The propaganda war between the Order of Nine Angles and other forms of Satanism resembles the epic marketing war between two famous brands: Coca Cola and Pepsi. Both sides of the “conflict” tried to emphasize their uniqueness and prove to the populace that one was better than the other. The point was not only to brag about one’s superior qualities but also put down the competition. So Coca Cola tried to convince the market that Pepsi tasted like shit and vice versa. When one recalls that legendary war, it’s then easier to understand why the Old Guards of the ONA keep bashing Anton LaVey and blowing their own trumpet at the same time. It’s also easier to understand why the Church of Satan keeps denigrating its competition like Aquino or the Satanic Temple.
The cult of personality is amusing when it comes to Satanism but it’s also understandable given human nature. Charismatic individuals and visionaries (such as Anton LaVey , David Myatt and any individuals who could use the pen name of Anton Long) tend to attract followers and fanboys, often unimaginative ones. It’s also the aim of those in business to make the pasture for the sheep greener by providing more and more bullshit; building the mythos and spreading gossip.
So on one side we have the Church of Satan and Anton LaVey’s fanboys who take all of what he wrote uncritically. If you want to be a true Satanist, follow LaVey’s teachings. The CoS priesthood builds LaVey’s mythos deliberately and spreads such nonsense like that he put a curse on Sam Brody, who died because of that, or that he played the Devil’s part in “Rosemary’s Baby.” Half of Anton LaVey’s life is shrouded in mystery and subject to rumors and speculation and it’s in the interest of the Church of Satan as an organization to perpetuate the mythos.
It’s not much different in the case of Anton Long and the ONA. It’s not known for sure who Anton Long is and the life of David Myatt, himself, is also shrouded in mystery. Some of his deeds are documented but there are also rumors, speculations and conspiracy theories. Myatt’s friends denigrate LaVey and try to replace the cult of Anton LaVey with the cult of David Myatt, at the same time perpetuating the legends and rumors about him. One of such rumors is that Myatt inspired the bomber, Copeland. Perhaps, he did. Perhaps, he didn’t. All we have is the gossip of the leftist morons from Searchlight.
It’s quite amusing how the ONA Old Guards keep accusing Anton LaVey of not being evil and creating a “philosophy of a rapist and a bully.” It’s hilarious not only because Satanism according to Anton LaVey has nothing to do with rape or bullying but also because it’s a contradiction. Bullying and rape are evil or, at least, they seem to be evil according to the popular understanding of evil as “morally depraved, bad, wicked, vicious, harmful, malicious, unlawful, dangerous, deadly.” This is the pop culture definition of evil and Satan embraced now by the ONA polemicists, slightly revised since “Geryne of Satan” was written. According to this brand new definition (taken straight from the horror movies and criminal stories) Mallam from “The Giving” is an embodiment of evil and a true villain since he breaks the ultimate social taboo – pedophilia. He and his comrades rape young girls and virgins on the altar of Satan. Deprived of any moral scruples, he resembles libertines as described by Marquis de Sade and as such he is antinomian, breaks the status quo, thus being the very embodiment of Satan and the left hand path.
This brings us to this great overwhelming question. What is evil? What does Satan really stand for? Isn’t there more to the antinomian evil than its cliche definition? The devil in Greek means a slanderer, a person who spreads false accusations. In Hebrew Bible Satan means a political or military opponent. In the Book of Job, Satan is a member of God’s council. He’s an adversary to Job, his accuser. He’s the one who doubts his virtue and wants to test him subjecting him to suffering. The adversity that Satan stands for shows what Job is made of. Only later in the Bible Satan becomes a tempter, an evil creature leading people to sin.
The concept of sin exists in every religion. It also existed in the ancient pagan religions; the judgement of Osiris, the torment of sinners in Tartarus, to name just the few. Though the Greek gods had all the human faults and weaknesses, a “sin” seems to be going against gods’ will. Prometheus, Sisyphus, Niobe and Arachne were all guilty of the sin of hubris; fancying themselves greater than gods and being able to outwit them. The “sin” of Prometheus is very similar to the original sin the first humans committed in Eden. Also Milton’s Satan was guilty of excessive pride.
In Xenophon’s “Memorabilia of Socrates” the goddess κακία appears who represents vice as opposed to arete (virtue). She offers Heracles an easy life full of indulgence and free of suffering and labor:
In the first place, you shall take no thought of wars or state affairs, but shall pass your time considering what meat or drink you may find to gratify your appetite, what you may delight yourself by seeing or hearing, what you may be pleased with smelling or touching, with what objects of affection you may have most pleasure in associating, how you may sleep most softly, and how you may secure all these enjoyments with the least degree of trouble.
That vision of vice is quite similar to the interpretation of vice/sin by Anton LaVey. Anton LaVey’s Devil also resembles a bit Slavic devils, Lukhavi and Chort, who embody the material/carnal world as opposed to the spiritual one.
Anton LaVey’s Satanism was a reaction to Christianity. It is evil because it opposes the Christian morality and embraces that which is regarded as sinful by the contemporary Christian society. The ONA goes much further in its antinomianism as it supports killing and the incitement to murder. However, the ONA heresy is tempered by its ethics (sinister honor) which somehow doesn’t go that far from the ethics of the modern society. Wouldn’t the majority of people applaud Lianna’s disposal of that bastard Mallam? There were a few cases in my country, when the angry mob of “decent citizens” wanted to lynch a murderer or a child abuser. It seems that the ONA repeats after Anton LaVey: “Do not harm little children.”
Does the Devil have any boundaries?
Anna Czereda 
This so-called competition between Satanism and ONA is another one of those dumb farces that ONA types like to promote. There is no competition, because as ONA types have confirmed in the past, the ONA is not Satanism. The ONA is another fringe religion that only is involved with Satanism because Satanists are more tolerant of their crazy outlooks, all the other worldviews ONA has tried to parasite upon have kicked ONA out of the door. Satanism is evolving, and soon nobody is going to give a shit about ONA, they are irrelevant to us.
LikeLike
That you et al keep mentioning the ONA is proof enough of how effective ONA marketing is and was. That you et al have never ever provided a scholarly critique of ONA esoteric philosophy is proof enough of just how much the ONA trumps the so-called modern Satanism of Howard Stanton Levey. That you et al have never ever provided any proof that Levey’s so-called satanism has a unique ontology, a unique epistemology, a unique theory of ethics, is proof enough that his so-called satanism is irrelevant, bunk, crap.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Keep telling yourself that, you might believe it. It is a small minority of Satanists who are caught in the roundabout of ONA, most ignore it, many laugh at it. The ongoing joke of thinking it is relevant or of use in this world, including in Satanism.
LikeLike
Well satanicviews, the O9A IS Satanism. Sinister tradition stems from Satanism – traditional Satanism. No amount of revisionist history will change that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is not a view of many ONA people who have a few times said on my own blog that they are not Satanism. ONA are not Satanists, they never were Satanists, and they never will be Satanists. The ONA only chase after Satanism because nobody else will tolerate their stupidity and nonsense.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“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.”
What selective memory you have. Or you’re just trolling. Do you remember our long funny discussions that could belong to the cabaret? I’ve always been telling you that you do not represent the ONA.
Having written so many papal bulls condemning heretics you would make a good Catholic Pope, but an ONA adept? Not so much.
Of course, you are the OG. The internet ONA fanboys don’t have access to the o9a.org website or semi official blogs, like omega9alpha WordPress.
“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.”
It’s totally acceptable to reference translations and someone else’s works even in an academic thesis, let alone a casual internet blog.
You still treat me as a representative of Satanism and a defender of Anton LaVey’s honor. This is silly. I called you out on a few claims you made and which you couldn’t justify. Of course, LaVey’s works are subject to criticism like everything else.
LikeLike
You know, polemics aide, you’re perhaps one of main internet assets the O9A has, and has had, for several years. Since, in fact, the much lamented public demise of the polemics and propaganda of the much-loved pseudonymous Chloe. Thank you.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Regardless of the sparing match between you(s) and miss Czereda and considering the fact you do not have the comments enabled, I thought it was in order for me to come here and thank you(s) for your article related to mine which definitively added to my understanding of certain things. That being said I salute both you(s) and miss Czereda and appologies for my intrusion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. No need to apologize. You are always welcome to comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m really flattered monsieur/madame. I will pontificate even more just to please you. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Anton Szandor LaVey violently beat his wife Diane throughout their marriage. In 1984 a police report was made describing Diane being strangled into unconsciousness by ASL, who was in such a murderous rage that his daughter Karla had to pull him off Diane and drag her outside the house to save her life. ASL routinely physically beat and abused those of his female disciples with whom he had sex, forcing them into prostitution as part of his ‘Satanic counseling’ and collecting their earnings.”
http://www.churchofsatan.org/aslv.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Umm I would hardly consider John Allee, Zeena LaVey or Aquino as credible sources. As I wrote, a large part of LaVey’s life is shrouded in mystery and there is more tabloid gossip about him (whether spread by his fans or detractors) than verifiable information. I wouldn’t be so sure that he beat his wife but it’s certain that they got divorced and were fighting over the Black House. The case of Zeena is more complicated. I read once her biography “Zeena LaVey – the Fallen Daughter.” She took her father’s “teachings” literally and slept with many guys believing she was helping her father’s career in this way. Or at least this is what was written in her biography. She also abandoned her son and altogether got butthurt that LaVey didn’t give her the Church of Satan. Personally, I think the whole family was pretty fucked up.
LikeLike
I read Aquino’s book Church of Satan cover to cover back in the day. He seemed reliable enough to me (not counting his religious beliefs)
LikeLike
I read it too though I don’t recall anything about LaVey beating his wife. I read it a long time ago. He cheated his wife though out of the Black House, which he led to total ruin.
I’m not Aquino’s fan to be honest. He clearly got mindfucked by this Church of Satan thing, which was nothing more than a mutual admiration club and a circus show. Infernal mandate lol.
LikeLike
That book was not the source of the beatings. The article records the sources for those allegations. And of course saying that I trust Aquino to speak truthfully concerning his interactions with LaVey and associated parties is not an endorsement of his teachings.
LikeLike
You wrote:
{quote} One of such rumors is that Myatt inspired the bomber, Copeland [but] all we have is the gossip of the leftist morons from Searchlight.{/quote}
No, there is the research carried out by the BBC TV program Panorama for their Copeland documentary; there is the view of several well-respected academics (such as Professor Mark Wietzman), and there is the evidence gathered by the ‘anti-terrorism’ branch at Scotland Yard (then named SO13) who interviewed Myatt, under caution, several times after Copeland’s arrest in 1999. As with Myatt’s arrest in 1998 (by SO12, aka Special Branch) for conspiracy to murder, the CPS concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove his guilt in an English court of law. Plus, Myatt was on bail for over three years, having to regularly attend Charing Cross police station in London as part of his bail conditions.
What evidence there is, or was, in the matter of Copeland could be found by an accredited academic or by an accredited researcher writing a biography of Myatt.
As for your repeated quips about Myatt ‘fan boys’ (or fan girls) hyping Myatt and contrasting him with Howard Stanton Levey, what is documented about Myatt’s life puts him way beyond Levey in terms of living an exeatic, weird, violent, antinomian, life. There is no need for them – or anyone – to use unsubstantiated rumors or allegations made by journalists or the likes of Searchlight. Just presenting the documented facts about Myatt’s life is enough to make Levey seem, by comparison, just a showman and a wuss.
For example. Convictions and imprisonment for violence, 1972: documented in court proceedings, prison records, and newspapers. Conviction for leading a gang of thieves in 1974 and being a fence: documented in court proceedings (sentenced to 18 months in prison, suspended for 2 years), police records/interviews, newspaper reports. Arrested in 1998 for conspiracy to murder: documented in police records (Scotland Yard, the operation was code-named Periphery), documented in custody records at Malvern and Charing Cross police stations. Founded and led the NSM, documented by several academics. Publicly supported bin Laden and the Taliban before and after 9/11: documented by several academics, by proceedings of NATO conferences, by newspaper reports. Having his writings justifying suicide attacks used by groups like Hamas: documented by several academics, and by proceedings of NATO conferences. And so on, and so on.
Also Myatt’s documented intellectualism – as in his Greek translations and commentaries, and books such as “Religion, Empathy, and Pathei-Mathos” – makes Levey seem, by comparison, a pretentious pseudo-intellectual.
/rant
LikeLiked by 1 person
“As with Myatt’s arrest in 1998 (by SO12, aka Special Branch) for conspiracy to murder, the CPS concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove his guilt in an English court of law.”
The incitement to murder is very hard, if not impossible, to prove. Unless you’re a clairvoyant and could read Copeland’s thoughts at the time, then you really don’t know whether he was inspired by Myatt or simply carried out a plan he was thinking about for long. It’s pure speculation.
Well respected academics? Sheez.
LikeLike
Speculation? And jibes about “well respected academics”? Is that all you’ve got in reply? Talk about missing the point…
LikeLike
You wrote:
{quote} It’s pure speculation. {/quote}
That statement by you is in itself pure speculation. Mere personal opinion. That you can’t be bothered to do such basic research about Myatt as I suggested is just so indicative.
Which begs the question: why are you so intent on belittling Myatt while defending Howard Stanton Levey, the Yahodi?
LikeLike
Pure speculation is saying one way or the other. It hasn’t been confirmed, otherwise he would have gone to prison.
I have never belittled Myatt. On the contrary, I wrote many positive things about his philosophy. There was some moderate criticism too but should he been immune to that?
I like finding fallacies in your arguments and called you out on some claims you made about LaVey. I liked his writings for the down to earth principles and not because he was oh so diabolical.
LikeLike
You wrote:
{quote} I wrote many positive things about [Myatt’s] philosophy. {/quote}
True, which is one of many reasons why your posts are often a cut above most others. But it’s such a shame that you sometimes seem to now increasingly ‘descend down’ – or, for whatever reason, imitate – the vulgarisms and the argumentum ad hominem of latter-day satanists. So, you might well ask: Quid retribuam Domino pro omnibus quæ retribuit mihi?
LikeLike
The occasional use of profanities is acceptable according to my personal standards except for very formal situations. My style has always been pretty consistent. It’s always better to call a spade a bloody shovel.
LikeLike
You wrote:
{quote} It’s always better to call a spade a bloody shovel {/quote}
In my experience – of manual work – a spade is quite different from a shovel. They’re designed for different tasks.
/pedantry
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] Wyrdsister refers to the former blog The Satanic Icons And The Question Of Evil, which she calls anti-Myatt propaganda, accusing me of “trying to discredit Mr Myatt.” […]
LikeLike
I note SatanicViews swiftly vanished when the intellectual bar rose somewhat…
LikeLiked by 1 person
He’s mainly for the lolz.
LikeLike
He’s quite the embarrassing individual
LikeLiked by 1 person