The Gift for the Prince of Dorkness

bathory4

My buddy often says that Satanists are dorks. I disagree. Some of them are really sinister like, for example, Sista Morgan of the ONA, a genuine Satanist who regularly culls fake Satanists whom she meets online and then lures them into some creepy forest to murder them and bathe in their blood, like terrible Elizabeth Batory. Oh wait. The creepy countess murdered girls. Sister Morgan hates the dudes for some reason.

Let’s now reproduce her blog which will send shivers down your spine.

“This was not what he expected. He had spent months, following his reading of The Satanic Bible, posting replies on self-described ‘satanic’ internet forums to such an extent that he – or rather his self-assumed pseudonym – had garnered a certain positive reputation among other self-described ‘satanists’ all of whom seemed to revere and regularly quote that book written as it was by a certain Howard Stanton Levey, who of course used a pseudonym in order to hide his real identity, given the plagiaristic nature of most of the contents of that mass-produced and now rather popular book.

Plying him with praise – massaging his ego – they, using the ‘private message’ facilities on such internet forums, had enticed him here on a warm albeit cloudy day in late August. Enticed, because the messages were supposedly from a young women who had expressed an interest in him given – or so she said – his knowledge of satanism. And which messages had sometimes included a web-link to suggestive images of a certain young women.

So there he was, a mere nineteen years of age and self-assured as he was, waiting in the fading twilight for the promised tryst with that voluptuous young woman. Waiting, hoping, his head-piece filled with both sexual and egoistic dreams. There: where ancient, twisted, often moss-covered, trees of Oak had settled and grown near a long-abandoned stone quarry in the county borderland that marked the edge of the English Peak District national park.

Waited, until he could but dimly see a figure approach him. Then she and him were both smiling, if for different reasons; and he was so intent on leering at her that he neither saw nor heard the approach of those behind him: those three women who crept upon him to bind his wrists behind his back.

Of course he struggled; or tried to. Kicking out and shouting obscenities as he lay, bound, on his back. For was he not a proud satanist who believed in indulgence, in treating those who annoyed you cruelly and without mercy, in what lex talionis meant and implied? Who was he – with his youthful masculine body honed by regular training in a gym – to be subdued by mere women?

But they were mocking him before, in the twilight dark, placing a hood over his head, gagging him, and carrying him down toward a nearby narrow stream where heavy stones were placed on his legs, arms, abdomen, and chest; almost – but not quite – crushing them.

So it was that he, supine, heard a feminine voice declaim:

Here is he who believed he knew our secret:
But just look at him now and laugh
For we have so easily overcome his much-believed-in outer strength.

Now, wash your throats with sparkling wine
For Sirius returns
And we women are warm and wanton!
Before me, you were sightless:
You looked, but could not see;
Before me, you had no hearing:
You heard sounds, but could not listen.
Before me, you swarmed with men,
But did not enjoy.
But I arrived, opened my body and
Brought you lust, softness, understanding, and love.
My breasts pleased you
And brought forth darkness and much joy.

I, who crushes your enemies and who washes in a basin full of
Their blood.
For you are my daughters and a nexion to our Dark Gods:
Before you my sisters I offer you this body so that his blood
Will feed your virgin flesh.

He heard laughter, the sound of bottles of Champagne being opened, and then – not that long thereafter – felt the dreadful pain as a sharp long-bladed knife slit his throat. So he gasped, gurgled, as his life-blood drained away, some of it collected in a basin to be smeared on breasts and faces.”

https://sinistervignettes.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/not-what-he-expected/

A women or a woman? Never mind. I’m sure the Prince of Dorkness will forgive sister Morgan that small mistake.

And you, pseudo-Satanists? Tremble because the Day of the diabolical Wrath is coming. Stop prattling on your stupid forums but tear your robes and put ashes on your head. Repent! Reject your egoism and learn humility!

You fucking pseudo-intellectual faggots.

Advertisements

29 thoughts on “The Gift for the Prince of Dorkness

  1. Nicolas Claux similarly lured a gay man with enticement of sex only to murder him with a .22 cal pistol then bash his head in for good measure. I imagine a man could easily pretend to be an attractive woman online then lure his prey to some discrete locale to engage in murder. Similarly, many predators made the red light district their hunting ground. Ian Brady used his girlfriend Myra Hindley to lure children away under some pretension of kindness. Few members of the MLO lured a homosexual male to their home where they murdered him. Served a few years in prison. I’d recommend the police or military if you have an insatiable lust for murder however. Get paid to do what you love. Although most will not have the mental fortitude for that option. Society should praise these hunters for easing the burden of the earth via feeding it with blood. The human specie has no natural predator hence it makes sense that nature would compensate. Perhaps these individuals are the future of the human species; the next step in evolution and the beginning manifestation of the Dark Immortals on this Earth planet.

    I am a wise individual. Women are great sociopaths, liars, etc. All hidden behind a pretty smile. With the pussified liberal governments of the West it is quite easy for a woman to be a grand murderer. Self-defense pleas and such work more in their favor. Immediately when I am aware an individual is a female or pretending to be a female my senses flare up to detect the hidden motives. I have witnessed first hand the sort of sadism even women of short stature and weak strength are capable of. More dangerous than men that is for sure. Snakes in wormskin.

    Perhaps you may disagree there, and perhaps I do speak from a certain degree of misogyny but only an absolute fool would not educate themselves on women.

    Women have a sort of running start on men when it comes to Satanism. They could seduce many powerful figures to enact their wishes. The sky is indeed the limit. They do not even necessarily need to be attractive even given the absolutely atrocious sex drive of some men.

    Liked by 1 person

    • annaczereda says:

      Indeed. But who in their right mind would make an appointment with a stranger met online in a secluded place? I don’t get it. Not to mention giving an ear to bogus compliments. It’s like begging for the Darwin Award.

      I think the author of the original blog/fairy tale doesn’t understand what Anton LaVey’s philosophy is all about. Responsibility to the responsible principle comes to mind just like taking people for what they are instead of wishful thinking.

      Like

      • It’s quite common especially nowadays with social media. Most people aren’t going to rape or murder a person. Even if they want to the consequences of a near guaranteed arrest given how traceable the Internet is nowadays keep most in check. My own person met my current girlfriend and all girlfriends online in the past. As well as a number of friends. It’s the digital age.

        Like

      • Although some degree of paranoia is healthy. Usually it’s a good idea to have some concealed weapon.

        Like

  2. “Of course he struggled; or tried to. Kicking out and shouting obscenities as he lay, bound, on his back. For was he not a proud satanist who believed in indulgence, in treating those who annoyed you cruelly and without mercy, in what lex talionis meant and implied? Who was he – with his youthful masculine body honed by regular training in a gym – to be subdued by mere women?”

    I would disagree with this section here because a Satanist if s/he is a Promethean figure should have a body made more like steel than soft mush. Consider all those Nazarenes walking around with fat supple bodies. Totally disgusting. Why should a strong Satanic mind be imprisoned in a shell of weakness or softness? Let the Wiccans, Nazarenes, etc. be soft in body and mind but not legitimate Satanists capable of combat. Would any shock troop of the day of wrath be encased in a weak frail body?

    Liked by 1 person

    • annaczereda says:

      Your propaganda about Anton LaVey’s philosophy is indeed hilarious. Like him or not, your claims are false, which is obvious for everyone who has read his works and interacted with the Church of Satan members. Pride is part and parcel of Satanism, for sure, but also being realistic; being able to see through other people, not giving in to false compliments and praises, properly evaluating all the risks and taking consequences for your actions. But I understand you feel the permanent need to troll.

      I only wonder what has happened to the ONA fiction, mythos and polemical essays that used to be very good in the past but have recently become so lame. Has Uncle Myatt changed his buddies or are you, people, just getting old?

      Like

  3. 39yvr2pmq says:

    For once why don’t you and others just answer the questions asked about Howard Stanton Levey: What actual evil did he as a person ever physically do, in real life?

    You also continue – as (apparently) a Christian – to make comments about the ONA yet so far have no answer to ONA documents such as https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/the-esoteric-hermeticism-of-the-order-of-nine-angles/

    Do please enlighten us with your scholarly comments on such matters as the ‘Alchemical And Hermetic Antecedents Of The Seven Fold Way’.

    Perhaps “are you just getting old” is all you’ve got.

    But perhaps we two should just get together and dance as in the youtube video of Dean Martin’s ‘Sway’. One gal to another… 🙂

    Like

    • annaczereda says:

      My mom likes this version:

      Where did I say Anton LaVey was “evil”? I wrote that your claims that LaVey’s Satanism is all about sex and being a macho are obviously wrong. Nine Satanic Sins, Eleven Rules of the Earth, the parts about lesser magic etc come to mind.

      I’m also saying that the ONA writings got worse as compared to the writings before 2012.

      Like

      • 39yvr2pmq says:

        You wrote:
        {quote} Where did you say Anton LaVey was evil? {/quote}

        It was a generic question directed at those who apparently accept that Howard Stanton Levey (the Yahodi) was a ‘satanist’ and founded ‘modern satanism’. A question which implicitly leads to another one: if satan – as supernatural entity and/or as archetype or symbol – is not ‘evil’, with evil understood (for the sake of argument) as what is “morally depraved, bad, wicked, vicious, harmful, malicious, unlawful, dangerous, deadly,” etc, then who or what is evil and why?

        Which leads to certain ontological and ethical and epistemological questions, which – given that Levey preached that ‘satan’ was basically a useful symbol of human carnality, indulgence, masculous instincts, of Ayan Rand type ‘ethical egoism’, (and so on) – his ‘satanism’ cannot answer in a rigorous philosophical way.

        The O9A simply presents an alternative view of ‘satan’ and ‘satanism’. One which restores to satan and satanism what is ‘evil’ as in dangerous, unlawful, malicious, deadly, offensive, genuinely heretical today (as in holocaust denial), and so on.

        To appreciate the difference, one asks what was ‘evil’ about Levey, the man, and about his version of satanism.

        It’s interesting that you et al never use the real name of the alleged founder of ‘modern satanism’ while you et al endlessly mention Myatt (not Anton Long) in regard to the O9A.

        You wrote:
        {quote} I’m also saying that the ONA writings got worse as compared to the writings before 2012. {/quote}

        Do please rationally explain why a post-2012 work such as the one previously mentioned – https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/the-esoteric-hermeticism-of-the-order-of-nine-angles/ – is ‘worse’.

        It’s interesting – but not unexpected – that you did not enlighten us with your scholarly comments on such matters as are outlined in the O9A text the Alchemical And Hermetic Antecedents Of The Seven Fold Way.

        Like

      • 39yvr2pmq says:

        You wrote: “My mom likes this version…”

        Nah, that is no substitute for the original Dean Martin version nor for the dancers in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrULwmbRYTY

        My mother, bless her, had – in the 1950s – most of Dean Martin’s records. I grew up hearing them.

        Like

    • “It was a generic question directed at those who apparently accept that Howard Stanton Levey (the Yahodi) was a ‘satanist’ and founded ‘modern satanism’. A question which implicitly leads to another one: if satan – as supernatural entity and/or as archetype or symbol – is not ‘evil’, with evil understood (for the sake of argument) as what is “morally depraved, bad, wicked, vicious, harmful, malicious, unlawful, dangerous, deadly,” etc, then who or what is evil and why?”

      Exactly. Excellent and enlivening point made there. Definitely not made to curry any favor with your person, but exactly the sort of way I understand Satan and to be Satanic. Absolutely splendid point. If we may interrupt here for a minute or two.

      Like

    • LaVey is known to have regularly beaten his wife and daughter and used a cattle prod on his pet lion. He was an honorless freak for doing so, and the fact that he felt the need to invent lies about shagging Marilyn Monroe and one other female celebrity as well as drastically exaggerate his own influence also belie a cravenness of character.
      Sources: Michael Aquino and John Allee

      Like

  4. annaczereda says:

    KS or whoever you are, I have already explained thoroughly in the 600 Club forum why I don’t think Satan is a supernatural evil entity or that evil necessarily means “morally depraved, bad, wicked, vicious, harmful, malicious, unlawful, dangerous, deadly.” The relevant discussion starts here:
    http://www.the600club.com/topic107748-4.html
    And continues here:
    http://www.the600club.com/topic108113-10.html

    There are several pages of comments. One user here (and my buddy) had a similar definition of Satan and evil to you, which I argued is incorrect and explained in several posts why.

    Satanism according to Anton LaVey doesn’t exclude acts of compassion. The point is to follow your own ethics rather than the morality system of the society and to help those who deserve your help rather than those who simply want to use and manipulate you. There is the section in the Satanic Bible about the psychic vampires. Another point is the realization that every act is selfish in nature; being able to admit to yourself that even if you help other people, you also benefit yourself, even if that only means personal satisfaction and fulfillment. It’s also not true that every Satanist admires or treats LaVey as a guru.

    It’s also quite amusing that you accuse me or some other unspecified individuals of vituperation after spending years writing provocative bullshit full of personal attacks. Could you try to refute my arguments for once? I challenge here your claims about Anton LaVey and you change the topic and start discussing hermeticism. Shit or get off the pot, please.

    Like

    • 39yvr2pmq says:

      You wrote:
      {quote} the relevant discussion starts here {/quote}

      Are you kidding me?

      I just love it when people quote the translations of others because they lack the scholarly ability to read primary sources in the original language. I love it even more when pretentious people argue, via the internet, among themselves about matters that they so obviously – from their replies – have no scholarly knowledge of.

      That you deign to reference such irrelevant internet discussions between mostly anonymous people – rather than citing some credible scholarly sources – seems somewhat indicative.

      FYI, here – as previously mentioned elsewhere – is an example of a source who does not, in respect of ‘evil’, rely on the translations of others: https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/about/good-evil-honour-and-god/

      You also wrote:
      {quote} It’s also quite amusing that you blah blah blah {/quote}

      It is even more amusing – and far more relevant – that you have not enlightened us with your scholarly comments on a certain O9A text, as we have asked you to do several times. Apparently, all you have in reply is vituperation such as “you fucking pseudo-intellectual faggots.” How very plebeian.

      Quod Erat Demonstrandum? Absolutely.

      Now do please favor us – our diverse ‘editors’ who enjoy silliness, fun, and polemics – with more vituperation and argumentum ad hominem.

      You wrote:
      {quote} Could you try to refute my arguments for once {/quote}

      What arguments? You merely repeat the puffery of others about Howard Stanton Levey (the Yahodi) and his so-called ‘satanism’ while you et al have failed to explain, in terms of ontology and epistemology and ethically, how he and his so-called ‘satanism’ deals with relevant philosophical questions including the question of ‘evil’. Perhaps in reply you can link to some internet discussion on some so-called ‘satanist’ forum between mostly anonymous people?

      Like

      • annaczereda says:

        Pooh pooh fallacy.

        Whether I use an original text or a translation is irrelevant as long as my reasoning and conclusions I reach are correct. If you think, they are incorrect, then simply… prove it using legitimate arguments.

        The same goes for Anton LaVey. Using the relevant quotes from his works support your claims. The Nine Satanic Sins alone, which include stupidity, pretentiousness, solipsism and counter-productive pride, are a proof that your claim (that Satanism according to LaVey is all about being a pretentious and self-assured bully and a macho) is false.

        Or just carry on with that amusing fallacious propaganda of yours. You only insult O9A people’s intelligence with your “polemics.” Oh wait, I forgot they are just “guinea pigs in the laboratory.” Anyway, this is just well over the line. I’m calling PETA. 😛

        Like

  5. 39yvr2pmq says:

    You wrote:
    {quote} Whether I use an original text or a translation is irrelevant {/quote}

    It may seem irrelevant to you, but it is evidence of a lack of knowledge of primary sources. If your conclusions are based on the opinion of someone else – as in relying on their translations(s) of basic texts – then there is not only nothing original about such conclusions but also an element of faith involved because of such a personal reliance on someone else. That you et al don’t seem to appreciate this reliance, while prattling on and on about how Levey-like ‘satanism’ involves self-reliance and antinomian individuality, is most amusing.

    You wrote:
    {quote} The Nine Satanic Sins alone, which include stupidity, pretentiousness, solipsism and counter-productive pride, are a proof that your claim (that Satanism according to LaVey is all about being a pretentious and self-assured bully and a macho) is false. {/quote}

    What is “sin”? Howard Stanton Levey (the Yahodi) never defined it, philosophically. Furthermore, I asked you about ontology, epistemology, and ethics, and all you can do is reference a pretentious load of waffle?

    For there is nothing, absolutely nothing, original – philosophically or otherwise – about what Levey wrote about such “sins”. They are simply a restatement of (a) the ramblings that can be heard, and have for perhaps a century or more been heard, in bars and pubs the world over, and (b) what can be found in thousands of books about ‘self-help’ and personal assertiveness.

    All Howard Stanton Levey did was (i) associate such ramblings and ‘self-help’, self-assertiveness, ideas with his pathetic (non-evil) interpretation of ‘satan’, making his ‘satan’ a symbol of human carnality, indulgence, masculous instincts, and Ayn Rand type egoism, and (ii) add some “occult trappings” and occult language to pull in some punters and enable him to dress-up like Mephistopheles in an amateur production of Faust.

    So, unless you can et al come back with some reasoned – some genuinely philosophical – analysis of the ontology, epistemology, and ethics, of what Howard Stanton Levey set forth in his writings he will remain, for us, just a charlatan, a plagiarist.

    BTW, still waiting for your scholarly comments on O9A texts such as “Alchemical And Hermetic Antecedents Of The Seven Fold Way.” and your scholarly argument to back-up your claim that post-2012 O9A writings such as that are “worse” than previous ones.

    Also, still waiting to hear why you et al never use the real name of that charlatan and plagiarist.

    Like

    • annaczereda says:

      Are we on the same page?
      I challenged you on several claims you made about Anton LaVey. Those claims were:
      * that LaVey’s Satanism is egoistic
      * that it’s a philosophy of a macho and a bully
      * that it praises giving in to one’s insatiable sexual urges
      * that it involves reckless acting on instinct.

      Those claims were in your recent blogs and the short story. I offered counter arguments and you, instead of refuting them and thus proving your original claims, made other new claims (that LaVey wasn’t original and evil enough).

      I referred you to my posts about sin and evil and you, instead of countering my arguments, simply dismissed them as “pretentious waffle.”

      And you have a nerve to talk about scholarly arguments while, at the same time, you refuse to stay within the confines of even informal logic.

      Like

      • 39yvr2pmq says:

        You wrote:
        {quote} I challenged you on several claims you made about Anton LaVey. {/quote}

        Like I/we said: unless and until you or others come back with some reasoned – some genuinely philosophical – analysis of the ontology, epistemology, and ethics, of what Howard Stanton Levey set forth in his writings, he will remain, for us, just a charlatan, a plagiarist, and his so-called ‘philosophy’ just (i) the macho ramblings that can be heard, and have for perhaps a century or more been heard, in bars and pubs the world over, and (ii) what can be found in thousands of books about ‘self-help’ and personal assertiveness, with his pathetic (non-evil) interpretation of ‘satan’ merely added – together with some “occult trappings” and occult language – to pull in some punters and enable him to dress-up like Mephistopheles in an amateur production of Faust.

        So come on: what is his unique ontology? What is his unique epistemology? What is his unique theory of ethics?

        It’s for you – and others – to, if you can, present his claims, his so-called ‘satanism’, in such a philosophical way. That no one has done so, in decades, is reason enough to debunk and laugh at his “Ayn Rand with trappings” posturings. That you and others don’t seem to understand this is very amusing.

        Therefore, let’s repeat the crux, one last time: We don’t have to defend our criticism because it’s for the defenders of Howard Stanton Levey (the Yahodi) – and of his so-called ‘satanism’ – to present their case in terms of a unique ontology, a unique epistemology, and a unique ethics. So far, all we’ve gotten from them over the decades – and from you – is puffery. Until you or they present us – and his other critics – with such a genuine philosophical analysis, there is nothing to seriously discuss.

        Are you up for the challenge? Or will you just come back with the usual “you never answered my questions” and/or with more vituperation and argumentum ad hominem?

        Still waiting to hear why you et al never use the real name of that charlatan, showman, and plagiarist.

        You wrote:
        {quote} I referred you to my posts about sin and evil {/quote}

        Yeah, right. Like I/we said: you deigned to reference irrelevant internet discussions between mostly anonymous people rather than citing some credible scholarly sources. Worthless discussions where mostly ill-informed people relied on the opinions of others, as in having to use translations.

        Finally, we’re still waiting for your scholarly comments on O9A texts such as “Alchemical And Hermetic Antecedents Of The Seven Fold Way” and for your scholarly argument to back-up your claim that post-2012 O9A writings such as that are “worse” than previous ones.

        Like

  6. annaczereda says:

    To simplify:
    I called you out on several statements because they don’t make sense. You claimed that:
    1. Evil means “morally depraved, bad, wicked, vicious, harmful, malicious, unlawful, dangerous, deadly,”
    2. Anton LaVey’s Satanism is a philosophy of a rapist and a bully
    3. Anton LaVey’s Satanism is not evil

    This is fallacious as fuck. If your definition of evil is correct and LaVey’s Satanism is a philosophy of a rapist and a bully, then the third claim is incorrect. That would mean that Satanism according to Anton LaVey is evil because rape and bullying are evil acts according to your definition as they involve a malicious intent and causing harm to another person. They are also unlawful and morally depraved according to the standards of the modern society.

    If your definition of evil is correct and Anton LaVey’s Satanism is indeed not evil, then it cannot be a philosophy of a rapist and a bully for the reasons outlined above.

    If Anton LaVey’s philosophy is not evil and, at the same time, it is a philosophy of a rapist and a bully, then you have to change your definition of evil.

    An average idiot will see fallacy in it. Do you understand or should I stand in front of the blackboard and show you flashcards? You refuse to address my arguments and, instead, are talking about the arguments some unspecified Satanists out there make.

    I also called you out on some other claims, like that LaVey’s Satanism is egoistic and that it praises reckless acting on instincts and mindless giving in to one’s sexual urges. By using the relevant quotes from LaVey’s works, please justify your claims.

    And yes you have to defend your criticism of Anton LaVey because you are the one making claims. No shifting of the burden of proof, please.

    Like

    • 39yvr2pmq says:

      To simplify. You failed to answer the fundamental, the relevant, the important, questions. Which are: What is Howard Stanton Levey’s unique ontology? What is his unique epistemology? What is his unique theory of ethics?

      As for me/we making statements and adversarial claims about Howard Stanton Levey and his so-called satanism: damn right I/we did because his so-called ‘satanism’ is just so unoriginal and so un-philosophical it damn well deserves to be questioned, lampooned, and subjected to polemics.

      We have to nothing to prove: it’s for you and other defenders of Howard Stanton Levey and his so-called ‘satanism’ to provide evidence that it’s original and philosophical and thus worthy of being taken seriously. Note the phrase: worthy of being taken seriously.

      For we just don’t take him or his so-called ‘satanism’ – nor the puffery about him and it – seriously. So get over our laughter, our adversarial claims, our failure to believe such puffery, and our refusal to accept that Howard Stanton Levey was an innovator in respect of satanism.

      So come on: what is Howard Stanton Levey’s unique ontology? What is his unique epistemology? What is his unique theory of ethics? Just answer those questions! Then we might have some common ground for a rational debate. That you et al cannot – refuse to – answer such simple questions is just so indicative. Until you – et al – answer such questions about his ontology, epistemology, and his theory of ethics, we’ll continue to lampoon him and continue make adversarial claims about, and continue to write polemics concerning, him and his so-called ‘satanism’. Note the terms adversarial and polemics. What sinister fun, eh? Here’s another clue: marketing. That individuals such as the pseudonymous Chloe and the pseudonymous DD, and a few others, understand such ‘marketing’ while you, apparently, do not is hilarious.

      Furthermore, you also yet again failed to explain why you – et al – never use the real name of that charlatan, showman, and plagiarist. Did you hope that your readers would somehow ‘forget’ you failed to explain why?

      Also you again failed, despite your claims, to give your scholarly comments on O9A texts such as “Alchemical And Hermetic Antecedents Of The Seven Fold Way” and also failed to provide a scholarly argument to back-up your claim that post-2012 O9A writings such as that are “worse” than previous ones. Did you hope that your readers would somehow ‘forget’ that you failed to provide such scholarly comments in defense of the claims you’ve made?

      Like

      • annaczereda says:

        My dear, I take every topic I discuss seriously and try to approach it rationally, even if it means criticizing someone’s work. If you don’t take my arguments seriously, then sure, I can get over it but don’t expect me to take YOURS seriously.

        I know that bullshit is your modus operandi, just don’t try to convince me that your approach is scholarly or that your fallacious discourse is a “dialectic.”

        Like

  7. 39yvr2pmq says:

    You wrote:
    {quote} I know that bullshit is your modus operandi {quote}

    Thank you. Some might ask: thank you for what?

    Here are the four most obvious reasons behind such polemics – about Levey and modern satanism in general – as you seem to object to and to which polemics you regularly respond.

    (1) Marketing.
    (2) To provide a non-Magian alternative to the modern ‘satanism’ of Levey (the Yahodi) and to the Magian-infested occultism of the likes of Crowley and Aquino.
    (3) To provoke a response, which response provides publicity.
    (4) To reveal the physis of the responders: a physis revealed (i) in their/your vulgar vituperation [such as in your “you fucking pseudo-intellectual faggots” and your “bullshit is your modus operandi”] and (ii) in their/your argumentum ad hominem, and (iii) in their/your inability to provide scholarly comments on O9A texts such as “Alchemical And Hermetic Antecedents Of The Seven Fold Way.”

    So has such O9A marketing worked? Absolutely.

    Like

    • annaczereda says:

      Marketing? Like every little Satanic group you have your little space in the little Satanic subculture. Apart from 600 Club forum and a couple of blogs, where do people talk about the ONA? All right, two or three professors dedicated a couple of pages to your esoteric order, just like they dedicated a couple of pages to the Church of Satan and Temple of Set. I don’t think this is important but get real.

      You’ve been repeating the same bullshit narrative over and over again for more than three years now. You are talking about one text (boring as fuck), what about the rest? I was talking about your recent writings in general as compared to the older ONA MSS. Your polemical essays are stupid and your “esoteric” texts are shallow and pedantic. They lack spirit like the dead frog dissected on a glass by the biology students. The recent fiction also sucks when compared to the older texts like DQ or some other stories. As I wrote many times, the older ONA texts are very good. Now, there is only bullshit and clownery except some of David Myatt’s essays.

      Also how did you come to this conclusion that I called you “pseudo-intellectual faggots”? That was an ironic statement addressed to the so-called “mundane Satanists” from the forums and asking them to in a joking manner to repent or they will be culled. You have reading comprehension issues.

      Like

      • 39yvr2pmq says:

        You wrote:
        {quote} That was an ironic statement (/quote}

        Ironic statement? That is just so ‘Donald Trump’ – aka an after the fact excuse.

        Did you bother to read the blurb? It’s at https://sinisterpolemics.wordpress.com/about/

        You et al apparently make the same fundamental mistake over and over again, year after year: the fallacy of illicit transference. Just because some individuals who associate themselves with the O9A write polemics about ‘this’ or ‘that’ you et al assume that their personal opinions and polemics represent the O9A. Which they do not and never did and never can do.

        You forget or never appreciated the real diversity within the O9A. For example, some who associate themselves with the O9A make fun of or criticize Myatt [ as recently at https://sinisterpolemics.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/making-fun-of-myatt/ and at https://sinisterpolemics.wordpress.com/2016/07/30/myatt-the-liar/ and also https://sinisterpolemics.wordpress.com/2016/07/29/myatt-puppet-of-the-state/ ]

        Some hype the neo-nazi angle; others don’t. Some just like ‘playing games’ with mundanes, with self-described non-O9A satanists, and with Nazarenes posting on satanic forums or on their own blogs. Others don’t like such polemics and games, as at https://sinisterpolemics.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/two-opposing-polemics/ and as in articles published elsewhere over the years.

        Some who associate themselves with the O9A drone on and on in public about Labyrinthos Mythologicus and about ‘japing mundanes’ while others are annoyed by that and just quietly get on with following the seven fold way.

        Confused? Good. Because: “given the O9A axiom of the authority of individual judgement there is no official O9A policy about anything, nor can anyone speak or make any pronouncements on behalf of the O9A”.

        Like

  8. 39yvr2pmq says:

    Oh, so now comments you don’t like are “awaiting moderation” rather being simply posted? QED. As in “got you”. Ha-hah.

    Like

    • annaczereda says:

      I thought for some time you are a troll only pretending to be stupid but now I see you’re really a moron. An admin of WordPress blog doesn’t decide which comment awaits moderation and which doesn’t. Also spam comments are deleted automatically by the software. I will also remind you that on all of your blogs the comments are disabled.

      As regards your next propaganda blog, it’s your usual stupidity. I have never pretended to be a Satanist, which everyone knows. I also have nothing against the O9A, David Myatt and O9A people in general. It’s about you as an individual. I just honestly think you are an idiot.

      Like

  9. 39yvr2pmq says:

    You wrote:
    {quote} I just honestly think you are an idiot. (/quote}

    How very intellectual of you.

    That aside, I/we must thank you, again. Another article devoted to polemics of mine, while – yet again – you ignore questions previously asked of you and ignore the ‘diversity within the the O9A’.

    You wrote:
    {quote} The propaganda war between the Order of Nine Angles and other forms of Satanism {/quote}

    No, as I/we pointed out: it’s propaganda from a few who associate themselves with the O9A. And always has been propaganda from a few.

    You wrote:
    {quote} It’s quite amusing how the ONA Old Guards keep accusing Anton LaVey {/quote}

    Yet again you commit the fallacy of illicit transference.

    I/we are not the O9A OG and neither are we representative of the O9A. That this is not – and apparently never has been understood – is most indicative.

    You wrote:
    {quote} In Hebrew Bible Satan means a political or military opponent {/quote}

    Hebrew bible? Do you mean LXX, on which the Hebrew text is based? Unless of course you buy into the Magian propaganda and their legend about the Hebrew text pre-dating LXX by centuries.

    That you can’t read Hebrew or the Greek of LXX makes your comments about ‘satan’ in such texts mere personal opinion dependent upon what someone else – or some others – have written and believed.

    Since you have previously referenced the O9A text The Geryne of Satan perhaps you are referring to that? If so, you apparently forgot the most important bit: in most parts of LXX, ‘a satan’ means an opponent of those who consider themselves the chosen people of their god; that is, ‘a satan’ refers to an opponent of the Jews.

    Therefore, cue the ‘neo-nazi’ O9A and their anti-Magian principles.

    You wrote:
    {quote} The devil in Greek means a slanderer, a person who spreads false accusations {/quote}

    Please reference what ‘Greek’ term you are referring to and where ‘the devil’ – in Greek – occurs. Google may help…

    Since you have previously referenced the O9A text The Geryne of Satan perhaps you are referring to what is written therein? If so, give credit where credit is due.

    You wrote:
    {quote} In Xenophon’s Memorabilia of Socrates… {/quote}

    Since you can’t read the Greek of the original – and have to quote a translation – what is your reference in this respect worth? Not much, reliant as it is on the opinion of someone else.

    However, if I’m in error about your scholarship, do provide us with your own translation.

    You wrote:
    {quote} [Anton LaVey’s satanism] is evil because it opposes the Christian morality {/quote}

    You have never defined “evil” in the context of a unique theory of ethics proposed by Howard Stanton Levey.

    Which neatly brings us to some of the many questions you have so far failed to answer. Questions such as:

    1) Why do you never use the real name of the charlatan LaVey?

    2) Where are your intellectual/scholarly comments on O9A texts such as

    3) Where is your explanation of Howard Stanton Levey’s unique ontology, unique, epistemology, and unique theory of ethics?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s