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

[jeff77]

#

It cannot be concluded from your premises that Kris was claiming to be ONA at all

Which is a fallacious statement of itself given that the context of the question asked - posts and/or threads about - always was the drama of whether or not Mr D was or was not O9A. As, in fact, a part of the question - "was he or was he not falsely claiming to be O9A?" - implies.

In respect of context, when I first asked you the question - over six months ago - I stated:

Since Ryan admitted he didn't give a **** about the code O9A then his claims to be O9A for 8 years and to run and O9A nexion were dishonorable because false weren't they?

Also, when KS directly asked Mr McD himself the question, well over six months ago, she wrote:

you admitted that you "didn't give a **** about the O9A code" and that for x number of years you claimed to be O9A. Since presencing that code via living is what makes (and always has made) someone O9A, you falsely claimed for x number of years to be O9A and falsely claimed to running an O9A nexion. Didn't you?

Furthermore, when she first asked you the question - also well over six months ago - she prefaced the question with the statement that it was "about making claims regarding being O9A and running an O9A nexion."

However, what's most interesting about your reply is that instead of directly answering that relevant and simple question you yet again try obfuscation.

So, here's the question rephrased in precise logical terms:

1. Ryan claimed for x number of years to be O9A.
2. Ryan admitted that he "didn't give a **** about the O9A code".
3. According to O9A insiders with a proven and initiated understanding of O9A esotericism, following that code is what distinguishes someone who is O9A from someone who is not O9A.
4. Therefore, was Ryan or was he not for years falsely claiming to be O9A?

Are you now going to answer the question? Or can we expect more obfuscation, more ignoratio elenchi?

I will give a list of the logical fallacies you and KS committed

Which in itself is ignoratio elenchi because whether or not someone responded to - for instance - your argumentum ad hominem with argumentum ad hominem is irrelevant to whether you frequently used argumentum ad hominem.

However, even a cursory analysis of your claims reveals just how spurious they are.

To save boring readers, I will consider just one of your claims. You claimed that "calling you plebeian, a Christian; Ryan a pretender, and Darryl a pseudo-intellectual" amounts to argumentum ad hominem.

1.Plebeian. What someone wrote - in an article - was that your usage of ignoratio elenchi, argumentum ad hominem, and argumentum ad nauseam, was indicative of those afflicted by plebeian physis syndrome. Evidence of such usage was then supplied.

In other words, an assumption about character was made based on certain evidence, with the assumption made in an article. Which is not a logical fallacy - argumentum ad hominem - for several reasons, of which one is that it was not a response in a direct exchange (a discussion) between you and the author but rather appeared in an article. The most it might conceivably be is a misdiagnosis, given the technical nature of the comment (vide the term plebeian physis syndrome).

2. Christian. Since you yourself admitted on FB that you were a Christian, how is calling you a Christian committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem?

3. Pretender. Given that evidence was supplied in support of the claim of that person being a pretender, describing that person as a pretender on the basis of such evidence did not amount to committing a logical fallacy.

4. Pseudo-intellectual. Given that copious evidence was presented - including quotations in ancient Greek, and how the person in question gave wrong definitions of words and made many fallacious statements derived from misusing or misunderstanding certain terms - describing that person as a pseudo-intellectual on the basis of such evidence did not amount to committing a logical fallacy.

The rest of your claims are just as easily demolished.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

However, what's most interesting about your reply is that instead of directly answering that relevant and simple question you yet again try obfuscation.

Not caring about the Code is not the same as not following it/repeatedly breaking it. The difference is not only semantic. One might be unaware of the Code of Honor, yet still abide by it, i.e. have honor as a quality of character. What someone admits in anger or for the lolz doesn't have to be true. And we all know Ryan didn't confess to the "charges" made against him. I wrote that before, but you demanded a formal answer "in terms of traditional logic", making a total fool out of yourself in the process.

1. Ryan claimed for x number of years to be O9A.
2. Ryan admitted that he "didn't give a **** about the O9A code".
3. According to O9A insiders with a proven and initiated understanding of O9A esotericism, following that code is what distinguishes someone who is O9A from someone who is not O9A.
4. Therefore, was Ryan or was he not for years falsely claiming to be O9A?

You have rewritten your statement but it's still a deductive fallacy (true premises, false conclusion). You can't deduce from your premises that Ryan was or wasn't falsely claiming to be ONA, because 1. an online admission is not a proof, at least not in the case of the ONA, 2. Your third premise is an appeal to the authority fallacy.

Christian. Since you yourself admitted on FB that you were a Christian, how is calling you a Christian committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem?

Are you f***ing around? Step up your game. Making irrelevant comments about someone's religious views is as much an ad hom fallacy as calling someone a fat *** instead of addressing his/her arguments. And it doesn't matter whether this person is really a fat *** or not.

Given that evidence was supplied in support of the claim... Given that copious evidence was presented...

Having no knowledge of Greek is not the proof of someone being a pseudo-intellectual. As for the rest, I think that anyone with more than two brain cells will be able to properly evaluate the validity of the "evidence" that was provided by you and KS, both in your blogs, in the forums and on Facebook, as it is full of fallacies I pointed out.

 

[jeff77]

Not caring about the Code is not the same as not following it/repeatedly breaking it. The difference is not only semantic. One might be unaware of the Code of Honor,

So, I see you're still trying to keep the Mr McD drama going by yet again giving us your personal and outsider opinion about matters O9A even though it's a proven fact that you can't answer basic questions about O9A esotericism, and even though such claims as you now repeat here have been discussed x number of times over the past year, including on this forum.

we all know Ryan didn't confess to the "charges" made against him

So what? The facts are indisputable, which is of course why - given your need to keep the Mr McD drama going - that you have consistently refused to answer a simple question. Which was:

1. Ryan claimed for x number of years to be O9A.
2. Ryan admitted that he "didn't give a **** about the O9A code".
3. According to O9A insiders with a proven and initiated understanding of O9A esotericism, following that code is what distinguishes someone who is O9A from someone who is not O9A.
4. Therefore, was Ryan or was he not for years falsely claiming to be O9A?

Logically, you could not dispute either part 1 or part 2, since they are a matter of public record.

You were and are therefore left with disputing part3; that is, that following the code is what distinguishes someone as O9A.

Thus you had and have only two logical options.

(a) You can continue to stubbornly maintain that - despite your proven lack of knowledge about the O9A - that your personal outsider opinion about the O9A code is right, and that therefore - according your outsider opinion - Kris was not a fraud.

(b) You can finally admit that - since your knowledge and understanding of and about the O9A is quite limited - that your opinion is and was 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.

In addition, you had the illogical option of continuing to refuse to answer the question, and continuing with attempting to obfuscate the issue. Yet again you, of course, chose to obfuscate the issue:

You have rewritten your statement but it's still a deductive fallacy (true premises, false conclusion

Wrong. Because it's not (and never was) a statement (an "if then" premise followed by an "and" premise) but a question, and because there is no stated conclusion but rather two possible answers.

Thus, I refer you back to what I said above, that you had and have only two logical options in respect of that question.

Readers who are interested in a scholarly discussion of various logical fallacies might profitably peruse Freeman's monograph "Argument Structure - Representation and Theory" (Springer, 2011) and his recent paper "The Logical Dimension of Argumentation and Its Semantic Appraisal", Theoria, vol 26, #3, 2011, pp.289-299. A basic introduction can be found in articles such Robert Girle's "The Teaching of Reasoning Skills" in Proceedings of the International Interdisciplinary Conference on Thinking 1982, published by Taylor & Francis, 1983.

an online admission is not a proof, at least not in the case of the ONA

You're still trying to keep the Mr McD drama going by (i) yet again giving us your personal unqualified opinion about matters O9A, and (ii) by yet again ignoring all the other evidence against Kris, and about his character, presented and discussed over the past year in dozens and dozens of posts. You're ignoring it because in your opinion:

anyone with more than two brain cells will be able to properly evaluate the validity of the "evidence" that was provided by you and KS blah blah blah

Suffice to say that various people have evaluated the evidence presented during the past year and have given a guilty verdict. Which was why the case was dead and buried until you resurrected it here.

The evidence included the following. (i) 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. (ii) 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 (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. (iii) 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. (iv) 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. (v) Finally, a person admits that they "didn't give a **** about the O9A code".

it is full of fallacies I pointed out

To summarize the whole drama. For over a year you've continued to trumpet your personal, outsider, opinion about the O9A and about who is or isn't O9A even though (i) you lack an initiated, esoteric, knowledge of the O9A, and even though (ii) those who have engaged in discussions with you about the Mr McD drama are O9A insiders - who do have an initiated, esoteric, knowledge of the O9A - have explained that your personal opinion is wrong.

Thus, instead of admitting that "you got it wrong", you use ignoratio elenchi (especially argumentum ad hominem) in an attempt to either deflect attention from the topic or to try and discredit those who, having an initiated, esoteric, knowledge of the O9A, have disagreed with your personal opinion about the O9A and about who is or isn't O9A.

Furthermore, in order to keep Mr McD drama going you continue to trumpet your personal opinion about the O9A and about who is or isn't O9A.

So, in summary, we have a Christian pretending to be satanist who has - for over a year - lectured us about the O9A even though she/he can't answer simple questions about O9A esotericism, and even though she/he refuses to truthfully answer a simple logical question but instead chooses the illogical option of evasion and obfuscation.

Which neatly - for me and the sagacious at least - brings your latest resurrection of the drama to a conclusion, although no doubt you'll need to try and continue the drama by repeating yet again the opinions, and the ignoratio elenchi, you've posted before x number of times in the past year, and all while failing yet again to answer one simple question.

 

[jeff77]

Not caring about the Code is not the same as not following it/repeatedly breaking it

Perhaps Ms Czereda will deign to answer the following questions.

1. Do you have an initiated, insider, knowledge of the O9A and thus of its aural tradition? Yes, or no.
2. Can you answer basic questions about O9A esotericism? Yes, or no.
3. Do you have or have you ever had a direct line to Anton Long? Yes, or no.
4. On what do you base your understanding of the O9A? (a) On what you've read on the internet, or (b) on what you have been taught by O9A insiders who have access to Anton Long and thus to O9A aural tradition?
5. Do you consider that your outsider view of matters O9A is just as valid as those who (a) can answer basic questions about O9A esotericism, and who (b) who have access to Anton Long and thus to O9A aural tradition?
6. Do you consider that you know more about the O9A than those who can answer basic questions about O9A esotericism and who have access to Anton Long?
7. Why, given your failure to answer basic questions about O9A esotericism, have you defended - and/or made excuses for - O9A pretenders such as Ryan and Darryl?
8. Why have you, for over a year, failed to answer a simple question regarding Mr McD's admission that he "didn't give a **** about the O9A code".
9. Do you concede that Anton Long - given his forty years of documented practical experience of the sinister-numinous tradition of the O9A - knows more about the O9A than you and everyone else?
10. If Anton Long, via intermediaries or directly, stated that your outsider opinion of the O9A and of the Mr McD drama was wrong, would you accept it, or would you continue to hubriatically believe that your outsider opinion, based as it was on a lack of knowledge regarding the O9A, was right?
11. Why have you for over a year continued, and why are you even now continuing, the Mr McD drama?
12. Who, exactly - truthfully - are you? Christian, or satanist/LHP? You cannot be both. Or perhaps - as information received indicates - you are neither, and are here and elsewhere for some purpose you're not prepared to admit. Given that you have variously, via the internet, described yourself as both as a Christian and as a satanist, then why should anyone take anything you post (here and elsewhere) seriously?

 

[AnnaCzereda]

You can finally admit that - since your knowledge and understanding of and about the O9A is quite limited - that your opinion is and was 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... those who have engaged in discussions with you about the Mr McD drama are O9A insiders - who do have an initiated, esoteric, knowledge of the O9A - have explained that your personal opinion is wrong.

Appeal to the authority fallacy. Enough said. That you have an insider's knowledge of the ONA doesn't mean you can't be wrong or you couldn't be lying. You still didn't answer the damn question: "Who tutored Myatt before he "crossed the abyss"? Since you and your friend wrote:

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. Naturally, such individuals interpretations have occurred, and undoubtedly will continue to occur, by individuals lacking the esoteric understanding of an Internal Adept and lacking in the wisdom acquired by several decades of following the O9A path toward, into, and beyond The Abyss. But that does not make such interpretations part of, or an evolution of, the O9A path, especially as many such interpretations exclude the esoteric and exoteric aspects of the O9A logos (such as the O9A code). Rather, it makes such interpretations at best a temporal, minor, and exoteric aspect of a particular sinister dialectic, and otherwise (i) simply the personal opinion of an outsider, or (ii)the personal opinion of someone O9A (or formerly O9A) who is not yet – or who did not become – an Adept and who has yet to acquire, or who did not acquire, from a decades-long sinisterly numinous experience, the necessary pathei-mathos. Thus, in the ancestral, aeonic, and esoteric, context provided by the inner O9A, such interpretations are not and cannot be, of themselves, O9A.

So since Myatt acquired wisdom from crossing the abyss after several decades, then who interpreted everything O9A for him before that, since, apparently, he wasn't qualified enough to do it for himself? Who taught him about honor? Who led him by the hand? Who warned him of potential failures and mistakes? Who was there to teach him he should care more about his fiancee? Who scolded him for pride, arrogance and selfishness? What about the stuff he wrote before "crossing the abyss"? Is it non-O9A? A mere opinion of an uninitiated outsider?

you can't answer basic questions about O9A esotericism,

I don't have to even try to answer your questions which are irrelevant to the topic. Neither does Darryl or Kris. Your questions referred merely to the detailed knowledge about the ONA and as such, they can't test the person's character, their intuitive understanding, whether they have esoteric skills or not, whether they are honorable or not and, finally, whether they are frauds or not.

Wrong. Because it's not (and never was) a statement (an "if then" premise followed by an "and" premise) but a question, and because there is no stated conclusion but rather two possible answers.

And both answers would be fallacious for the reasons I stated in my previous post.

Suffice to say that various people have evaluated the evidence presented during the past year and have given a guilty verdict.

Which speaks of the level of their intellect, considering all the fallacies I pointed out, which you still didn't refute. Besides, you can't give a verdict, any verdict, if you don't know the person.

If Anton Long, via intermediaries or directly, stated that your outsider opinion of the O9A and of the Mr McD drama was wrong, would you accept it, or would you continue to hubriatically believe that your outsider opinion, based as it was on a lack of knowledge regarding the O9A, was right?

Damn, you're so cute, I swear. So now AL is the highest authority in the ONA and everyone is obliged to accept whatever the hell he says. We all know it's true so tell some of the trolls to dress up for Anton Long and pontificate. We saw it before but it won't harm if we have fun once again.

Who, exactly - truthfully - are you? Christian, or satanist/LHP? You cannot be both.

Sure, I can be both. I've already explained it. If you don't get it, then too bad.
As for the rest of your questions, I never denied your knowledge, only accused you of lying about Ryan's case. You passed judgement on him without knowing him personally on the basis of false evidence and petty claims.

 

[jeff77]

Appeal to the authority fallacy

Yet again you reveal your ignorance of logic and your dependency on fallacious argument and on argumentum ad nauseam, because (a) those who can answer esoteric questions about the O9A do possess more authority (more knowledge) about matters O9A than you who cannot so answer esoteric questions.

Therefore, it is not as you claim "an appeal to the authority fallacy" but rather is a statement of fact: the fact being that your knowledge of O9A matters is inferior compared to theirs. That you continue to refuse to admit this is most amusing and most indicative, and has made you something of a laughing-stock among the occult cognoscenti.

I don't have to even try to answer your questions

Yes you do, considering that you have pontificated for over a year about the O9A and about who - in your opinion - is or isn't O9A.

That you continue to fail to answer questions asked of you, while you continue to pontificate about the O9A and continue to ask questions of others, is highly indicative. Your continued to failure to answer questions has simply enhanced your laughing-stock reputation among the occult cognoscenti. That such a laughing-stock defended and continues to defend O9A pretenders such as Mr McD and Darryl - and indeed is their only defender - only serves to re-affirm their status as O9A pretenders.

Until you answer such questions as I have asked - including answering the simple question asked of you for over six months regarding Mr McD - then you will will continue to have zero credibility in respect of matters O9A and occult.

So now AL is the highest authority in the ONA

Yes, and it always was so - because (i) no one else has such a documented sinisterly-numinous life, over four decades, as he does; and (ii) no one else, within the O9A, has such a documented esoteric understanding of matters esoteric (such as Hellenic hermeticism given that he can read ancient Greek), and (iii) no one else has such a knowledge of O9A aural tradition as he has. And so on.

So, until someone with (i) more knowledge of O9A aural tradition and with (ii) more documented sinisterly-numinous experiences, extending over four decades, comes along he will continue to remain "the highest authority in the ONA". Get over it.

I never denied your knowledge, only accused you of lying

More argumentum ad hominem.

Am I lying when I say that KS et al have more esoteric knowledge about the O9A than you? Am I lying when I say that the opinion of someone - such as KS - who has more knowledge about the O9A than you should be preferred to your outsider opinion about the O9A?

Am I lying when I say that you could not answer basic questions about O9A esotericism? Am I lying when I say that KS et al could answer such questions? Am I lying when I say that you should admit that your knowledge of matters O9A - and therefore your opinion about matters O9A - is inferior to that of people such as KS who has an insider knowledge of the O9A?

considering all the fallacies I pointed out, which you still didn't refute

All your claims have been refuted, x number of times over the past year, as anyone can ascertain from simply reading thread here.

For example, you were caught out - refuted - when you wrongly claimed that the question you have consistently failed to answer was "a deductive fallacy".

Simply claiming that I "didn't refute it" is most amusing, and highly indicative of your physis and your propagandistic tactics which include, of course, argumentum ad nauseam. Thus you write, have written and no doubt will continue to write such things as:

"which you still didn't refute, which you still didn't refute, which you still didn't refute, which you still haven't answered, which you still haven't answered, which you still haven't answered... I accuse you of lying, I accuse you of lying, I accuse you of lying... Which you still didn't refute, which you still didn't refute... I don't have to answer your questions, I don't have to answer your questions; for I Czereda am the font of all knowledge concerning the O9A, I Czereda am the font of all knowledge concerning the O9A, I Czereda am the font of all knowledge concerning the O9A, and neither you nor anybody has the authority to announce "in the name of the ONA" whether someone is a pretender, and I announce that it's up to people to decide for themselves, based upon their own judgement, who is ONA because I Czereda am the font of all knowledge concerning the O9A and don't have to answer your questions and accuse you - and everyone else who doesn't agree with me about the O9A - of lying,"

and so on ad nauseam.

 

[jeff77]

As for the rest of your questions

Meh.

It is highly indicative - to me and to initiated others - that you failed to make any relevant satanic comment on my previous post that:

There is more genuine Satanism in the life and death of Bonnie and Clyde, in Lana Del Rey's 'Summertime Sadness', in the paintings of van Gogh, in the lives of Adolf Hitler and Leon Degrelle, than there is in all modern so-called satanic groups, temples, 'satanic' internet forums, articles - and all the lives and plebeian opinions of latter-day satanists - combined

So much therefore for you posing here and elsewhere as a 'satanist'. Epic fail, because you simply don't - esoterically - understand.

Meanwhile, downloads and purchases, from various sources, of "The Complete Guide to the O9A", of the book "The Sinister Tradition", and of other O9A books and MSS (pdf's and otherwise), number - in the past year alone - over 100,000.

Like I previously mentioned :

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.

Which rather puts you recent resurrection, here on this internet forum, of the Mr McD saga - and your defense of O9A pretenders - into the correct aeonic perspective.

 

[jeff77]

Sure, I can be both. I've already explained it. If you don't get it, then too bad.

No you haven't explained it, you merely made mention of the fact that you, via the internet, wear different hats, aka you assume different internet identities as and when it suits what is apparently your duplicitous purpose.

So, are you a Christian, or are you a satanist? Or as you claiming here to be a Christian-Satanist and if so do explain what Christian-Satanism is.

If you cannot - or do not want to - so explain, then what is your duplicitous purpose in claiming at various times and in various places that you are both a Christian and a satanist?

 

[AnnaCzereda]

Yes, and it always was so - because (i) no one else has such a documented sinisterly-numinous life, over four decades, as he does; and (ii) no one else, within the O9A, has such a documented esoteric understanding of matters esoteric (such as Hellenic hermeticism given that he can read ancient Greek), and (iii) no one else has such a knowledge of O9A aural tradition as he has. And so on.

AL never claimed to be the highest authority. The highest authority is one's own individual judgement and pathei mathos. It's obvious but since some people might be unaware of it, here is a quote:

The way of the ONA is, however, quite different - we see our way as guiding a few individuals to self-awareness, to Adeptship and beyond, via various practical and magickal techniques. The emphasis is on guide, on self-development, on self- discovery. There is no religious attitude, no acceptance of someone else's authority...

Once the techniques and the essence are more widely available then 'membership' as such is irrelevant, since everything is available and accessable (and this includes past methods and teachings) - the individual taking responsibility for their own development ultimately rests with individual desire, just as each individual must make their own assessment of what is valuable and what is 'ethical/just' from their own experience, it being the aim of the techniques of the seven-fold sinister way to provide the character-building, evolutionary, experiences. There is no pre-judgement by me or anyone, no set rules. The function of the ONA is now to guide, simply because its members have undergone the experiences of the way and can speak from a position of experience - an experience which may or may not be of value to others...

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

your ignorance of logic

That's funny given you wrote the dumbest and the most fallacious logical argument that could have ever be written and your constant use of logical fallacies. And you have a nerve to claim it wasn't a deductive fallacy on your part while you and KS stated for x number of times Kris was a pretender because he said he didn't give **** about the Code of honor.

That such a laughing-stock defended and continues to defend O9A pretenders such as Mr McD and Darryl - and indeed is their only defender - only serves to re-affirm their status as O9A pretenders.

My dear, just because I'm the only one talking to you doesn't mean Darryl and Kris don't have quite a considerable number of people who like them and appreciate their work. People don't participate for a number of reasons: 1) Some think you post ridiculous bull**** for the lolz and talking to you is a waste of time, 2) A few went chicken****, because the disapproval of others is a disaster for the self-proclaimed Satanist, 3) Many are simply ignorant, 4) Most don't give a ****.

you continue to pontificate about the O9A

Yeah, because this is what you have a forum for. And on Satanic forums, you discuss all matters concerning Satanism and that also includes the ONA. And yeah I know it's f***ing mind blowing that people have any debates in the forums. I answered all of your questions that were relevant to the topic.

Until you answer such questions as I have asked - including answering the simple question asked of you for over six months regarding Mr McD - then you will will continue to have zero credibility in respect of matters O9A and occult.

Your question cannot be answered because it's not up to you, KS, me or anyone to pass judgement in the name of the ONA. Kris has a right to interpret the ONA stuff for himself, including honor. Others may judge him too, but they will speak only for themselves not the ONA.

So, are you a Christian, or are you a satanist? Or as you claiming here to be a Christian-Satanist and if so do explain what Christian-Satanism is.

Oh you're so fixated upon magian abstractions, like a religious label. It's so mundane. What would Anton Long say? Tsk tsk.

 

[jeff77]

you're so fixated upon magian abstractions, like a religious label.

Which evasion doesn't answer the question. Why do you keep evading answering relevant questions?

I answered all of your questions that were relevant to the topic.

No, you just gave your personal, outsider, opinion about the O9A.

Kris has a right to interpret the ONA stuff for himself

You can opine - and can continue, ad nauseam, to opine - about the O9A, and about Mr McD, but the simple truth is you're just giving your prejudiced personal opinion.

A prejudiced personal opinion because (a) it has been proved that you don't have even a basic knowledge of O9A esotericism, and (b) you hubriatically refuse to admit that your personal opinions about the O9A are based on a fundamental lack of knowledge, and (c) you propagandistically refuse - and have refused for over six months - to answer a simple logical question.

Every time you are asked that specific question you make some excuse for failing to answer it in order to try and save face and in order to continue the Mr McD saga.

Among the juvenile and mardy excuses given so far are: (a) that you claim it's "a deductive fallacy" (although it's been proven that it's not), and (b) that you "don't have to answer questions" (although a failure to so answer means you flunked the test anyway and were just afraid that if you answered it you couldn't continue to pretend that you were right about the O9A and about Mr McD).

Every failure by you to answer that simple question is a propaganda triumph for the O9A.

The highest authority is one's own individual judgement and pathei mathos.

So sayeth someone who can't answer basic questions about O9A esotericism, who has never been in contact with Anton Long, who doesn't have access to O9A aural tradition, and who isn't an O9A adept.

That you - and other, outsider, non-o9a people - believe such stuff, and have believed it for years, and quote Anton Long out of context (without reference to O9A aural tradition and without having the knowledge and the decades-long experience of an O9A Adept) is a sure (and hilarious) sign of (i) your and their lack of knowledge about the O9A, and (ii) your and their pretentiousness.

Now, you - an outsider who cannot even answer basic questions about O9A esotericism and who doesn't have access to O9A aural tradition - can continue to opine all you want about "O9A authority" and about Anton Long and about who (in your opinion) isn't or is O9A, but that doesn't alter the fact that you're an outsider whose knowledge of the O9A is limited and whose opinion about O9A matters is (aeonically, esoterically, and otherwise) irrelevant, except of course to yourself, to O9A pretenders, and to the latter-day satanist and occult pretendu crowd who have a vested interest in your anti-O9A propaganda.

So, in summary, we have a Christian pretending to be satanist who has - for over a year - lectured us about the O9A even though she/he can't answer simple questions about O9A esotericism, and even though she/he refuses to truthfully answer a simple logical question but instead chooses the illogical option of evasion and obfuscation.

Darryl and Kris [...] have quite a considerable number of people who like them and appreciate their work

That you continue to hype such contemporary examples of the O9A pretendu-crowd is the most amusing thing of all.

As others have repeatedly explained, your opining, that of Mr McD - and others of such ilk such as Darryl - have in your minor, temporal, way added to the O9A's Labyrinthos Mythologicus and thus have become one among a variety of contemporary tests, for those interested in the O9A, for plebeian physis syndrome.

 

[jeff77]

here is a quote [from Anton Long]

As has been said to you before, you're rather like those Westerners who quote some verses of the Quran (in translation, of course) and who hubriatically or naively believe that they've understood Islam. They don't of course, because such verses - and indeed the Quran itself - can only be correctly appreciated in Arabic and also must be understood in the context of the Sunnah and Ijmah. For Islam, in its complex variety, is presenced in those who live, in various locales world-wide, according to Muslim Adab. Unless and until you have direct, personal, experience of such variety over a period of time you cannot truthfully claim to understand Islam.

Here, you give some quote from Anton Long, without placing it in the context of what he wrote elsewhere, and without placing it in the context of O9A aural tradition, and without having an in-depth knowledge of O9A esotericism, and without having at least a decade of practical experience of following an O9A praxis.

For all you've done is to read some some publicly available O9A texts and assume you "know" enough about the O9A to offer your opinion about matters O9A. Of course, you don't have enough knowledge, and your opinion - such as it is - is just the personal opinion of an outsider who has jumped to various conclusions about something they don't understand.

Furthermore, you continue to insist - despite evidence to the contrary - that your opinion about matters O9A is "right" or just as "valid" as those who do have an in-depth knowledge of O9A esotericism and who do have access to both O9A aural tradition and to Anton Long. In addition, you latch on to various O9A-pretenders who apparently agree with your opinion about matters O9A despite those O9A-pretenders - just like you - being unable to answer questions about O9A esotericism and despite their lack of access to O9A aural tradition.

It's also irrelevant if your opinion about matters O9A is shared by or is similar to that of others who also lack an in-depth knowledge of O9A esotericism, who do not have access to both O9A aural tradition, and who do not have at least a decade of practical experience of following an O9A praxis.

Instead of acknowledging your knowledge of the O9A in inferior to those individuals who do have an in-depth knowledge of O9A esotericism and who do have access to both O9A aural tradition and to Anton Long, you malign those individuals by accusing them of lying and of being deceptive.

In other words, it seems that you're behaving, and have behaved, rather like those intolerant extremists who demonstrate and who opine about Islam on the basis of having read some Quranic verses in translation.

For unless and until you have read the whole O9A corpus, unless and until you acquire an in-depth knowledge of O9A esotericism (and so can answer questions about it), unless and until you have access to O9A aural tradition, and unless and until you have years-long experience of an O9A praxis, you cannot truthfully claim to understand the O9A.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

A prejudiced personal opinion because (a) it has been proved that you don't have even a basic knowledge of O9A esotericism, and (b) you hubriatically refuse to admit that your personal opinions about the O9A are based on a fundamental lack of knowledge, and (c) you propagandistically refuse - and have refused for over six months - to answer a simple logical question.

You haven't proved my lack of knowledge, because you didn't present the evidence that would prove I was wrong and you were right. All you do is bragging about your supposed superior knowledge but so far, you haven't demonstrated it either here or elsewhere so why should anyone believe you? Your question is illogical, which has already been proven.

Every failure by you to answer that simple question is a propaganda triumph for the O9A.

No, it only means you're good at committing logical fallacies.

So sayeth someone who can't answer basic questions about O9A esotericism, who has never been in contact with Anton Long, who doesn't have access to O9A aural tradition, and who isn't an O9A adept.

And who are you? Where is the proof of you being an ONA adept? Where is the evidence of your sinister life? Where is the proof of you having an access to aural tradition? Since your words contradict the MSS and the MSS is nothing else than the aural tradition gradually being written down and published, then why should anyone choose to believe you?

As others have repeatedly explained, your opining, that of Mr McD - and others of such ilk such as Darryl - have in your minor, temporal, way added to the O9A's Labyrinthos Mythologicus and thus have become one among a variety of contemporary tests, for those interested in the O9A, for plebeian physis syndrome.

Dude, if someone here is a litmus test for naivety, then it's you and KS.

Here, you give some quote from Anton Long, without placing it in the context of what he wrote elsewhere, and without placing it in the context of O9A aural tradition, and without having an in-depth knowledge of O9A esotericism, and without having at least a decade of practical experience of following an O9A praxis.

He wrote it elsewhere too, many times. Neither you nor KS showed any evidence of your sinister life, no proof that you are adepts. All you managed to prove is that you know many more or less significant details about the ONA and that you like propaganda.

And you still haven't answered my question about who tutored Myatt before he crossed the abyss. Who interpreted the ONA stuff for him, including honor, before he gained balanced judgement? Who protected him from mistakes and failures he could commit? Who led him by the hand? Who was his teacher, if it wasn't experience? What about the stuff he wrote before he achieved that glorious stage of melding the sinister with the numinous? Is it non-ONA? Is it the gibberish of an uninitiated outsider or a newbie with an unbalanced judgement and, as such, it should be discarded? I'm asking because you wrote the following piece of crap:

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. Naturally, such individuals interpretations have occurred, and undoubtedly will continue to occur, by individuals lacking the esoteric understanding of an Internal Adept and lacking in the wisdom acquired by several decades of following the O9A path toward, into, and beyond The Abyss. But that does not make such interpretations part of, or an evolution of, the O9A path, especially as many such interpretations exclude the esoteric and exoteric aspects of the O9A logos (such as the O9A code). Rather, it makes such interpretations at best a temporal, minor, and exoteric aspect of a particular sinister dialectic, and otherwise (i) simply the personal opinion of an outsider, or (ii)the personal opinion of someone O9A (or formerly O9A) who is not yet – or who did not become – an Adept and who has yet to acquire, or who did not acquire, from a decades-long sinisterly numinous experience, the necessary pathei-mathos. Thus, in the ancestral, aeonic, and esoteric, context provided by the inner O9A, such interpretations are not and cannot be, of themselves, O9A.

It's a fact that the primary reason for the change Myatt experienced was the suicide of his fiancee. He had remorse afterwards. Who was there to scold him for his hubris and lack of wisdom and, perhaps, call him a pretender? C'mon, answer all the damn questions.

Instead of acknowledging your knowledge of the O9A in inferior to those individuals who do have an in-depth knowledge of O9A esotericism and who do have access to both O9A aural tradition and to Anton Long, you malign those individuals by accusing them of lying and of being deceptive.

Oh dear, you really are a funny guy, so damn cute.

 

[jeff77]

You haven't proved my lack of knowledge, because you didn't present the evidence that would prove I was wrong

Among the evidence is (a) that you cannot answer basic questions about O9A esotericism; questions you were asked several times over the past year; and (b) that you failed to see connections between a certain map and O9A ontology; and (c) that you are unfamiliar with the whole O9A corpus (as evident in your magpie quotations), and (d) that you don't have access to O9A aural tradition.

Here is just one of the simple questions you were asked:

explain why there are two classical esoteric modes, rather than one, associated with the septenary planet named Sol, and does this have anything to do with the Somnium Scipionis" - καὶ κατ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτό γε ἀναξίου μὲν φωτὸς ἐξερήσομαι γλώσσῃ δὲ δεινοῦ καὶ σοφοῦ τί νῦν κυρεῖ?

The fact is you can't find the answers to such questions by searching the internet. But only through either (a) diligent scholarly research (probably lasting at least a year) or (b) because you discover themselves for themselves as a result of being O9A, or learn them from an "O9A insider" (that is, a part of the aural tradition).

And who are you? Where is the proof of you being an ONA adept?

You (yet again) commit the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi. Because (a) I have made no claims about myself; and (b) you were and are the one pushing your outsider opinion about the O9A, about the O9A code, and so on; and (c) you are the one who resurrected the Mr McD drama here; and (d) I have merely asked you relevant questions (which you keep failing to answer) and pointed out that your knowledge of the O9A is quite limited and that you have quoted AL out of context.

And you still haven't answered my question

Isn't that rather hypocritical of you, since you have refused to answer questions I asked of you and - furthermore - wrote that you "don't have to even try to answer" my questions"?

Here's one question you refused to answer for nearly a year:
1. Ryan claimed for x number of years to be O9A.
2. Ryan admitted that he "didn't give a **** about the O9A code".
3. According to O9A insiders with a proven and initiated understanding of O9A esotericism, following that code is what distinguishes someone who is O9A from someone who is not O9A.
4. Therefore, was Ryan or was he not for years falsely claiming to be O9A?

Here's another question you have failed to answer:
Are you a Christian, or are you a satanist? Or as you claiming here to be a Christian-Satanist and if so do explain what Christian-Satanism is.

Here are some other question you have also failed to answer:
1. Do you have an initiated, insider, knowledge of the O9A and thus of its aural tradition? Yes, or no.
2. Can you answer basic questions about O9A esotericism? Yes, or no.
3. Do you consider that you know more about the O9A than those who can answer basic questions about O9A esotericism and who have access to Anton Long?
4. Why, given your failure to answer basic questions about O9A esotericism, have you defended - and/or made excuses for - O9A pretenders such as Ryan and Darryl.
5. Why there are two classical esoteric modes, rather than one, associated with the septenary planet named Sol, and does this have anything to do with the Somnium Scipionis" - καὶ κατ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτό γε ἀναξίου μὲν φωτὸς ἐξερήσομαι γλώσσῃ δὲ δεινοῦ καὶ σοφοῦ τί νῦν κυρεῖ.
6. What is the historical antecedent of the chant illustrated in the following image, and what is the difference when it is chanted by cantors (note the plural) a fourth apart and a fifth apart? http://omega9alpha.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/1-59_1a.png

Since you keep mentioning Mr McD, here are some questions he also was directly asked and failed to answer:

1. Did you or did you not claim for x number of years to be O9A? Yes or no.
2. Did you or did you not claim for x number of years to be running and O9A group? Yes or no.
3. Did you or did you not fail to correctly answer the questions KS asked you about O9A esotericism? Yes or no.
4. Does such a failure to so correctly answer such questions indicate a lack of knowledge about the O9A? Yes or no.
5. Did you or did you not state that you didn't give a **** about the O9A code? Yes or no.
6. Did you or did you not write that self-honesty, in respect of the O9A, is the most important thing? Yes or no.
7. Have you been totally honest regarding your O9A knowledge, your ignorance of and/or disdain for the O9A code? Yes or no.

And you still haven't answered my question about who tutored Myatt before he crossed the abyss

Since I do answer your answers, I'll answer that one.

I suggest you (carefully) re-read the quotation I posted from the O9A text O9A Esotericism, An Initiated Apprehension and other such texts. Hint: the order of Nine Angles is Anton Long's (a) logos as Magus, and (b) the accumulated esoteric and exoteric pathei-mathos resulting from his own anados along the Seven Fold Way, and (c) the esoteric aural traditions he inherited and in some cases developed and revised.

Now, if you don't understand this, even after it has been explained to you, then you don't. Like I said, "it is not possible to divorce the Order of Nine Angles from the 'Faustian' (the sinisterly-numinous) life of Anton Long [and] credit to the very few, outside the O9A, who have worked it out."

So, do carry on with presenting here and elsewhere your outsider 'magpie' version of the O9A. Personally, I think we're done here, given you epic fail in answering one simple logical question; given your proven lack of knowledge about the O9A, and given that this has now become a rather boring re-run of previous threads here and elsewhere. Plus, enough has already been said - in the past year - about the O9A on forums such as this.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

Among the evidence is (a) that you cannot answer basic questions about O9A esotericism; questions you were asked several times over the past year; and (b) that you failed to see connections between a certain map and O9A ontology; and (c) that you are unfamiliar with the whole O9A corpus (as evident in your magpie quotations), and (d) that you don't have access to O9A aural tradition.

I answered all the questions relevant to the topic. I also indirectly answered the one about the map on 600 Club. Of course, it was my associations and interpretation which could be different from yours, but you and KS either didn't notice my reply or dismissed it as some shallow stupid song. It doesn't surprise me since you are both unable to take subtle hints. Your constant questioning me about a religious label is also indicative of your occult and empathic skills. But hell, why should anyone hold you to your own standards? The quotations from Anton Long are relevant to this topic and they contradict what you wrote. You didn't refute the quotations, merely stated they were supposedly taken out of context and added more "appeal to authority" fallacies.

you are the one who resurrected the Mr McD drama here;

Because you are the one who first started attacking me and calling me out on my supposed lack of knowledge, starting from the post #53.

was Ryan or was he not for years falsely claiming to be O9A?

I already answered I don't know and nobody knows unless they know Ryan personally, met him face to face and tested his character in the real world. Until then he remains a quite clever and imaginative guy inspired by the ONA, claiming to be ONA. Perhaps he follows the ONA praxis, perhaps he doesn't. Perhaps, he says the truth, perhaps he doesn't. Calling him a pretender is passing an unjustified judgement on the guy you don't know or know only from the internet.

The Code sets certain standards for our own personal behaviour and how we relate to our own kind and to others. Our Code, being based on honour, thus concerns personal knowing, and therefore demands that we judge others solely on the basis of a personal knowing of them – on their deeds, on their behaviour toward us and toward those to whom we have given a personal pledge of loyalty.We know our own kind by their deeds and their way of life; that is through a personal knowing. (The Definitive Guide to the Order of Nine Angles)

As outlined in my philosophy of pathei-mathos, my personal view is that the criteria of assessment and judgement are the individual ones of empathy, reason, and the presumption of innocence; which means that abstractions, ideations, theories, and categories, of whatever kind- and whether deemed to be political, religious, or social - are considered an unimportant. That what matters, what is moral, is a very personal knowing in the immediacy-of-the- moment so that what is beyond the purveu of our empathy, of our personal knowing,knowledge, and experience, is something we rationally accept we do not know and so cannot judge or form a reasonable, a fair, a balanced,opinion about. Hence, and for example, individuals and people we do not know, of whatever faith, of whatever perceived ethnicity, sexual orientation, or perceived or assumed or proclaimed culture - whom we have no personal experience of and have had no interaction with over a period of causal time - are unjudged by us and thus given the benefit of the doubt; that is, regarded as innocent, assumed to be good,unless or until direct personal experience, and individual and empathic knowing of them, as individuals, proves otherwise... (An Overview of David Myatt's Philosophy of Pathei Mathos)

Judging others without knowing them personally, without putting ourselves in their shoes, without understanding them is a sign of hubris, at least according to Myatt.

Do you consider that you know more about the O9A than those who can answer basic questions about O9A esotericism and who have access to Anton Long? Why, given your failure to answer basic questions about O9A esotericism, have you defended - and/or made excuses for - O9A pretenders such as Ryan and Darryl... Does such a failure to so correctly answer such questions indicate a lack of knowledge about the O9A? Yes or no... Have you been totally honest regarding your O9A knowledge, your ignorance of and/or disdain for the O9A code? Yes or no.

You really should have thought of studying the law and becoming a prosecutor. If you formulated the questions you ask the accused or witnesses the same way as you did here, if you presented such evidence in the court of law as you presented here and on the blog, then you would do a hell of a good job. The O9A would be proud of you.

Hint: the order of Nine Angles is Anton Long's (a) logos as Magus, and (b) the accumulated esoteric and exoteric pathei-mathos resulting from his own anados along the Seven Fold Way, and (c) the esoteric aural traditions he inherited and in some cases developed and revised.

Bull****. The Order of Nine Angles is not the accumulated esoteric and exoteric pathei mathos resulting from Anton Long's anados along the Seven Fold Way but the accumulated esoteric and exoteric pathei mathos of all ONA "members" resulting from their own personal anados along the Seven Fold Way or other ONA praxis, and that also includes Anton Long.

Anton Long's logos as Magus lol. And the Church of Satan is Gilmore's logos as the Church of Satan's Magus. Oh and let's not forget about another guru, Anton LaVey. He's long dead, yet his birthday is still celebrated by all his CoS fans out there.

 

[jeff77]

Bull****. The Order of Nine Angles is not blah blah blah

Thus speaks someone who can't answer basic questions about the O9A. What value, then, does your personal opinion about matters O9A have? None; esoterically, aeonically. It's just the person opinion of someone about something they don't understand.

I answered all the questions relevant to the topic.

You have never answered the esoteric questions about the O9A that you were asked, and even now continue to fail to answer them.

If you claim to have answered such questions - such as why there are two classical esoteric modes, rather than one, associated with the septenary planet named Sol, and does this have anything to do with the Somnium Scipionis" - καὶ κατ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτό γε ἀναξίου μὲν φωτὸς ἐξερήσομαι γλώσσῃ δὲ δεινοῦ καὶ σοφοῦ τί νῦν κυρεῖ - then post a link and/or a screenshot of your answer, and repeat your answer here.

Go on. Answer that, and the other, questions you were asked about O9A esotericism.

Failure to now answer those questions, and/or a failure to provide a link to, or a screenshot of, where you are now claiming to have answered them, will be the most indicative thing of all.

I also indirectly answered the one about the map on 600 Club

If so, then repeat your answer here, and/or provide a screenshot of or a link to your answer there.

How does that map relate to O9A ontology? Go on, answer the question. Failure to do so is certainly an option...

So, you either have to answer the questions - and back up your claim to having already answered by providing links/screenshots - or admit that you haven't answered / can't answer them, and that therefore (i) your knowledge of the O9A is limited and (ii) that those who do have far more knowledge about the O9A than you have said you personal opinions about the O9A are wrong.

Until you answer them, or admit that your knowledge of the O9A is limited and that your personal opinions about the O9A are just your ill-informed personal opinions, then there is no reason for anyone - here or elsewhere - to take what you write about the O9A seriously.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

Thus speaks someone who can't answer basic questions about the O9A. What value, then, does your personal opinion about matters O9A have? None; esoterically, aeonically. It's just the person opinion of someone about something they don't understand...

Blah blah blah repeating the same stuff over and over again. Is that all you can do?
I don't have to answer the questions which are not relevant to the topic. I don't have to know the answers to the questions for internal adepts. Neither does Kris because he never claimed to have achieved the grade of Internal Adept. He was quite sincere about this in his diary.

If so, then repeat your answer here, and/or provide a screenshot of or a link to your answer there. How does that map relate to O9A ontology? Go on, answer the question.

I told you I had already answered it, kiddo, on the 600 Club in the thread "Is O9A an esoteric philosophy?" but I can repeat it since some users here like the movies for children.

Here it is:

Lyrics:

I have a place where dreams are born,
And time is never planned.
It's not on any chart,
You must find it with your heart.
Never Never Land.

It might be miles beyond the moon,
Or right there where you stand.
Just keep an open mind,
And then suddenly you'll find
Never Never Land.

You'll have a treasure if you stay there,
More precious far than gold.
For once you have found your way there,
You can never, never grow old.

And that's my home where dreams are born,
And time is never planned.
Just think of lovely things.
And your heart will fly on wings,
Forever in Never Never Land.

Of course, it's not an original text (The Hunting of the Snark) but Carroll's works are tiresome to read. The song is better.

As you see dear readers, the "Order of Nine Angels" can be found everywhere. The key is in your heart/mind. Nobody can lead you there by the hand, set you an example to follow, set rules and dogmas to obey, because such rules, dogmas and examples would be causal abstractions serving to obscure what is the most important. You draw you own path, using your judgement, imagination, experience, because you are the nexion between this material world and the acausal world which can manifest itself in your own mind. And when Kris was saying that the Temple of Them was an O9A nexion he meant exactly this; his vision of the Dark Gods and his relationship with them, his striving to see beyond the forms.

I'm sure you have different imaginings about that as there are many different interpretations of Carroll's poem and many interpretations of the ONA. It's only a tool to gain wisdom and to approach the acausal magical realm. One thing is certain. To gain deeper esoteric knowledge of yourself and the Universe one must look inside because wisdom comes from within. It cannot be gained from books, dictionaries, teachers, mentors or gurus.

those who do have far more knowledge about the O9A than you have said you personal opinions about the O9A are wrong.

Appeal to the authority fallacy. Even if someone has more knowledge than you doesn't mean he can't be mistaken or simply lying. Such fallacy is not an argument to prove anything. You may have a detailed knowledge about the O9A yet twist the facts and information to discredit those you have personal issues with, such as Kris.

Until you answer them, or admit that your knowledge of the O9A is limited and that your personal opinions about the O9A are just your ill-informed personal opinions, then there is no reason for anyone - here or elsewhere - to take what you write about the O9A seriously.

Look dude... I'm not going to admit my opinions about the O9A are ill-informed. I know you are lying and your propaganda is obvious to anyone who compares your words here with the MSS or takes a look at your blog. The thing is your words contradict the MSS. If you are right, then back up your claims because appeal to the authority (I'm Inner ONA so I know the best) is not enough.

 

[jeff77]

I don't have to answer the questions which are not relevant to the topic.

The topic is you: your opinions about the O9A that you've given in hundreds of posts in the past year. Thus, asking you questions about your knowledge of O9A esotrericism is very relevant.

That you keep making excuses for failing to answer such questions, yet keep posting your outsider opinions about the O9A, is just so revealing.

The key is in your heart/mind...there are many different interpretations of the ONA.

Yet another epic fail. Because you did not answer the specific question, which was a philosophical one about O9A ontology. Rather, you treated us to some generic waffle and cliches "one must look inside... nobody can lead you there by the hand...wisdom comes from within... blah blah."

But no doubt in your own mind you're convinced that you did answer the question, although anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of O9A ontology will understand your failure.

There's also no doubting that you'll continue to claim - ad nauseam - that you "did" answer the question correctly. because, as you so clearly state (like a mardy child), you're "not going to admit" that your "opinions about the O9A are ill-informed."

Even if someone has more knowledge than you doesn't mean he can't be mistaken or simply lying.

What a flimsy excuse for yet again failing to answer basic questions about O9A esotericism, after you've spent years pontificating about the O9A. No doubt some will think that the appellations mobard, laughing stock - and of course troll - are appropriate.

Even Ryan, to his credit, attempted to answer the questions, although he did not give a single correct answer.

You can't answer the questions, because you don't have the knowledge, so rather than admit you don't know you make up yet another excuse in yet another vain attempt to save face. Just like you made up excuses for your continued failure to answer a simple logical question about Mr McD.

The thing is your words contradict the MSS

So says an outsider who can't answer basic questions about O9A esotericism.

Yet another expected response. You merely (i) repeat silly excuses you've made before, and (ii) yet again (in some vain attempt to save face) commit the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi by trying to distract attention away from your lack of knowledge about the O9A, and (iii) repeat what you have previously claimed - about the O9A, about O9A folk, and about Mr McD - in hundreds of posts in the past year.

In brief, you haven't (for months) answered relevant questions; you haven't (for months) stated anything new; you haven't (for months) said anything that hasn't been discredited x number of times in the past year, on various forums and on FB. Merely re-stating your claims - and repeatedly claiming they haven't been discredited - is argumentum ad nauseam.

Well over four years ago someone on some internet forum claimed that the "ONA is dead" and that they killed it. For over a decade some latter-day satanists have declared that "the ONA doesn't exist", while others have declaimed that "nobody takes the ONA seriously or is interested in it".

Yet here you are, posting yet more stuff about the O9A. Indeed, in the past year you've posted more stuff about, and made more comments concerning, the O9A than all O9A folk (such as KS and MK) combined.

Thus, you're obviously obsessed with the O9A, with O9A pretenders such as Mr McD, with promoting your own magpie interpretation of the O9A, with trying to discredit O9A folk, and of course you're fanatically - hubriatically - convinced that you're right. You just can't stop opining here about the O9A, and have been obsessively pontificating about the O9A for well over a year on various forums, on FB, in the comment section of various blogs, and so on - and thus in the process drawing attention to the O9A and of course providing multiple opportunities not only for O9A people to propagandize on behalf of the O9A, but for people to compare your trollish posts with those of O9A folk.

However, in comparison to O9A folk, you - just like Mr McD and Mr H - don't come out of it very well. That you continue to claim otherwise is most amusing. Vulgar ripostes, accusing every O9A person who disagrees with you of lying and being deceptive. Repeatedly committing the fallacies of ignoratio elenchi and argumentum ad nauseam. Arrogantly refusing to admit that your knowledge of the O9A is limited (despite evidence that it is indeed very limited), a continued failure to answer simple questions, and silly excuses repeated over and and over again in order to try and save face. All these things are just so indicative. Of plebeian physis syndrome.

Given that you've haven't (for months) stated anything new; given that you haven't (for months) said anything that hasn't been discredited x number of times in the past year, and given that sufficient has been said in the past year about the O9A on forums such as this, then this thread - insofar as I am concerned - is closed.

But no doubt - given your obsession - you will continue with your excuses, with argumentum ad nauseam, with argumentum ad hominem against O9A folk, with defending O9A pretenders, and of course with presenting your magpie interpretation of the O9A. But you'll only focus more attention on the real O9A while providing more evidence to confirm the diagnosis of suffering from plebeian physis syndrome. Just as Mr McD did, and continues to do.

 

[jeff77]

I'm not going to admit my opinions about the O9A are ill-informed. I know you are lying.

Which neatly says all that needs to be said about your hundreds of posts about the O9A in the past year.

You - like all hubriatic dogmatists - refuse to admit you're wrong, even though evidence proves that your opinions about the O9A are indeed ill-informed.

You also proudly - like all hubriatic dogmatists - state that you "know" the truth and thus accuse those who disagree with you of lying and of being deceptive.

Classic. And, of course, QED. Case closed.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

Wow! Did you forget to hit a pillow several times when you got up early today? It seems so.

like a mardy child... the appellations mobard, laughing stock - and of course troll - are appropriate... you're obviously obsessed with the O9A... plebeian physis syndrome... given your obsession... You - like all hubriatic dogmatists... posting your outsider opinions about the O9A x 100 or more times... your lack of knowledge about the O9A x 100...

By all means, continue with your ad hominem and other logical fallacies, like argumentum ad nauseam, appeal to the authority and outright lies. It's just so indicative... of "plebeian physis syndrome".

Yet another epic fail. Because you did not answer the specific question, which was a philosophical one about O9A ontology. Rather, you treated us to some generic waffle and cliches "one must look inside... nobody can lead you there by the hand...wisdom comes from within... blah blah."

Really? So maybe you will give us the correct answer eh? I'm sure you can't because there are many interpretations of the map and "The Hunting of the Snark" poem. Also everyone can have different associations regarding the poem and the ONA. I gave my own. Instead of just copying the relevant quotes from the ONA ontology articles and pasting them here, which would be mere parroting of someone else's words, I used my own words and also my own associations with the Peter Pan song. Some people even compared the ONA to "Alice in Wonderland". So what?

In brief, you haven't (for months) answered relevant questions; you haven't (for months) stated anything new; you haven't (for months) said anything that hasn't been discredited x number of times in the past year, on various forums and on FB. Merely re-stating your claims - and repeatedly claiming they haven't been discredited - is argumentum ad nauseam.

No, it's you repeating your claims over and over again without adding anything new.

you're obviously obsessed

Me? Or, perhaps, you? Because it was you who made this topic about me.

The topic is you

See? And who is obsessed here?

trying to discredit O9A folk... accusing every O9A person who disagrees with you of lying and being deceptive.

Really? Whom did I try to discredit? I've been in the facebook group for some time and I bothered nobody. Also nobody there has issues with my posts there and elsewhere. The only exception are two fanatics from Omega9Alpha Wordpress, obviously angry that someone doesn't care about their emotional blackmail and other manipulative gymnastics. And yeah, you are deceptive and yeah you are lying, that's for sure. I only don't know for sure whether you believe your bull**** but it's not my problem.

You just can't stop opining here about the O9A, and have been obsessively pontificating about the O9A for well over a year on various forums, on FB, in the comment section of various blogs, and so on - and thus in the process drawing attention to the O9A and of course providing multiple opportunities not only for O9A people to propagandize on behalf of the O9A, but for people to compare your trollish posts with those of O9A folk.

I will opine about what I want and when I want no matter what bull**** narrative you come up with. Contrary to some people, I don't give a **** about the bull**** narratives. It's not that I don't "get them", I simply treat them like a piece of toilet paper.

You - like all hubriatic dogmatists - refuse to admit you're wrong, even though evidence proves that your opinions about the O9A are indeed ill-informed.

If you provided the evidence that I was wrong, I would admit my mistakes. But you didn't. Appeal to the authority and obvious propaganda do not constitute evidence.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

Oh thank you Curious Cat for your precious contribution, that is merely repeating word for word what Jeff posted. Do you have something to add from yourself?

Welcome in the Club of Drones.