The Satanic Temple's Brian Werner: "**** the weak!"

[AnnaCzereda]

yet more cliches

Taking the sentences out of context. So typical of you. Most of what you call "cliches" are deliberate quotations or allusions. Never heard of intertextuality? The last one is a quotation. Since it blew over your head, I will spell it out to you:

You and KS may think of yourself as the guardians of the Sinister Tradition, but due to the persistent advertizing campaigns and multiple online soap operas, people take bits and pieces from the ONA and incorporate them into their own paradigm or set up their nexions or follow the path the way they think it should be followed. The side effect is that hardly anybody needs your guidance or even welcomes your opinion.

Which perhaps explains why someone claiming elsewhere to be a Catholic living in Poland, posts so frequently on LHP and satanic forums, describes their religion here as LHP, and jumps into every Order of Nine Angles thread here, on FB, and elsewhere

Such a "sage" as you should know what a Christian may look for in Satanism or a Satanist in spirituality or mythology. Apart from that, a label is only a descriptor. But apparently, you have no clue about what you, yourself, are talking about.

despite being unable to answer basic questions about O9A esotericism.

You mean the similar pedantic questions that were asked of Ryan? So now the ONA is all about studying its esoteric texts in a scholarly manner, occasionally checking the unfamiliar words in the Complete Oxford English Dictionary, 20 volumes, Oxford, second edition, 1989.

Your friend left the ONA facebook group because people (including some folks from ABG Lodge) started calling her out, demanding to see the photos of her advanced Star Game, her Tarot cards and the evidence of her sinister life, the same she demanded previously from Ryan.

And kudos to you for contributing - intentionally or otherwise, over the past few years - to the O9A's Labyrinthos Mythologicus.

Nope, it's not me but you. You and your bull****, permanent propaganda, lies and half-truths. That alone discredits you and KS as a credible source of information, in spite of all your knowledge.

 

[Helly Gupta]

I have read on Internet that Antonio Long is plagiarist who is stealing ideas and words from David Myatt. Please, tell me this is so.

 

[jeff77]

So now the ONA is all about studying its esoteric texts in a scholarly manner

Since you et al repeatedly failed to answer simple questions about O9A esotericism then your opinion and their opinions about the Order of Nine Angles are simply the personal opinions of those who have no detailed esoteric knowledge of the O9A.

If some individuals take such personal opinions by such unknowledgeable people seriously then they do. Which in itself is indicative.

Your friend left the ONA facebook group because...

You et al - who opined about at length about the O9A - revealed you had no esoteric understanding/knowledge of the O9A and/or had no practical experience of O9A praxises extending over a period of many years.

Therefore your personal opinions about the O9A, howsoever and wheresoever expressed, had just gotten too boring and/or too plebeian for them to bother to reply to there and elsewhere. In proof of which you might ask Professor Monette, for certain O9A people were in contact with him and made explicit mention of such facts.

started calling her out

That you now claim that committing the logical fallacy of ignoratio elenchi amounted to "calling her out" is not only indicative but somewhat amusing.

Since you've either forgotten, or more probably for propagandistic reasons have ignored, the reasoning then I'll explain it to you (and others).

Mr McD claimed to have knowledge of the O9A star game and offers to tutor people in it. Ms K asked for evidence of his experience and knowledge of said game, such as photographs of the advanced star game he has constructed, and also points out that he could not answer some basic questions previously asked of him about the star game - such as "what pieces you would place on the Mira board when the game is used to represent the current aeonic situation and how those pieces might change/move to re-present the beginning(by say, Vindex) of the presencing, predicted c. 2100 ev, that would be a practical manifestation of the logos of the O9A".

Thus Mr McD makes some claims about himself, and Ms K asks for evidence in support of such claims. Mr McD does not supply any such evidence. Instead, several people - committing the logical fallacy of ignoratio elenchi - ask for photographs of Ms K's own star game, and then proceed to claim (like shyster lawyers) that her failure to produce such evidence vindicates Mr McD's claims.

Since Mr McD still has not provided any evidence to support his claims, then the sagacious [subliminal note: "The O9A Manual of Style"] will doubtless conclude that there is no substance to them.

You and your bull****, permanent propaganda, lies and half-truths. That alone discredits you and KS as a credible source of information, in spite of all your knowledge.

Since "we" can answer - and in several proven cases have publicly answered (in one case, here on this forum) - questions about O9A esotericism, while you et al cannot answer such questions, then obviously "we" are credible sources of information regarding the Order of Nine Angles while you et al are not.

it's not [about] me but you

In fact it is about you - and specifically about your lack of knowledge of the O9A and about you, a self-professed Christian, posting on LHP and satanic forums as if you're some kind of occult expert.

That you keep attempting to deflect attention away your lack of knowledge about the O9A and the reasons why you're on such forums is interesting. But no doubt such deflections do fool some people.

That you keep responding re the O9A just makes my point re your minor recent contributions to the O9A's Labyrinthos Mythologicus.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

You et al - who opined about at length about the O9A - revealed you had no esoteric understanding/knowledge of the O9A and/or had no practical experience of O9A praxises extending over a period of many years.

I never claimed to be ONA so it's obvious that my opinion is the opinion of an outsider. I don't have to be able to answer the questions for the initiates, about the Star Game which I never did, or translate some Greek sentences while I never studied the language. You claim that I have no esoteric understanding on the basis of what exactly? The silly and mundane online drama? Your claim that the esoterics can be studied in a scholarly manner is indicative as your previous claim that there are many wisdoms. The same could be said about your constant appeal to the authority of Monette or a dictionary and your constant appeal to my actual or supposed Christianity (being hung up on a label). Not to mention the hair-splitting about honor and you being unable to understand what other people say and what they mean. Where is your esoteric understanding? Where is your empathy? Either you're fooling around or you're more mundane than an average Christian or a self-proclaimed Satanist.

Since "we" can answer - and in several proven cases have publicly answered (in one case, here on this forum) - questions about O9A esotericism, while you et al cannot answer such questions, then obviously "we" are credible sources of information regarding the Order of Nine Angles while you et al are not.

No, you aren't because you were lying. The blogs dedicated to Ryan, me and Darryl are pure propaganda with the shortened and twisted quotations taken out of context. If you want to expose someone, where are the screenshots? Anyway, all the posts here and on 600 Club are archived. Anyone who dares to think for himself will form his opinion on the basis of what actually has been written. The same goes for the false accusations against Ryan, who never pretended to be an ONA adept, sold not the ONA stuff but his own works and was quite honest (humble even) in his diary about what tasks he managed to complete and what he failed to do.

You judge people whether they are honorable or dishonorable, whether they have an esoteric apprehension or not on the basis of their blogs, forum posts or silly detailed questions. It's pathetic, really. Honor is a quality of character. Where are your real world tests of character? When was Ryan personally tested by you so that he revealed his character lacking in honor? Someone may know nothing about the ONA but still be honorable. I simply asked you and KS for the real-world proof of Hollow's supposed dishonorable behavior, the proof you never gave. And you trashed me on your blog calling me plebeian, arrogant and pretentious as if your behavior online were more noble and as if it required an academic knowledge to call you out on your obvious bull****.

Mr McD claimed to have knowledge of the O9A star game and offers to tutor people in it. Ms K asked for evidence of his experience and knowledge of said game, such as photographs of the advanced star game he has constructed, and also points out that he could not answer some basic questions previously asked of him about the star game - such as "what pieces you would place on the Mira board when the game is used to represent the current aeonic situation and how those pieces might change/move to re-present the beginning(by say, Vindex) of the presencing, predicted c. 2100 ev, that would be a practical manifestation of the logos of the O9A".

Thus Mr McD makes some claims about himself, and Ms K asks for evidence in support of such claims. Mr McD does not supply any such evidence. Instead, several people - committing the logical fallacy of ignoratio elenchi - ask for photographs of Ms K's own star game, and then proceed to claim (like shyster lawyers) that her failure to produce such evidence vindicates Mr McD's claims.

Mr McD constructed a virtual advanced Star Game and built several physical models of the basic Star Game. All the photos he posted in the group. He also painted his own deck of Tarot cards. That's more than an average ONA "member" has done. It's easy to criticize someone so people in the group asked KS to show her own Star Game and her Tarot Cards because there weren't many created. Anyway, didn't KS, herself, post on the 600Club that people who criticize Myatt do it anonymously and present no evidence of their sinister deeds. Voila, now you have KS and you criticizing Ryan anonymously without showing any evidence of your own sinister deeds.

In fact it is about you - and specifically about your lack of knowledge of the O9A and about you, a self-professed Christian, posting on LHP and satanic forums as if you're some kind of occult expert.

I'm a Satanist here. Who I am elsewhere doesn't matter. A label is only a hat. I have more knowledge about Satanism than an average self-proclaimed Satanist. However, I hardly ever pose as an expert on the ONA or the occult. On the contrary, I always kept saying that it should be left to the ONA folks to decide for themselves who is a genuine "member" and who is a poser.

 

[jeff77]

You claim that I have no esoteric understanding on the basis of what exactly?

On the basis that you don't - because of your lack of knowledge of O9A esotericism - understand O9A esotericism, and thus don't fundamentally understand the Order of Nine Angles. A lack of understanding so obvious in your failure to answer certain basic questions about O9A esotericism; so obvious in your lack of access to O9A aural tradition; and so obvious in statements by you such as the following:

I always kept saying that it should be left to the ONA folks to decide for themselves who is a genuine "member" and who is a poser

Since you're an outsider and since you lack even a basic knowledge of O9A esotericism, your understanding - or your definition - of who is or who is not O9A is irrelevant.

Meanwhile, those who do have an initiated knowledge of O9A esotericism, and who do have access to O9A aural tradition, have explained what being O9A means.

That you and other outsiders - and O9A pretenders - do not accept such explanations is irrelevant.

That you and other outsiders - and O9A pretenders - have posted thousands of posts giving "your un-initiated interpretation" of the O9A, and continue to do so, is most amusing.

it's obvious that my opinion is the opinion of an outsider

Yes indeed. But what is such an obviously ill-informed personal opinion worth?

Thus we have the spectacle of an outsider, who doesn't understand the O9A, defending O9A pretenders: defending individuals who have claimed to be O9A - who have self-identified with the O9A - even though those individuals also don't understand the O9A, as has been revealed by their behavior, by their writings, and by their failure to answer questions relating to O9A esotericism.

You then claim that such a revealing of such pretenders was merely "a silly and mundane online drama". Which is, yet again, just the personal opinion of an outsider who doesn't understand the O9A.

But the most interesting thing is that you have propagated your personal outsider opinion about the O9A in thousands of internet posts over the past year or more - and continue to defend O9A pretenders - and not only refuse to admit that you're wrong but also employ ignoratio elenchi and argumentum ad nauseam.

Hence why you now write that:

I simply asked you and KS for the real-world proof of Hollow's supposed dishonorable behavior, the proof you never gave

even though the proof was given to you many times, including here on this very forum.

That you refused to acknowledge such proof, and refused to answer one simple question relating to it, and just went on claiming that there "is no proof", is both interesting and indicative.

So, for the benefit of readers, here (yet again) is the one question that you have consistently failed to answer.

Given that Kris himself admitted that he "didn't give a **** about the O9A code", and given that following that code is what distinguishes someone who is O9A from someone who is not O9A, was he or was he not falsely claiming to be O9A? Yes, or no?

Are you going to answer it this time?

Or are you going to continue to claim that your personal outsider opinion of who is or who isn't O9A is the correct one, even though those who do have an initiated knowledge of O9A esotericism, and who do have access to O9A aural tradition, have explained that your personal opinion in this matter is wrong?

 

[AnnaCzereda]

There is no codified code of honor. Kris couldn't give a **** about the Code because there is none. It's up to each ONA individual to intuit for themselves what honor is based on their own pathei mathos gained by following the ONA path. The code that has been written down by Anton Long is his personal interpretation. It's also up to each ONA initiate to decide for himself who is of his kind and who is not based upon his own understanding of honor and his life experience.

You can't judge whether the person is honorable or not by reading his posts or blogs. The only things that can be evaluated online are the level of intelligence and erudition, occasionally the level of naivety, conformity and verbal aggression. You can't judge the person's character without knowing him personally, without testing him in the real world. One might not know much about the ONA, might follow the path without any guidance, yet still have honor because honor is the quality of character and has nothing to do with the amount of knowledge the person has.

You repeat ad nauseam I have no esoteric understanding but I can see through the liar. You cannot study intuition. Either you have it or you don't. I accuse you not of having no knowledge about the ONA but about deliberate lying in order to discredit your opponents. Why should I accept your obvious lies?

Oh and this:
The mistake that some have made, in respect of exoteric axioms such as the authority of individual judgement, was to believe or to assume that anyone O9A can or should personally interpret everything O9A' before they have acquired the aeonic (supra-personal and empathic) perspective and esoteric understanding of an Internal Adept and well before they, from the pathei-mathos that results from a successful melding of the sinister with the numinous, have acquired the necessary balanced individual judgement and discovered the wisdom that lies within and beyond The Abyss.

And before that what? Obeying the teachers, mentors and authority figures? Who mentored Myatt before he "crossed the abyss"? How can a person learn if he doesn't make mistakes? Who was to warn Myatt before his beloved one died?

 

[jeff77]

There is no codified code of honor...The code that has been written down by Anton Long is his personal interpretation.

Such is your personal, your outsider, opinion of something you don't understand.

For those who might be interested, the initiated view - by O9A insiders - of who is and who isn't O9A, and what the Order of Nine Angles is and isn't, can be found in O9A texts such as the following: (1) Kything The Order of Nine Angles; (2) Wisdom, Logos, And The Inner O9A; (3) Ontology, Satanism, And The Sinisterly-Numinous Tradition.

Here are the most salient points:

1. The Order of Nine Angles (O9A, ONA) is a pagan hermetic tradition: it is not now and never was either strictly satanist or strictly Left Hand Path, but uses 'satanism' and the LHP as 'causal forms'; that is, as techniques/experiences (amoral and otherwise) in a decades-long personal anados to engender in the initiate both esoteric, and exoteric, pathei mathos.

2. The Order of Nine Angles is a guide to that personal enantiodromia (that internal alchemical change) which can result from a conscious, a deliberate, pathei-mathos: from a practical learning that is and must be (given our unaltered physis - our natural fitrah - as human beings) both 'sinister' and 'numinous' and both esoteric (occult) and exoteric (exeatic, antinomian).

3. Being O9A - belonging to the O9A - means both (a) using O9A esoteric philosophy, and one or more of its praxises, as guides to achieve that personal enantiodromia, and (b) accepting and living according to the O9A logos, since that logos is the unique perceiveration which differentiates the O9A from other occult groups past and present, and which logos presences the essence, the ethos, of the O9A.

4. The O9A logos is manifest esoterically as a particular physis: that is, is manifest in a particular (pagan) weltanschauung and in a particular personal nature.

5. The O9A logos is manifest exoterically in the O9A code of kindred honor. For that code embodies - as living by that code can cultivate in the individual - both a pagan understanding/gnosis and the necessary O9A character.

Now, you and other outsiders, and O9A pretenders/wannabes, can dispute - and argue about - those points all you want, just as you can continue with claiming that your outsider and/or wannabe "interpretations" of the O9A are right, or just as "valid".

But the fact of the matter is that you - and other outsiders, and the O9A pretenders/wannabes - are just outsiders and/or O9A pretenders/wannabes who lack an esoteric understanding of the O9A; a lack proven by your inability to answer basic questions about O9A esotericism and about O9A aural tradition.

Naturally, like someone who has failed a selection test (such as the Classics Admissions Test paper given to candidates seeking to read Classics at Oxford), you/they can complain that the questions were "not relevant" or were "unfair", or that the test itself is not necessary, or that the examiners who set the test are not experts in the subject. Which complaints are of course just so plebeian.

I accuse you of [...] deliberate lying in order to discredit your opponents

More ignoratio elenchi (in this case, argumentum ad hominem) in an attempt to detract from the fact that you yet again failed to answer the simple question asked of you. Which question was:

Given that Kris himself admitted that he "didn't give a **** about the O9A code", and given that following that code is what distinguishes someone who is O9A from someone who is not O9A, was he or was he not falsely claiming to be O9A? Yes, or no?

Your continued failure to answer such a simple question is most amusing, and also perhaps most indicative of all.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

Such is your personal, your outsider, opinion of something you don't understand.

No, it's the opinion of Kerri Scott aka Morena Kapiris which she presented in the ONA group. She also confessed to lying. Unfortunately, Darryl deleted the thread. That was like a couple of months ago. I only wonder whether you keep lying for ****z and giggles or you really drank your own kool-aid. Anyway, obvious bull**** is obvious bull****.

Now, you and other outsiders, and O9A pretenders/wannabes, can dispute - and argue about - those points all you want, just as you can continue with claiming that your outsider and/or wannabe "interpretations" of the O9A are right, or just as "valid".

I don't disagree with your copy pasta but it doesn't prove your claims about Ryan being a pretender. I never claimed he was genuine ONA, I asked you for the evidence since you were so damn sure of yourself and you passed the sentence on someone you don't know personally. Neither you nor KS was able to provide the evidence because you don't know Ryan, you haven't met him and tested him in the real world. Yet, instead of letting the ONA people decide for themselves, you started lecturing and convincing everyone Kris is a poser.

Naturally, like someone who has failed a selection test (such as the Classics Admissions Test paper given to candidates seeking to read Classics at Oxford), you/they can complain that the questions were "not relevant" or were "unfair", or that the test itself is not necessary, or that the examiners who set the test are not experts in the subject. Which complaints are of course just so plebeian.

From what I had a chance to observe, your tests are easier to pass than to fail. It's enough to just agree with everything you and KS have said without even trying to think for oneself. If you don't take my words as a gospel, you're a mundane. An exercise in sheer conformity and as such, it deserves utmost contempt. There is nothing particularly Satanic or sinister in it.

Given that Kris himself admitted that he "didn't give a **** about the O9A code", and given that following that code is what distinguishes someone who is O9A from someone who is not O9A, was he or was he not falsely claiming to be O9A? Yes, or no?

I don't know and nobody knows unless they know Kris personally. Honor is the quality of character. Unless you test someone in the real world and that person reveals he lacks honor, you can't claim he has no honor. Unless you know someone personally and know him well enough, you can't say whether he's following the ONA path and adheres to the Code or not. Someone's admissions or confessions online are irrelevant. I can "confess" here or elsewhere that I had sex with the Pope, himself. Would that mean it's true?

 

[jeff77]

No, it's the opinion of Kerri Scott aka Morena Kapiris which she presented in the ONA group

My dear, it's so very simple.

1. Do you have an initiated understanding of the Order of Nine Angles, and access to its aural traditions and to Anton Long, such that you can correctly answer questions about its esotericism and about its aural tradition? Yes, or No.

2. Do the people you have been disputing with during the past year (such as KS, MK et al) have an initiated understanding of the Order of Nine Angles, and access to its aural traditions and to Anton Long, such that they can correctly answer questions about its esotericism and about its aural tradition? Yes, or No.

3. Who would be the person most qualified to answer questions about the O9A: (a) someone who doesn't have an initiated understanding of the Order of Nine Angles, or (b) someone who does have an initiated understanding of the Order of Nine Angles?

4. Do those who have an an initiated understanding of the Order of Nine Angles agree with your personal opinion about the O9A code? Yes, or No.

5. Is your personal opinion about the O9A code therefore incorrect? Yes, or No.

Answers:

1. No
2. Yes
3. (b)
4. No
5. Yes

instead of letting the ONA people decide for themselves blah blah blah

Again, your personal opinion of who is and who isn't ONA is just your non-initiated personal opinion.

The fact that you have - for over a year - refused to accept that your personal opinion is wrong, have continued propagating it all over the internet, and support and have supported O9A pretenders, logically seems to imply one of two things. Firstly, an unbalanced egoistic pride (arrogance). Secondly, that you're engaged in - for personal or for nefarious reasons - a disinformation campaign directed at the O9A.

Given (i) that you claim here to be a satanist, and yet elsewhere claim to be a Christian, and given (ii) that you refuse to answer simple relevant questions about claims you have made, and given (iii) that you consistently indulge in both ignoratio elenchi (especially argumentum ad hominem) and argumentum ad nauseam, and given (iv) that in posts not related to the O9A you come across as articulate and fairly reasonable, then it seems only logical to assume that it's a disinformation campaign directed at the O9A.

However - and kudos to you - the campaign is and has been quite dialectically beneficial to the O9A, as KS pointed out here many moons ago. But most amusing of all is that you either don't get this, as your opinionastry continues to make clear, or "you're doing a Chloe..."

Therefore the more opinionastry regarding the O9A that you post, the better it is for "us". Do therefore continue.

-----

Footnote regarding question 2 above. The following quote is relevant, and was posted here on this very forum almost a year ago:

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.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

3. Who would be the person most qualified to answer questions about the O9A: (a) someone who doesn't have an initiated understanding of the Order of Nine Angles, or (b) someone who does have an initiated understanding of the Order of Nine Angles?

Who is the most qualified to answer the questions about North Korea? Kim Jong-un, who lives there or the stupid Americans who have never been there? Of course, Kim Jong-un. He's the leader of North Korea and has a thorough insider's knowledge of this country. Therefore, what he says is right and the stupid Americans present only their personal outsider's opinion about something they have no clue about. So to sum up: Kim Jong-un says the truth, the stupid Americans are wrong. So North Korea is the richest and happiest country in the world because Kim Jong-un says so. Your logic is that flawed.

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.

June, Kerri and Morena are one and the same person. I don't dispute your knowledge, only your credibility.

You and KS are lying and spreading a deliberate disinformation campaign against Kris for whatever reason.

It was obvious from your false false accusations. Some of them were simply stupid, like the one about Kris trolling this forum, being Eugene sock or Waren S.Gnobe who is from ABG Lodge. Are you doing that for the lolz or are you that obsessed with this guy? Anyway, I'm still waiting for your real life evidence of Hollow's dishonorable behavior, because the ONA "honor" tests are the tests of character and as such, they can be conducted only in the real world.

support and have supported O9A pretenders

I don't support anyone. It's you passing judgements on people you don't know personally. And if you don't know someone personally, you can't say anything about his praxis or whether he has honor or not. People can mask themselves well online.

that you consistently indulge in both ignoratio elenchi (especially argumentum ad hominem) and argumentum ad nauseam,

I could go over this thread and the previous +O+ thread and quote all your "argumentum ad nauseam" and all your ad homs you used against me but it would be too long a post. You ignore all the contra-arguments, instead you repeat the same stuff over and over again, constantly calling me a Christian, plebeian and saying that my opinions are worthless. The pot calling the kettle black.

But most amusing of all is that you either don't get this, as your opinionastry continues to make clear, or "you're doing a Chloe..."

Lol, she's paying me for this, not as much as Kris though... Finally, you managed to figure it out. Or, perhaps, I'm simply bored with all the Setian - Luciferian stuff here and Cthulhu pictures/videos.

 

[jeff77]

You and KS are lying and spreading deliberate disinformation... your false false accusations... blah blah

More of the same from you - ignoratio elenchi (especially as here, argumentum ad hominem) and argumentum ad nauseam - while yet again failing to admit that you, an outsider, don't understand the O9A, and failing to answer simple questions regarding accusations you have made.

So, why haven't you - in nearly a year - answered this question:

Given that Kris himself admitted that he "didn't give a **** about the O9A code", and given that following that code is what distinguishes someone who is O9A from someone who is not O9A, was he or was he not falsely claiming to be O9A? Yes, or no?

You wrote:

Anyway, I'm still waiting for your real life evidence of Hollow's dishonorable behavior

See the above question. Falsely claiming to be O9A, is, according to the O9A code, dishonorable behavior, just as his documented public (vulgar) behavior toward certain O9A people contravened the code. Even you previously admitted here on this forum that:

If someone breaks the Code of Kindred Honor, he acts dishonorably

QED.

Since all this has been covered x number of times here and elsewhere, and documented elsewhere (such as at o 9 a » Ryan Anschauung ) then sagacious others will no doubt intuit what games you are playing and why.

But if you want to continue with argumentum ad nauseam - as you've been doing for over a year - go ahead. You may even convince a few more of the latter-day satanist crowd or some of the occult illiterati. But insofar as "we" are concerned, this particular dialectic has now served it's purpose.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

Given that Kris himself admitted that he "didn't give a **** about the O9A code", and given that following that code is what distinguishes someone who is O9A from someone who is not O9A, was he or was he not falsely claiming to be O9A? Yes, or no?

What a nice piece of fallacious reasoning you have here. I've already answered it. I don't know and nobody knows unless they know Kris personally or test his character in the real world. You can't pass judgement on someone's character on the basis of his internet posts. Besides, someone's admission is not yet a proof. Didn't KS admit she was a propagandist for the ONA? One might know nothing about the Code of honor, nothing about the ONA, might not care about it, yet still be honorable. Honor is subject to individual judgement developed via the pathei mathos.

Falsely claiming to be O9A

That you don't know unless you know him personally. Until then, you know nothing about his pathei mathos, and what praxis he follows. What has happened to the testing of people in the real world as described in various MSS? Now, it's been replaced by what? Online riddles?

documented elsewhere (such as at o 9 a » Ryan Anschauung ) then sagacious others will no doubt intuit

That gave me a laugh. Cheep tabloid propaganda. Where are the screenshots? You showed only yours and those of KS. What about those of your opponents in the discussion? If people believe in the propaganda, that says a lot about their intellect. By the way, there is a guy trolling Ryan on Facebook. He's not very imaginative, can't even spell properly and all he does is dropping this link. I suppose he's one of your kind since he agrees with you. It's sarcasm, of course.

his documented public (vulgar) behavior toward certain O9A people

I only saw the vulgar behavior towards Kris. He was ****-talked in all possible places on the net. You could expect more elegance from the so called Inner ONA.

the campaign is and has been quite dialectically beneficial to the O9A,

I have nothing against the ONA. It's only you and KS. I called into doubt your petty accusations which contradicted the MSS. Didn't you rewrite one of them? The one about the individual judgement? What is more important? Petty online squabbles or gaining wisdom through the pathei mathos? The former one is definitely more entertaining though it's not all there is to the ONA, right? So any minor faux pas Kris could commit in his online career means nothing compared to how he lives his life, how he puts the ONA philosophy into practice.

this particular dialectic has now served it's purpose.

Sure, sure. See you later.

 

[jeff77]

you know nothing about his pathei mathos...You can't pass judgement on someone's character on the basis of his internet posts

As others have pointed out to you x number of times in the past year, if someone publicly - via correspondence, via printed books, in person, in internet posts, in interviews, and otherwise - for over seven years claims to be something they are not then they're a fraud, and which fraud over such a period of time is indicative of their character.

If that person then for months on end publicly boasts about their life (without providing any evidence) and indulges in rants and in personal vituperation, spreads malicious rumors about others (including in private correspondence), and continues to make excuses for themselves, then such things are also indicative of their character, their physis.

If that person boasts about their esoteric knowledge but then is publicly unable to answer certain esoteric questions, that is also indicative of their physis.

Also indicative was the belief that the person was safe from exposure because he hid behind various nyms, a belief shattered when his real world identity was made known. The real person behind the nyms had no documented pathei mathos (sinister or numinous) to his name.

In other words, the person in question provided most of the damning evidence required, which was why he became a good example of an O9A pretender; of someone falsely claiming, via the internet and otherwise, to be O9A.

Thus,

1. You are just being propagandistic, for you're simply repeating - sometimes almost word for word - the claims you've been making for over a year on various forums and FB, and all of which claims have been repeatedly debunked, as anyone can discover if they for instance read some old threads here, or the extracts from various postings linked from the Ryan page on o9a dot org.

In other words, you're indulging in argumentum ad nauseam in the hope that sheer repetition of your claims will convince some people. But you've already lost the argument, because the person in question - Mr McD - provided in his ripostes so much evidence against himself that the case was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

So you're reduced to ignoratio elenchi (especially argumentum ad hominem) and argumentum ad nauseam. Which only serve and have served to highlight your physis while providing an arena for O9A PR.

2. You are also avoiding, as you have done for over a year, answering relevant questions. Such as

Given that Kris himself admitted that he "didn't give a **** about the O9A code", and given that following that code is what distinguishes someone who is O9A from someone who is not O9A, was he or was he not falsely claiming to be O9A? Yes, or no?

Why haven't you and why won't you answer this simple question? Of course, the reason why you haven't and won't is obvious.

That you now claim "you've answered it" is very amusing. Where? When? Was your answer to the question yes or no?

3. Finally, here is an extract from the last reply MK posted on a now deleted FB thread.

By the nature of the medium, and given that perhaps the majority of people who post drift away after a while - months, a year or so - such opinions/pontifications are transient; easily forgotten, quickly replaced. In addition, (i) given the type of language often used by those posting, given the content, the errors of reasoning, the pretentiousness, the physis of most of those posting, and even the media itself, what is so posted has little or no scholarly value in relation to the subject(s) pontificated about; (ii) those who do take seriously such pontifications / opinions made via such a medium - whether or not they themselves participate or have participated - are irrelevant by virtue of the fact that, by so taking such pontifications / opinions made via such a medium seriously they have, at least to the sagacious, ruled themselves (and their opinions) out from being taken seriously.

Who now reads or is influenced by the pontifications / opinions posted a decade ago, a few years ago, on Usenet? Who wades through years-old threads on some forum and is influenced by what is written? Who can even be bothered to trawl through pages and pages of past posts on FB (assuming the posts haven't been deleted)? One or two people might, but that isn't going to affect anything.

Because: the 'real work' occurs elsewhere. Through the medium of printed books and e-books (factual and fictional); by means of personal interactions, private gatherings, through individual guidance; and, in the case of the o9a, by means of mythos and Balobians. For the "idea" of the o9a is now more important than whatever the "reality" is or might be, and that "idea" - transmitted by printed books, e-books, Balobians, and from person to person - isn't going to be affected (cannot now be affected) by the opining of a handful of people on FB, or on some internet forum or some blog.

Why, then, you might well ask, am I here and have been here for a while? Why was KS here and elsewhere for a while? Some may already have guessed. An intentional dialectic (or two) to provide an opportunity to reveal one or more person's physis, for thus was an example provided [...] To set the level higher - to a more appropriate, more O9A-representative, level - than it has hitherto been on mediums such as this, and thus to reveal that level, and thus what is implicit in the move from phase 2 to phase 3.

So, like I've said several times now, that particular dialectic has served its purpose. You've simply here provided yet another arena for even more O9A PR. Thank you.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

If that person then for months on end publicly boasts about their life (without providing any evidence) and indulges in rants and in personal vituperation, spreads malicious rumors about others (including in private correspondence), and continues to make excuses for themselves, then such things are also indicative of their character, their physis.

Dude, all of this has been addressed by me and others here and on 600 Club. Some of your accusations are false (like the one about Kris selling the ONA stuff), others are simply petty (eg. Kris thinking some forum users were Anton Long in disguise).

Mr McD - provided in his ripostes so much evidence against himself that the case was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

But my dear, he couldn't have provided much evidence because he hardly ever participated in the drama. Most of the time, it was you and KS splitting hairs with me.

Why haven't you and why won't you answer this simple question? Of course, the reason why you haven't and won't is obvious.

That you now claim "you've answered it" is very amusing. Where? When? Was your answer to the question yes or no?

I said "I don't know". It's the most reasonable answer since I don't know the guy. I only read his diary, some of his blogs, his rants on the forums and Facebook, saw some of his artwork. All I can say about him is that he's a clever guy, has developed his own philosophical approach and tries to think for himself, instead of simply parroting Anton Long's words. Definitely, he's creative, modest in his writings, he's proud of his achievements but was not afraid to admit his failures along the path, which he did in his diary and some interviews. And he's also hard-working and dedicated to the ONA. His models of the Star Game and Tarot cards are the evidence. It's more than an average ONA "member" did.

As for his sinister deeds and his praxis, you must know the guy personally to evaluate that. That's beyond me and beyond you. Even if he committed some sinister "transgressions", why the hell would he want to dig his own grave by recording and documenting them? Get real.

Finally, here is an extract from the last reply MK posted on a now deleted FB thread.

Nope, from what I remember and I read all the posts in the group, she didn't post anything like that, but thank you for yet another Winston Smith's move on your part. It only serves to highlight your credibility. Ryan Anschauung is all right. He didn't lose his friends or fans. Hardly anyone takes this drama seriously. Most people dismiss it as a joke or pure propaganda. As I wrote before, people don't need your approval to follow the ONA path. You may have your own dogmatic "standards" but they are irrelevant. People will do whatever works for them, learn from their own mistakes and their pathei mathos. You can't learn anything if you are led by the hand. If learning from your own pathei mathos is the most important in the ONA, then why suddenly quibble about someone's behavior online?

Which only serve and have served to highlight your physis while providing an arena for O9A PR.

If my arguments were so "plebeian" and worthless as you claimed, you wouldn't spend so much time on trying too hard to debunk them or ****-talking me on your blog. The fact you care so much is telling. I'm offering an alternative viewpoint so that not only your side of the story exists in the cyberland. People will think whatever the hell they want, anyway, which doesn't mean they don't read the forum archives. They do, even after months or years, which can be easily noticed on the 600 Club. It's more difficult to make up your mind what to think if you have two sides of the coin, instead of only one. So I wouldn't trumpet out success yet if I were you. Now you can pull out your usual "Everybody who disagrees with me is a mundane". Honestly, it smells of Milgram experiment.

 

[jeff77]

I said "I don't know"

Simply stating that you "don't know" is evading the issue, and is not, as you claimed "the most reasonable answer" given (i) the claims you have made about the matter and about the O9A for over a year, and given (ii) that you claimed that the question itself was "a piece of fallacious reasoning", and given (iii) the very nature of the question itself.

Since you claimed that it was "a piece of fallacious reasoning" you should be able to explain, in the precise terms of traditional logic, what is incorrect about the 'major premise' and the 'minor premise' and the conclusion of that argument.

Please do provide an explanation.

Since you may have some difficulty, here to help you is that argument in logical terms, and which terms reveal that you are certainly able to give an answer to the question but just prefer not to.

1. Did - or did not - Kris admit that he "didn't give a **** about" the O9A code? Yes or no.
2. Is not - according to those with a proven and initiated understanding of O9A esotericism - following that code what distinguishes someone who is O9A from someone who is not O9A? Yes or no.
3. Therefore, if the answer to both 1 and 2 are "yes", it logically follows that Kris was falsely claiming to be O9A.

Now, you can hardly dispute the fact that Kris did make that admission, as it's a matter of public record. So you are left with disputing the 'minor premise'; that is, that following the code is what distinguishes someone as O9A.

So you only have two logical options.

1. You can continue to maintain (as you have in the past) that your personal outsider opinion about the O9A code is the correct one or "just as "valid" as that of those who do have insider knowledge about the O9A and who know far more about O9A esotericism than you, and that therefore - in your opinion - Kris was not a fraud.

2. You can finally admit that - since your knowledge and understanding of and about the O9A is quite limited - that your opinion is wrong and that those who, as has been proved, do have insider knowledge about the O9A and who know far more about O9A esotericism than you, have presented an accurate view concerning the O9A code, and that therefore Kris was indeed a fraud.

However, as was only to be expected you preferred to yet again choose the illogical option of evasion and obfuscation.

As I wrote before, people don't need your approval to follow the ONA path

Again you're just repeating what you've fallaciously claimed x number of times before for well over a year.

Being O9A means and always has meant - certain specific things, such as following the O9A code and which code is not and never was open to individual interpretation, despite what you, an outsider with your lack of knowledge, continue to claim.

I'm offering an alternative viewpoint

No you're just presenting - again and again and again - your personal opinion about the O9A founded as that opinion is on a lack of knowledge of O9A esotericism and O9A traditions, aural and otherwise.

all of this has been addressed by me and others here and on 600 Club. Some of your accusations are false... he's a clever guy... he's also hard-working and dedicated to the ONA, his models of the Star Game and Tarot cards are the evidence, blah blah vanity blurb blah blah

The bottom line is that he was never O9A, just a fraud. He didn't and doesn't have the necessary O9A character. He was just a muppet who was useful for a while and when his usefulness was deemed over, he was cast aside, and became a useful example, relevant to those select few who are or may be seriously interested in the O9A and in what being O9A really means.

It's interesting that in your vanity blurb - and in all your posts here and elsewhere - you fail to mention the salient established facts; facts which I mentioned here previously, and which bear repeating.

For if someone publicly - via correspondence, via printed books, in person, in internet posts, in interviews, and otherwise - for over seven years claims to be something they are not then they're a fraud, and which fraud over such a period of time is indicative of their character, their physis.

If that person then for months on end publicly boasts about their life (without providing any evidence) and indulges in rants and Hardly anyone takes this drama seriously. Most people dismiss it as a joke or pure propagandain personal vituperation, spreads malicious rumors (contrary to O9A etiquette) about O9A individuals (including in private correspondence to others), and continues to make excuses for themselves, then such things are also indicative of their character, their physis.

If that person boasts about their esoteric knowledge but then is publicly unable to answer certain esoteric questions, that is also indicative of their physis. Also indicative was the belief that the person was safe from exposure because he hid behind various nyms, a belief shattered when his real world identity was made known. The real person behind the nyms had no documented pathei mathos (sinister or numinous) to his name.

Hardly anyone takes this drama seriously. Most people dismiss it as a joke or pure propaganda

That you keep repeating that mantra - and have been repeating it for over a year - is amusing. No doubt some of the latter-day satanist crowd chant it as well, as do some of the occult illiterati. Even if every latter-day satanist - or hundreds of thousands of others - believed it, it wouldn't matter to "us". The saga, the dialectic, has served a temporal purpose.

For you seem to keep forgetting so many things: mythos, the sinisterly-numinous, anados, Labyrinthos Mythologicus and the aeonic perspective. Because: the 'real work' occurs elsewhere, over decades, individual to individual, esoterically, and - five decades hence - that mantra, and others like it, will be irrelevant, forgotten.

That's the great weakness of the masculous egoistic ipseity of modern satanism and the modern LHP, breeding as it does disparate and always transient mortal individuals with their varied opinions and ideas. Whereas an esoteric tradition - sinisterly-numinous, or otherwise - continues, revealed and taught and evolved as it is person to person, decade following decade.

So, good luck with the mantra.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

Being O9A means and always has meant - certain specific things, such as following the O9A code and which code is not and never was open to individual interpretation,

R. Parker (you) before the Ryan Anschauung 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 the Ryan Anschauung 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.

And you think you're fooling anyone with your Winston Smith's creative history...

The real person behind the nyms had no documented pathei mathos (sinister or numinous) to his name.

So you got the guy's real name through PayPal transactions and you think you know him. It's kinda pathetic, you know?

What Kris "admitted" in anger doesn't matter. Unless you know the guy personally, you can't say whether he's honorable or not, whether he follows the ONA praxis or not. The whole drama is simply mental masturbation and hair-splitting. Entertaining for sure, but has nothing to do with the ONA as the practical path to wisdom. But carry on with your bull****. It makes the Satanic forums more active.

To set the level higher - to a more appropriate, more O9A-representative, level -

As if swimming with a tide were an achievement...

 

[jeff77]

Hardly anyone takes this drama seriously. Most people dismiss it as a joke or pure propaganda

Yet you're the one who introduced it into this thread and who keeps talking about it. You also resurrected in on Facebook last year and kept the drama going on a long thread on this forum also last year.

If anyone takes this drama seriously, then it's you judging by your 100's of posts about it in the past year. If it's pure propaganda then you're one of the chief propagandists judging by the fact that you keep repeating what you've said about it in 100's of previous posts.

So if anyone is keeping the drama alive, it's you. Why?

R. Parker (you)

Wrong. You do keep making silly assumptions about people who respond to your propaganda.

before the Ryan Anschauung drama...in the middle of the Ryan Anschauung drama

Now you're yet again simply resurrecting - almost word for word - what you've posted before, in this case on another thread here, over six months ago.

It was dealt with then, and on FB, so yet again you're keeping the Mr McD drama alive by repeating what you've said in previous posts, months and months ago. In other words, you're making propaganda.

But since you've resurrected the topic, I'll summarize the O9A riposte. (1) Someone wrote an article about certain O9A matters which mentioned the O9A code. (2) The article was later slightly revised by the author because in his opinion - following discussions with some O9A folk, including Anton Long - it didn't sufficiently and clearly explain the matter in accord with O9A aural tradition. (3) The unrevised version is still available.

Revising or updating an essay or article or book is accepted academic practice, when new information or new evidence emerges or when the author has undertaken further research into a particular matter. It's a sign of intellectual honesty, of a scholarly approach.

Furthermore, it's been standard O9A practice for decades - since the 1970s - to revise O9A MSS, something several academics have noted when discussing the O9A. Which is why some older MSS contain the words "revised" (or 'last revised' or 'updated') after the author's name and why some more recent MSS contain version numbers, such as v1.05.

So you're making a big propagandistic fuss over nothing.

No surprise there, as it seems to be a favorite diversionary tactic of yours when you want to keep the Mr McD drama going.

So you got the guy's real name through PayPal transactions

Wrong. Yet again. That you make such an assumption reveals you don't have all the relevant information about the person in question, about his character, and about his previous machinations.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

Yet you're the one who introduced it into this thread and who keeps talking about it. You also resurrected in on Facebook last year and kept the drama going on a long thread on this forum also last year.

No my dear, you resurrected the drama by saying that I, among others, continue to vomit forth the anti-ONA propaganda, after I made a totally neutral comment about your blog regarding Satanism, the ONA and ontology, the post that you edited the next day. As for Facebook, before I joined the ONA group, your friend had already made dozens of posts, most of them about Ryan. Meanwhile, on this forum, the +O+ drama had been going on for weeks before I joined. Hell, your friend, under the nickname Didadic, made "charges" against Ryan and his Temple as early as October 2013. You also participated in this thread. Starts here: Is The ONA Hardcore? | Page 3 | ReligiousForums.com
Besides, as much as I love drama, it wasn't me who started +O+ drama on 600 Club.

Revising or updating an essay or article or book is accepted academic practice, when new information or new evidence emerges or when the author has undertaken further research into a particular matter. It's a sign of intellectual honesty, of a scholarly approach.

No, it's one thing to do some minor revisions and another thing to constantly contradict yourself; first, post that the Code is subject to the individual judgement of each ONA person and, then, write that it is exempt from the individual judgement. The timing is also indicative.

The post in which you and KS wrote that someone couldn't interpret anything ONA until they gained balanced judgement through passing the abyss is also a fine example of revisionist history. Because who tutored Myatt before he "crossed the abyss"? Who interpreted the occult stuff for him? Who protected him from committing mistakes? Who told him what to do? Who rushed to rescue his fiancee from committing suicide?

Don't you repeat your stuff too, like the one about Kris' "admission"? "I don't give a **** about the Code of Kindred Honor" is not the same as "I broke the Code of Kindred Honor." One might be unaware of the Code, not care about its existence, yet still abide by it, even unconsciously. One reason why your reasoning is fallacious. Another one is that Ryan can interpret honor for himself and doesn't have to accept your personal interpretation of it. Another reason is that what someone "admits" online doesn't have to be true unless it's verified in the real world.

Wrong. Yet again. That you make such an assumption reveals you don't have all the relevant information about the person in question, about his character, and about his previous machinations.

I talked to the guy. If you sell your stuff online, do the financial transactions online, then ship your stuff to clients, then you are only partly anonymous. Knowing the person's real name doesn't imply the thorough knowledge about his life.

 

[jeff77]

you resurrected the drama by saying that

Before you resurrected the drama here, it was dead and buried, and anyone can find for themselves how in this thread you were the first to mention Ryan and kept mentioning him and kept making accusations against KS et al in respect of Ryan.

For example, before anyone else mentioned the topic in this thread you wrote:

"the character assassination that you conducted online against Ryan... I find [...] Ryan much more intriguing... the similar pedantic questions that were asked of Ryan...the blogs dedicated to Ryan."

So if anyone is fixated on Ryan - aka Mr McD - it is and has been you. You, who cannot even truthfully answer a simple logical question about the matter but choose the illogical option of evasion and obfuscation.

Furthermore, despite claiming that that particular simple question was "a piece of fallacious reasoning" you have evaded explaining, in the precise terms of traditional logic, what is incorrect about the 'major premise' and the 'minor premise' and the conclusion of that argument.

Just as in the past you have evaded answering many other relevant questions, such as when, to test your esoteric knowledge following certain pontifications by you about the O9A, you were given an image of a map and quotation and asked to explain its relevance in respect of O9A ontology.

Instead, you resort and resorted to ignoratio elenchi (especially argumentum ad hominem) and argumentum ad nauseam.

I talked to the guy.

So what? He's not likely - given his physis - to admit the truth of this particular matter, even if he knew it, which AFAIK he still does not.

It's not for me to disillusion him or you et al. So continue to believe that you 'know' how his true identity was revealed, if that's what you, him, et al, want to or need to believe.

it's one thing to do some minor revisions and another thing to blah blah blah. Ryan can interpret honor for himself and doesn't have to accept your personal interpretation of it, and blah blah blah.

Argumentum ad nauseam.

That you here yet again repeat what you have said x number of times previously should be evidence enough for most people that you want to continue the drama even though everything that needs to said about it has already been said, many times, over the past year.

Every claim you have made in respect of the drama, every excuse you have made for Ryan, every personal opinion you have given about the O9A and its code, has already been responded to, countered, and debunked.

But if you choose to - or perhaps need to - continue the Ryan drama, by all means do so. However, fifty years from now, this cyberplace - and the other places in cyberland where you have so profusely and so propagandistically opined about the matter - will no longer exist. But, as mentioned in several previous posts, the sinisterly-numinous tradition will.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

Furthermore, despite claiming that that particular simple question was "a piece of fallacious reasoning" you have evaded explaining, in the precise terms of traditional logic, what is incorrect about the 'major premise' and the 'minor premise' and the conclusion of that argument.

I've already explained that. But since you demand the formal answer... You wrote:

Kris admitted that he "didn't give a **** about the O9A code".
Following the ONA code is what distinguishes someone who is O9A from someone who is not O9A.
Conclusion: Kris was falsely claiming to be ONA.

This is the silliest thing anyone could have ever written. Pure deductive fallacy. It cannot be concluded from your premises that Kris was claiming to be ONA at all, let alone claiming it falsely. That's for formality sake. I'm not so well-versed in logic to go into terminology but to please you, my professor, I will give a list of the logical fallacies you and KS committed in your blogs about Ryan, me and Darryl and also in your posts:

Argumentum ad hominem: calling me plebeian, a Christian, Ryan a pretender, Darryl a pseudo-intellectual
Argumentum ad nauseam: repeating the same **** over and over again
Confirmation bias: ignoring the arguments your opponents in discussion make. You still didn't answer my question about who tutored Myatt before he "crossed the abyss", you ignored my explanations re the religious labels and so on.
False attribution: rewriting the MSS to support your agenda, shortening and editing the quotes of your opponents in your blogs and then using it to support your claims in a discussion.
Quoting out of context: self-explanatory and evident if one compares your blogs and posts in the forums.
Cherry-picking: choosing for your blogs only those points, those quotes that confirm your opinion.
Appeal to accomplishment/authority: "I'm Inner ONA, I have access to the aural tradition. Therefore what I say is true." "As prof Monette writes...", "As Anton Long says..."
Appeal to ridicule: presenting the opponents' views in a way that makes them appear stupid and ridiculous (the blog)
Appeal to motive: Czereda is here to cause mischief.
Strawman arguments: misrepresenting what others said in your blogs

Did I forget about something? I'm sure I did. Feel free to add to the list any other of your fallacies I forgot about.