaos Magick as promulgated by the IOT. The same individual went on to write some polemics about Chaos Magick which may be indicative of its discovered worth to that individual.

8. Why should every initiate draw or paint their own tarot and what amount of license should they take with the images suggested in Naos?

Perhaps every initiate need not paint or draw their own tarot deck. This is of course a paraphrase of a recommendation from Naos. The value in drawing or painting a tarot deck is the psychic imprinting of archetypical symbols and the creation of a uniquely useful tool for divinations and ritual meditations, including the much discussed "Dark Pathways" and "Sphere Workings." One might also pick up some useful skills with draughtsmanship and painting if one is inclined toward this exercise.

9. Why does the ONA emphasize exeatic living and what does that mean?

The initiate makes his or her own rules as they progress, relying on their own judgement, intuition, and instinct. If they are of the right sort this judgment will be noble, a life-affirming expression of a healthy psyche. As they experience life this judgment will become refined and become a finer and more precise reflection of the Satanic ethos, appropriate to this Aeon. This result is exeatic living, a living without the restrictions placed by mundanes and a constant striving for more and greater. Through the practical use of the Dark Arts combined with this manner of living one can evolve oneself in a controlled and conscious manner (πάθει μάθο&#962

 

[kerriscott]

1. What are the Dark Gods? The Dark Gods are a means of self-evolution and self-fulfillment. They can be considered a projection of our own consciousness, symbols which re-present the energies of the Acausal. They can also be considered as acausal beings, actually existing in themselves, in the acausal universe. Whether either, both, or neither of these is correct is discovered by each for themselves during the ordeal of the Abyss.

Parroting (and rephrasing) my answer, after I published it.

That in your answer you quoted from O9A texts after accusing me in a previous post of quoting O9A texts in my answer is highly amusing.

2. What form is beyond the Advanced Star Game? There is no form beyond the ESG. The ESG is capable of re-presenting all forms individual, aeonic, and cosmic.

Again, parroting my answer (after a fashion) but not understanding it, because the last part is quite wrong. The ESG does not re-present cosmic forms.

Perhaps you could explain why it doesn't, with reference to the septenary anados?

3. What Aeonic changes has the ONA presenced? I have discovered no evidence of any Aeonic changes presenced by the ONA.

Again, parroting my answer but not understanding it. Answer this - WHY is there no evidence of it?

4. Why would a person choose to invoke Aosoth and when? There are a few possible answers to the question. One might choose to invoke Aosoth for works of passion and death

Yes, the answer re invokation is given in Naos, but wrong in that there are not "a few possible answers" to the question. There is only one. Which is why invoking Aosoth is comparative to invoking Davcina, like I said in my answer.

5. What makes Petriochor unique? The process by which it is produced, the interaction of the worker and the thing worked, is what makes Petriochor unique.

You got that answer right, at least.

6. Why is civit appropriate to Jupiter? Civit is a feminine carrier vibration... sphere of Jupiter

Wrong in respect of "why civit". Exceptionally wrong. There is no such thing, in the whole O9A corpus, as a male/female "carrier vibration".

Note that I said in my answer - "Ditto with respect to Aosoth question [because all spheres have a perfume associated with them], except replace one thing with what is appropriate to another thing (eg. Arcturus)."

7. Why were essays by Pete Carroll and others reprinted in early issues of Fenrir? At the time the editor...

The editor who was Beest - again just parroting my answer, after the fact.

8. Why should every initiate draw or paint their own tarot and what amount of license should they take with the images suggested in Naos? Perhaps every initiate need not paint or draw their own tarot deck.

Yet again, just parroting my answer (which even mentioned N(aos) - "that they might they commission an artist who might employ artistic license".

9. Why does the ONA emphasize exeatic living and what does that mean? The initiate makes his or her own rules as they progress, relying on their own judgement, intuition, and instinct [...] As they experience life this judgment will become refined and become a finer and more precise reflection of the Satanic ethos.

Wrong. Epic fail. A very mundane and revealing answer to your own question.

Summary: you understand one or two things about the O9A, but only superficially, on a mundane level, and certainly do not understand or know as much as you believe you do or want others to believe you do.

Thus,

(1) you don't understand why the advanced star game does not represent 'cosmic forms', and can't explain why it doesn't.
(2) you don't understand why civit is associated with Jupiter, and made an elementary blunder in mentioning a "carrier vibration", and clearly didn't understand my answer or no doubt you would have parroted that (no doubt after rephrasing it in your own words).
(3) your answer with regard to exeatic living is an epic failure, and reveals a quite mundane level of understanding.
(4) you couldn't answer my questions about stellar pointers and an encoding and held off until I gave the answers.

 

[kerriscott]

That Ash didn't understand some (or most) of my answers - hint, think crossword type clues - reveals a lack of esoteric insight and knowledge and a lack of esoteric empathy (let's call this, inexactly but for simplicity here, 'the abilities of intuition and lateral thinking'). Just for fun, here's the solution to two of my answers. Some others may also find these solutions instructive.

1. My answer: Why would a person choose to invoke Davcina, and when; and more interestingly - why?

Let's break this down.

(a) "Why would a person choose to invoke Davcina" - because of following the instructions given in Naos re Physis Magick (aka the seven fold way) and which instructions involve pathway and sphere workings, and so on. These workings are governed by certain septenary correspondences (given in Naos) which detail things like the entities associated with the pathways, the chants and perfumes and stars and colors associated with the spheres, and so on.

Thus, this answers "Why would a person choose to invoke Aosoth and when" because Davcina and Aosoth are both 'dark entities' associated with the septenary pathways (qv. Table II of Naos).

(b) "and more interestingly - why?" - because the person is at a certain stage along the anados.

Thus, my cryptic answer fully answers Ash's question re Aosoth and adds some additional esoteric information. That he didn't make the esoteric link between Davcina in my answer and Aosoth in his question is (from an O9A point of view) highly indicative in terms of his physis. That he also said I 'lacked esoteric knowledge' about the O9A is highly amusing.

2. My answer: Ditto with respect to Aosoth question, except replace one thing with what is appropriate to another things (e.g. Arcturus).

Again, let's break this down.

(a) "Ditto with respect to Aosoth question" - because somoene is following the instructions given in Naos re Physis Magick (aka the seven fold way) and which instructions involve pathway and sphere workings, and so on. These workings are governed by certain septenary correspondences (given in Naos) which detail things like the entities associated with the pathways, the chants and perfumes and stars and colors associated with the spheres, and so on.

(b) "except replace one thing with what is appropriate to another thing (e.g. Arcturus)" - that is, and the "e.g Arcturus" is the clue, replace 'pathworking' (re the Davcina answer) with a sphere working, since 'Arcturus' is associated with a planet, not a pathworking. Note that, in typical cryptic crossword style, I added "e.g." before Arcturus indicating that an intuitive leap was required, and a leap based on esoteric knowledge, so that the planet associated with Arcturus was not meant.

Thus, my rather cryptic answer fully answers his question re Jupiter and was framed in such a way that someone of a certain mindset (or physis to use an O9A term) and having certain esoteric knowledge would be able to make the connections. Just like those who have the mindset to solve (or create) difficult crossword puzzles can solve (or create) them.

That Ash didn't understand my answer, and yet again said something about my 'lack' of knowledge is, again, both indicative and amusing.

Now, I showed these two answers of mine - and the others - to a companion before posting, and she immediately understood them. Mind you, she is rather good at crosswords!

 

[Ash Delphini]

1. "That in your answer you quoted from O9A texts after accusing me in a previous post of quoting O9A texts in my answer is highly amusing."

I believe I stated that I can quote ONA MSS just as well as can you.

2. "Again, parroting my answer (after a fashion) but not understanding it, because the last part is quite wrong. The ESG does not re-present cosmic forms."

No, I asked this as a trick question. When the only answer is "There is no form beyond the ESG" or a paraphrase, it's easy to call any correct answer parroting. As to your assertion vis. cosmic forms: Interesting. This is not my understanding but I can't speak to it from experience, not having used the game in that fashion.

3. "Again, parroting my answer but not understanding it. Answer this - WHY is there no evidence of it?"

First, I did not parrot your answer. Second, I see two possibilities: One possibility would be "because of the nature of Aeonic workings and Aeonic change."

4. "Yes, the answer re invokation is given in Naos, but wrong in that there are not "a few possible answers" to the question. There is only one."

I re-quoted this because I found it amusing. It's interesting that you would accuse me linear thinking yet here exhibit it. Is it your serious contention that there is only one time and motive for a person to invoke Aosoth?

5. "You got that answer right, at least."

Yet you were so concerned that I did not understand you.

6. You're quite wrong actually. "Carrier vibration" is a term from used by some perfumers. I was expositing the nature of the substance in question in terms other than those of the ONA. If you wish to explain this question better feel free but my answer is not factually incorrect.

7. No, my answer contained more information than your own.

8. No, my answer contained a possible value in so doing and acknowledged that drawing or painting a tarot might not be necessary for every initiate of the ONA, despite what was printed in Naos. That is different to your own answer.

9. "Wrong. Epic fail. A very mundane and revealing answer to your own question."

Interesting. They're the paraphrased words of Anton Long. They're also correct. There are other things that can be discussed under this heading of course.

"That Ash didn't understand some (or most) of my answers"

I didn't try to understand some of your answers. They read as deflections and I took them as such. Your "decoded" answers amount to "because that's what the instructions in Naos say" which don't reveal any more insight than you've previously exhibited (having read and to some degree understood various ONA MSS).

I'm really not sure from what place your arrogance and hostility are coming or what you've been trying to prove with your various trivia contests with me and others. In attempting to remove "ONA cred" to the sphere of intellection you do seem to have missed the point of some of their material.

"That Ash didn't understand my answer, and yet again said something about my 'lack' of knowledge"

That you feel the need to continuously misrepresent my words is both indicative and amusing. I suggest reading the first paragraph of my response to my own questions (again).

 

[kerriscott]

I didn't try to understand some of your answers. They read as deflections and I took them as such

QED re your physis, I suggest.

They're the paraphrased words of Anton Long. They're also correct. There are other things that can be discussed under this heading of course.

Given that this has descended down to bickering, let's concentrate on just two things.

1. Your lack of detailed esoteric knowledge of the O9A is glaringly obvious in what you wrote in question 9, which you now say is "correct" and "paraphrased words of Anton Long".

You wrote:

Why does the ONA emphasize exeatic living and what does that mean? The initiate makes his or her own rules as they progress, relying on their own judgement, intuition, and instinct [...] As they experience life this judgment will become refined and become a finer and more precise reflection of the Satanic ethos.​

This is the type of thing a neophyte - or someone who has read a lot of polemical, adversarial, 'satanic' O9A texts - might say. It's a basic error, common since O9A materials appeared on the internet, and a sign that the person doesn't have, or may not have, the required physis to become O9A.

Let's break your answer down.

(a) "The initiate makes his or her own rules as they progress."

No, they don't. They have to, from the very beginning, abide by certain "unwritten rules" - a code of personal behavior - in their dealings with other O9A folk and with 'mundanes'. They are expected, and always have been expected, to either deduce (from a detailed study of the O9A corpus and by using reason) what these unwritten rules are, or develop the necessary esoteric skills and thus be able to intuit them, or learn them from someone already O9A who has agreed to guide them.

That is, if they have or can develop an O9A physis they will (a) have found an existing O9A nexion or individual, or (b) intuitively know or discover this code. If they don't know or haven't discovered this code, then - while they may believe themselves to be O9A and even describe themselves as O9A to others - they belong to the pretendu crowd. However they find these rules, there's always an element of pathei mathos involved.

(b) "relying on their own judgement, intuition, and instinct."

No, they rely on the O9A code they have discovered and on pathei mathos, and it is pathei mathos which develops their judgment and other personal qualities.

(c) "As they experience life this judgment will become refined and become a finer and more precise reflection of the Satanic ethos."

No, it will not - repeat not - "become a finer and more precise reflection of the Satanic ethos." It will be a presencing - an embodiment - of the O9A logos.

This logos is not - repeat not - 'satanic' and never was. To believe it is, or was, is to have gotten lost in the Labyrinthos Mythologicus. What is the essence of the O9A logos? Why, it's pathei mathos (hence my answer to the question, of course).

Thus, every part of your answer is wrong, fundamentally, basically, wrong.

That you subsequently wrote that your answer "paraphrased words of Anton Long" just confirms you got lost in the Labyrinthos Mythologicus.

2. You did not know - and now agree you did not know - that the esoteric star game does not and cannot re-present cosmic forms. You can't explain why it doesn't.

Again, this reveals a definite lack of detailed esoteric knowledge of the O9A


Summary: Now, you can go on making excuses about not knowing stuff about the star game, and about giving a wrong answer - and excuses for giving a very indicative 'explanation' that your answer "paraphrased words of Anton Long". Or not.

Were I of a mind to continue the bickering, I would ask you really serious esoteric questions - such as (a) What symbolic structure/construct is beyond the (advanced) form that is The Star Game? and (b) Where and when was Al-Kitab Al-Alfak written and what name/title appears on the first folio? and (c) Just where in North Africa is a certain place connected with Yusra? - but I'll desist.

What you do next might, or might not, be interesting. Personally, I'm done with the bickering, since there is enough information here for others to make their own minds up about the matter of who has an in-depth knowledge of the O9A, and who does not.

Finally, to those reading this who might wonder about Labyrinthos Mythologicus:

"It is a modern and an amoral version of a technique often historically employed, world-wide among diverse cultures and traditions both esoteric and otherwise, to test and select candidates [...] We, the Order of Nine Angles, have presented to outsiders – and to those incipiently of our kind – a series of tests, a modern Labyrinthos Mythologicus, and which tests begin with them being expected to distil our essence from our apparent conflicting opposites."

 

[kerriscott]

I'm really not sure [...] what you've been trying to prove with your various trivia contests with me and others.

I was endeavoring to explain, in a rational way, the O9A - beyond the polemical texts and beyond the misapprehensions of others - when you interjected and began what you now deem to be "trivia contests" by asking me to answer certain questions about the O9A, and which you asked because you assumed that you knew more about the O9A than a certain other person, which hasn't in fact proved to be the case, given for example your answer to question #9 and my explanation of why its was wrong.

Furthermore, perhaps you didn't notice - or perhaps preferred not to mention - that I gave an answer to a question (relating to Yusra) that no one, claiming to be O9A via the internet, has ever been able to answer even though quite a few people have been asked that, and the other nine, questions asked of pretenders.

Also, I also supplied some information (regarding a certain painting) that only a select number of people know, people such as Anton Long, Moult, those who are part of a certain 'inner circle' and one or two others who might conceivably know such people.

Thus, are you now going to claim that the answer of mine regarding Yusra, and additional information re the painting, are wrong and that you are part of the 'inner circle'? If so, do please give the precise location in North Africa, or admit that a certain person possesses or has access to more knowledge about the O9A than you claim to have. Furthermore, if such an admission is abhorrent and impossible, it most assuredly is QED re you being part of the O9A pretendu crowd, for someone really O9A - even an initiate - would have self-honesty and self-awareness enough to be able to do that, and admit errors and incorrect assumptions made.

 

[Ash Delphini]

Kerri/June,
"1. Your lack of detailed esoteric knowledge of the O9A is glaringly obvious in what you wrote in question 9, which you now say is "correct" and "paraphrased words of Anton Long"."

It is a paraphrase of AL, and I would daresay if you weren't engaging cognitive bias you could agree.

"This is the type of thing a neophyte - or someone who has read a lot of polemical, adversarial, 'satanic' O9A texts - might say."

Possibly, if they were familiar with older texts. I've typically found such folk tend to focus on the word "amoral" to the exclusion of others.

"It's a basic error, common since O9A materials appeared on the internet, and a sign that the person doesn't have, or may not have, the required physis to become O9A."

According to you, an unproven and anonymous person on the internet. This kind of talk really goes no where. It's much the same as the age-old saw "What are your sinister deeds?"

The specific text quoted in paraphrase was "The Satanic Way of Living" written by AL in 103yf. My viewpoint, contrary to your own belief, does not significantly contradict your own on the matter. If you read my response later, sans cognitive bias, I think that you will be able to see that. Ashley Hand was certainly able to do so. At this time your arguments have become pedantic and your approach is unnecessarily combative. More WSA352 style.

"No, they don't. They have to, from the very beginning, abide by certain "unwritten rules" - a code of personal behavior - in their dealings with other O9A folk and with 'mundanes'."

"If they are of the right sort this judgment will be noble, a life-affirming expression of a healthy psyche." If they are the right sort they will have intuitively grasped honour and applied it in their judgments. They will, through pathei-mathos, become more refined, etc.

"No, they rely on the O9A code they have discovered and on pathei mathos, and it is pathei mathos which develops their judgment and other personal qualities."

I would dare say if they need to rely on a written code they may not be of the requisite physis. My answer hinges on an intuitive understanding of honour, as AL hinted toward in the MS quoted in paraphrase. Yours appears to introduce the viability of intellection. This may well be a viable method but it is not the method by which I came to honour so I can't speak to it.

"It will be a presencing - an embodiment - of the O9A logos."

Traditional Satanism is a form appropriate to the current Aeon. Reference to Satanism in such manner is appropriate to the current Aeon. In the attempt to utterly divorce the ONA from its Satanic "face" you're making a bit of a miss. According to the Satanism of the ONA, 'real Satanism' is 'Traditional Satanism' is ONA with a Satanic face. Thus, from the viewpoint of ONA documentation, the true "Satanic ethos" is the ONA ethos.

For several decades the face of the ONA has been Satanic. In multiple core texts Traditional Satanism is noted as a form appropriate to the current Aeon and appropriate until the end of the current Aeon. This has also been expressed to me by ONA people I respect in times past in places like Usenet or various "-L"s, and a certain yahoogroup, amongst others.

On the other hand you, an unproven person on the internet, come in on an unnecessary attack vector in the typical "WSA352" style and tell me I'm wrong about all of that. What reason do I have to take you at your word?

"You did not know - and now agree you did not know - that the esoteric star game does not and cannot re-present cosmic forms. You can't explain why it doesn't."

That is true. If you can explain why it doesn't satisfactorily I can accept your claim that it doesn't and I will have learned something valuable. If you just insist that it doesn't without providing reason or evidence for your claim then any reasonable person would either reject your claim or suspend judgment pending further investigation.

"Again, this reveals a definite lack of detailed esoteric knowledge of the O9A"

What claim have I made in this regard? Can you quote it?

"Were I of a mind to continue the bickering, I would ask you really serious esoteric questions - such as (a) What symbolic structure/construct is beyond the (advanced) form that is The Star Game? and (b) Where and when was Al-Kitab Al-Alfak written and what name/title appears on the first folio? and (c) Just where in North Africa is a certain place connected with Yusra? - but I'll desist."

The first time I saw these questions was on Chloe's blog. I have no reason, at this time, to believe that they are anything other than Chloe's inventions. I've not seen anyone like DL9 or PH browbeat people with questions that, if legitimate, obviously require direct contact with someone in the 'inner circle' from whom to access the answers. Without a point of reference (a chain of evidence linking back to ONA, or reference to how such questions fit into the overall "ONA" picture) there is no reason for anyone to give them credence. Concepts like "Yusra" appear no where else in the ONA literature, unless you're going to go to the "internal documents" next.

This is much the same as the gambit of quoting "privately circulated manuscripts" aka "internal documents" as evidence for one's arguments. Unless the MS itself is provided, and linked through a chain of evidence to ONA and/or (preferably and) be shown to be consistent with the body of ONA knowledge currently available, it can hardly be taken as anything but a ruse or revisionism. Making new MS appear on a wordpress and post-dating them is a similar ploy.

"With 'Ash' it's how to distinguish (a) those who, anonymously and via the internet, claim to have (or may even believe that they have) in-depth esoteric knowledge about the O9A from (b) those who actually do."

Do quote me making claims in this regard. It seems you may be operating under some false assumptions.

I realize that, like Chloe, you feel the need to try to put other people on the defensive. It's not a bad rhetorical technique. Helpful hint: It doesn't really work with people who have nothing to defend.

Something in your narrative about the ONA doesn't fit though. If in fact it is merely as you say, why would the ONA incite anything, put on a Satanic face, put on an NS face, encourage violent activism, etc.? "It was all a test/joke" is a juvenile answer unworthy of notice. What is the point of inciting sinister deeds in the real world on a personal quest for Lapis Philosophicus? It fits with the narrative of the literature, to overthrow the current devolutionary Magian system as a step toward Galactic life. It does not fit with your arbitrary division of the literature and your redefinition of ONA.

You may in fact have more knowledge concerning the ONA than I. You may in fact be part of the 'inner circle'. You have yet to prove those things to be true. Were you able to do so the tone of this conversation might change.

At present this just looks like more antics of the WSA352 or an imitator thereof. Cue a sock account named for one of the ONA people I've mentioned.

 

[kerriscott]

I would daresay if you weren't engaging cognitive bias you could agree [.......]

What an awful lot of excuses. Bottom line - you gave a specific answer to a question, which answer was wrong. Spin it anyway you want, but it was wrong.

Concepts like "Yusra" appear no where else in the ONA literature

For a reason. They are aural traditions. I suggest you read Anton Long on aural traditions, or write Professor Monette who was in correspondence with AL about aural traditions.

You may in fact have more knowledge concerning the ONA than I. You may in fact be part of the 'inner circle'. You have yet to prove those things to be true. Were you able to do so the tone of this conversation might change.

Refer to my PM.

On a more public note, perhaps you could decode the information in the painting I mentioned? You could always contact Moult and ask him about whether something is encoded in the painting. He might even oblige.

 

[kerriscott]

The first time I saw these questions was on Chloe's blog. I have no reason, at this time, to believe that they are anything other than Chloe's inventions.

Your belief is wrong. Check out - Who Is An ONA Adept? « The Order of Nine Angles

 

[Ash Delphini]

Kerri/June you wrote: bluster, bluster, bluff, bluff, and still failed to understand that there isn't much significant difference between the answer I gave and the answer you yourself gave beyond semantics, all in the style we've come to expect from the "WSA352."

If you're under the impression at this point that I "carry on like... Krispy" or that further posturing in this vein is beneficial to you, you really haven't been paying attention at all. Your link to another wordpress mafia site is amusing but hardly evidence of authenticity. Backing up your assertions from anonymity with an anonymous wordpress is precious. That said, I will take into consideration what was communicated in private message and get back to you about it.

And of course, I have.

"June Boyle" your Facebook echo responed:

"Ash: More distractive gabble from you and more ignoring of when you've been proved wrong. You said you believed Chloe on her blog first posted those questions you can't answer, so I gave a link showing they were posted by Anton Long six months or more before Chloe even started her blog. Thus you were wrong, but couldn't admit it, for your silly rely was - " your link to another wordpress mafia site is amusing but hardly evidence of authenticity." Which reply of course reveals a very non-O9A physis. Oh yes, and you guessed right of course, I'm actually Chloe"

Thank you for your admission Chloe, I was beginning to wonder what absurdity I was going to have to do to provoke it.

With that out of the way I will say your agenda hasn't changed much, which was in fact a tip-off. Your scholarship and writing are as well executed as ever and you're still trying to pussify the ONA, making it marketable to a greater audience and, in accordance with the sentiments of your resignation letter, making it palatable to yourself. You may or may not be doing that at David's behest. It wouldn't surprise me if you are.

An interesting note about his website: It's registered to Dynadot Privacy under the name David Myatt. A quick call to Dynadot allowed me to discover that they don't do any sort of identity verification. Given your proven ability to forge his writing style, what I see there may or may not be his words and sentiments. Dynadot is (not surprisingly) based in San Mateo, CA. They don't come up on google searches from the UK for hosting services or privacy services for several pages. It's interesting that a gentleman from Shropshire would know of, much less utilize, their services. "Julie Wright's" website is likewise registered. It's also interesting that both of these websites appeared during the your active internet period. These may or may not be authentic. There's no empirical evidence one way or another.

So I did send a few messages via post to certain individuals who may or may not verify your claims. For that I'll have to wait on the post.

Regardless of this, You, DWM or even AL is not the arbiter of ONA for me or anyone else.

A few key points you seem to have missed:

1. I've claimed neither membership nor special knowledge of ONA. I know what I know, I'm willing to learn what I don't. I'm not however interested in unproven pontifications from unproven anonymous individuals on the internet. Any information gained on the internet is judged by its value and verifiability alone. The internet is simply not a source of knowledge.

2. You've demonstrated neither membership nor special knowledge of ONA (though again, kudos on your scholarship).

3. Authority is not a part of the ONA. Arguing from authority is of little use. Even AL's work is accepted or not on the basis of its actual value, whether or not it works.

4. Good luck with your (and maybe David's) revisionism. That's what it is whether you're willing to admit that or not. Anna Czereda already neatly clarified that. I don't have anything to add to her analysis at this time.

5. I'm willing to believe you're in contact with people "in the know." That doesn't mean I do believe it. Perhaps you're an Initiate (or even Adept!). Perhaps you're the next Kris. Perhaps your association is non-existent, invented by you. Evidence drives any conclusion I choose to make on the matter.

Do you choose to present evidence or simply continue your typical antics? The antics are amusing but not terribly useful to either you or to me. Better yet, do that and then grace us with some useful knowledge.

The rest was old by 2008.

 

[Ash Delphini]

Perhaps you can actually explain to us why something in your narrative about the ONA doesn't fit though. If in fact it is merely as you say, why would the ONA incite anything, put on a Satanic face, put on an NS face, encourage violent activism, etc.? "It was all a test/joke" is a juvenile answer unworthy of notice. What is the point of inciting sinister deeds in the real world on a personal quest for Lapis Philosophicus? It fits with the narrative of the literature, to overthrow the current devolutionary Magian system as a step toward Galactic life. It does not fit with your arbitrary division of the literature and your redefinition of ONA.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Wow, there's so much name dropping on this thread. I know Anton Long/David Myatt and Chloe, but the rest went over my head.

 

[1137]

Wow, there's so much name dropping on this thread. I know Anton Long/David Myatt and Chloe, but the rest went over my head.

It's awesome.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's awesome.

It's like a soap opera. It's better to just sit back, munch on some popcorn and watch the theatrics play out.

 

[kerriscott]

Thank you for your admission Chloe, I was beginning to wonder what absurdity I was going to have to do to provoke it.......

Your thousands and thousands of words of excuses, and explanations, and assumptions about me and JB, here and elsewhere, amount to:

(1) The plain English of your wrong answer actually means the opposite of what it says, so therefore your answer is not only correct but also paraphrases mine. For example (a) 'satanic ethos' does not mean 'satanic ethos' but rather means the O9A logos; and (b) "they make their own rules" does not mean "they make their own rules" but rather it means "they abide by the unwritten O9A code".
(2) If I really were knowledgeable about the O9A, and not playing WSA352 games, then I'd understand your wrong answer is actually correct.
(3) You are not going to answer the questions about Yusra and other esoteric things I asked (such as modes in esoteric chant) because you claim they're meaningless.
(4) My agenda - because I'm Chloe (and also JB) - hasn't changed much, which was in fact what "tipped you off" about me.

#1 is amusing, and indicative; but most amusing and indicative of all is #4: given that you not only accepted JB's ironic comment about being Chloe at face value, but also now say it confirmed your suspicions and the conclusion about me that you'd already come to.

The pièce de résistance, though, is you writing, based on your fallacious assumption that I - acting alone or with a person or persons unknown - have somehow created a 'revisionist' or new version of the O9A. You wrote: {quote} why would the ONA incite anything, put on a Satanic face, put on an NS face, encourage violent activism, etc.? "It was all a test/joke" is a juvenile answer unworthy of notice. What is the point of inciting sinister deeds in the real world on a personal quest for Lapis Philosophicus? {/quote}

This not only makes silly claims about me - e.g. that I said "It was all a test/joke", when I didn't - but shows an astonishing lack of esoteric understanding of the O9A. [ No doubt after I explained why this is so, you'll go on to claim that you didn't mean what you wrote but actually meant what I explained. ]

Explanation:
(1) "why would the O9A incite anything, put on a satanic face..." Answer: Why the seven fold way? Oh, sorry, I forgot you didn't - couldn't - understand my previous cryptic crossword type answers, so I'll write in plain English. Because the unchanging essence of the O9A is pathei mathos via the exoteric and the esoteric actions/life-style of individuals, manifest as the esoteric is in the seven fold way with its insight roles, ordeals (and so on), and manifest as the exoteric is in the presencing acausal energies via individuals, and which presencing includes the O9A logos.
(2) "What is the point of inciting sinister deeds in the real world on a personal quest for Lapis Philosophicus?" Answer: (a) Practical personal experience of the sinisterly-numinous, and thus pathei mathos, and (b) presencing acausal energies and thus the O9A logos (etcetera) via individuals.

 

[Ash Delphini]

Kerri/June:

You really should stop trying to tell me what I mean by what I say. You're really quite bad at it.

"The plain English of your wrong answer actually means the opposite of what it says"

No, it doesn't. It means exactly what it says and exactly what it hints toward. That you are unable to decipher it whilst another person here was able to is interesting, given your wealth of knowledge. That you are apparently unable to understand it after I've thoroughly explained it to you is interesting as well.

"(2) If I really were knowledgeable about the O9A, and not playing WSA352 games, then I'd understand your wrong answer is actually correct."

No, that would be a miss. Whether or not you choose to play WSA352 games you should be able to comprehend it after not one but two people have explained it to you.

"(3) You are not going to answer the questions about Yusra and other esoteric things I asked (such as modes in esoteric chant) because you claim they're meaningless."

Another miss. Perhaps you should re-read what I actually wrote. Either they are the inventions of Chloe Ortega or they require access to some unevidenced "inner order" or some unevidenced "inner documents" and I would accept evidence of any of these possibilities. You haven't been very good with evidence however so I'm not holding my breath.

"(4) My agenda - because I'm Chloe - hasn't changed much, which was in fact what "tipped you off" about me."

Here you plainly understood me. I'm glad. Same attitude, same writing style, same pedantry, same games, same Chloe. If you aren't Chloe (et al.) you're doing a damn fine imitation and should be proud. I really should have done one of those clever internet "in before" thingies concerning the "hahaha I'm not really Chloe!" That's precious too. I'm glad you've gotten some laughter from this exchange. I know you've had us in stitches.

"The pièce de résistance, though, is you writing, based on your fallacious assumption that I - acting alone or with a person or persons unknown - have somehow created a 'revisionist' or new version of the O9A."

Feel free to prove me wrong with something resembling evidence.

Hint: Evidence doesn't consist of anonymous wordpress sites on the internet or questionably registered websites or links to websites from times past. The ONA has actually written extensively on what evidence of involvement looks like, from posting Tarot and Chant samples to the ever-popular "we don't trust anyone we don't know in the real world" and quite a lot in between.

You've given no evidence for your involvement. You privately linked me to a Facebook thread on which you were gathering questions to ask David (who may or may not actually be David, for the reasons I've already specified).

It's all irrelevant really. Your sentiments and opinions are at odds with those of the ONA. Your pussification, whatever the motive, is unlikely to gain much traction with anyone but those seeking an easier, softer, road. A less heretical, less subversive, less difficult, less painful, less testing, less active, more mystical, more philosophical, more intellectual road. See below.

"This not only makes silly claims about me - e.g. that I said "It was all a test/joke", when I didn't"

This is a comprehension failure on your part. The statement was preemptive. I considered that a possible answer you might give (and thank you for proving me wrong on that) and chose to preempt it by calling it juvenile. I will try to be more clear for you in the future.

"but shows an astonishing lack of esoteric understanding of the O9A."

According to you, an anonymous and unproven person on the internet peddling a rather pussified version of ONA.

"No doubt after I explained why this is so, you'll go on to claim that you didn't mean what you wrote but actually meant what I explained."

Oh, I doubt it. Let's see.

Explanation:
(1) "why would the O9A incite anything, put on a satanic face..." Answer: [blah blah you don't get it Ash] "Because the unchanging essence of the O9A is pathei mathos via the exoteric and the esoteric actions/life-style of individuals, manifest as the esoteric is in the seven fold way with its insight roles, ordeals (and so on), and manifest as the exoteric is in the presencing acausal energies via individuals, and which presencing includes the O9A logos.(2) "What is the point of inciting sinister deeds in the real world on a personal quest for Lapis Philosophicus?" Answer: (a) Practical personal experience of the sinisterly-numinous, and thus pathei mathos, and (b) presencing acausal energies and thus the O9A logos (etcetera) via individuals."

This, genuinely, made me laugh. Out loud. For the experience and the learning from that experience and to presence (make manifest) acausal energies and the ONA logos (which you equate to the Code of Kindred Honour). Your explanation is consistent with your own narrative but not really consistent with the historical course of ONA literature, some recent commentaries re: "things so subversive they can never...", etc. I'm sure you can explain how it all fits but Czereda's analysis has a greater ring of truth if we're simply to compare opinions with no supporting evidence.

If you fancy yourself a latter-day Hassan ibn Sabbah type character then you appear to be failing. I've noticed that you aren't finding acceptance for your revisionism much of anywhere. I wonder why?

To be fair, the part about presencing acausal energies is consistent with most interpretations of ONA. Most people interested in ONA are likewise interested in honour, experience, and learning from experience (and everything else wrapped up in pathei mathos). You'll notice though that all of that pesky talk about subverting/destroying the current System is a major selling point. So is the New Aeon, Galactic Imperium, etc. Telling people to dismiss all of that and concentrate on the mysticism is well... bad marketing at the very least. It's also consistent with Chloe's actions and thus apparent agenda, whatever you want to acknowledge or deny on that score.

“Not for the Order of the Nine Angles – or anyone connected with it – cosy intellectual discussions about obscure esoteric matters. Not for the ONA – or anyone connected with it – the scribblings of Occult internet forums where those who-do-not-know converse with those who-do-not-do. Not for the ONA – or anyone connected with it – any sincere affirmation of or any sincere identification with the ways, the politics, the religions, the world, of the mundanes. Not for the ONA – or anyone connected with it – some urban or suburban “Temple”. Not for the ONA – or anyone connected with it – ONA meetings, conferences and dialogues.” – Hardcore ONA, Sortiarius, Order of Nine Angles

So thank you for the cosy intellectual discussion about obscure occult matters via the scribblings of an internet forum where those who do not know converse with those who do not do. It's been fun.

 

[kerriscott]

there isn't much significant difference between the answer I gave and the answer you yourself gave beyond semantics

Which is exactly what I said you'd say. QED.

That you insisted on writing hundreds and hundreds more words trying to explain yourself and make excuses is indicative. I'm sure the sheer quantity just confuses many readers here as elsewhere, which - I suggest - may have been your intent.

But, simple fact - you publicly claimed I was Chloe and even addressed me here as "Chloe". Having now been caught out - because I'm not Chloe - you apparently cannot admit your error but instead just make excuses and try to hide behind sheer volume of words, now saying stuff like you were "misunderstood" and that if I was not Chloe then, in your words, "I'm doing a damn fine imitation."

Perhaps you will next say that you were just 'joking' and that it was all part of some 'game' you were playing, or a test? If so, may I remind you that you also said that such tests/jokes are "juvenile answers unworthy of notice".

Simple fact, by stating I was Chloe, then failing to admit the mistake, and then making excuses, there is - I suggest to you - a definite loss of credibility. Which loss makes the rest of your hundreds and hundred of more recent words loose whatever credibility they might - for some - have had.

 

[Ash Delphini]

Please, continue to gush forth meaningless gabble, as you like to say. You've provided no evidence for your claims. It is thus entirely reasonable to reject your claims.

You've implied and stated connection to the ONA and yet continue to demonstrate a character that is antithetical to ONA, according to ONA.

“Not for the Order of the Nine Angles – or anyone connected with it – cosy intellectual discussions about obscure esoteric matters. Not for the ONA – or anyone connected with it – the scribblings of Occult internet forums where those who-do-not-know converse with those who-do-not-do. Not for the ONA – or anyone connected with it – any sincere affirmation of or any sincere identification with the ways, the politics, the religions, the world, of the mundanes. Not for the ONA – or anyone connected with it – some urban or suburban “Temple”. Not for the ONA – or anyone connected with it – ONA meetings, conferences and dialogues.” – Hardcore ONA, Sortiarius, Order of Nine Angles

Your opinions re: ONA aren't worth reading according to ONA.

If you are unaware of the certain parameters, have you:

◾(1) Undertaken a culling?
◾(2) Undertaken the rite of external adept?
◾(3) Trained for and achieved the basic physical challenges of our Way?
◾(4) Undertaken several Insight Rôles?
◾(5) Undertaken the rite of internal adept or spent at least three months alone in the wilderness?
◾(6) Indulged in violent, ‘criminal’, and other amoral activities for six months to a year?
◾(7) Acquired skill in esoteric chant and performed it with a group?
◾(8) Acquired skill in the advanced form of the star game?
◾(9) Undertaken rites to invoke the dark gods using a large crystal tetrahedron?
◾(10) Run a group/nexion/temple of many individuals for a year or two – and so had to deal with their questions, the squabbles, the rivalry?
◾(11) Had that group/nexion/temple plan and conduct the tests for selecting an opfer and then perform a rite of sacrifice?
◾(12) Sinisterly manipulated or incited someone, or several, into undertaking a culling and/or an act of terror?
◾(13) Sinisterly manipulated or incited someone, or several, into a life of violence and/or crime and/or of practical heretical/adversarial activism disruptive of the status quo?

Of these thirteen things how many have you/they done? For your/their words to be anything more than mundane pretentious waffle about the ONA (and about the sinister) the answer should be at least five of them. If these include (1), (3) (5), (10) and (11) then your/their opinions about the ONA and the sinister are at the very least worth reading. If you/they have done (1), (3), (5), (6), (7), (8), (10), (11), (12) then kudos to you/them and your/their views will be interesting and possibly enable you/them to make some original contribution to the ONA and so aid its development. If you/they have not done any of these things, or done only one or two of them, then that is just not good enough, and you/they should try harder, start being satanic in real life, or stop pretending to be O9A.

Instead you represent just one more unproven, anonymous voice on the internet with no more credibility than the people, like Kris, that you attack. That you are more eloquent and studied is hardly evidence of authenticity. This is probably why we don't see many claims made by ONA people on the internet, and particularly not in forums or on social media.

It isn't the ONA way.

Adieu.

 

[kerriscott]

You've provided no evidence for your claims.

Jack/Numen/Ash/Whatever: Actually I did provide such evidence, by answering one of those 'ten questions' you were asked some time ago but couldn't answer; and also provided info re the OG in a PM. You chose to ignore both.

“Not for the Order of the Nine Angles – or anyone connected with it – cosy intellectual discussions about obscure esoteric matters.

It's highly amusing that - after writing thousands and thousands of words here and elsewhere - you quote that essay, which BTW was written by Anton Long.

Your opinions re: ONA aren't worth reading

According to you...

 

[kerriscott]

The following item was posted by Ash Delphini on an O9A FB group yesterday:

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.​