Mad As A Hatter

I’m nuts, baby, I’m mad,
The craziest friend that you’ve ever had
You think I’m psycho, you think I’m gone
Tell the psychiatrist something is wrong
Over the bend, entirely bonkers
You like me best when I’m off my rocker
Tell you a secret, I’m not alarmed
So what if I’m crazy? The best people are
All the best people are crazy, all the best people are

Where is my prescription?
Doctor, doctor please listen
My brain is scattered
You can be Alice,
I’ll be the mad hatter.

mad_hatter_funny_motivational_quote_post_cards-rd6aa26177e6b483e85736ac54f540baf_vgbaq_8byvr_512

Imagine you’re a kid or a teenager at school and you are at a gym. Some child wants to play ping pong but no one wants to play with him. Since you like ping pong yourself, you agree to play but in the middle of the game it turns out that the child actually doesn’t know how to properly play ping pong and altogether he sucks at it. “Come on” the child finally says “Why do you take yourself so seriously?” You reply “But you wanted to play ping pong.” “But it’s just a game. It aint important. Cheer up. Why be so serious?” Now you start thinking that the child might be a bit mentally challenged.

The Old Geezers, who now pretend to be novices (Good, they have never looked like adepts anyway) farted out another lame blog where they trumpeted out success because some mythical Satanists respond to their polemics. Those mythical Satanists are just Anna Czereda, who isn’t even a Satanist but a Pollock Christian. Since the beginning of the +O+ drama they debated with no Satanist except for the author of this blog and continue to produce piles upon piles of “educational” crap obsessing over Ryan Anschauung (this guy must be really hot) and the above-mentioned cat lady.

So here there comes the first turd: “our anti-o9a critics feeling compelled to respond.” The Mad Pointy Hatters could check the word “dialectic” in their dictionary. In plain words it simply means a debate between two or more people, an exchange of ideas. It’s a dialogue, not a monologue. It’s only natural that when you drop an argument, your opponent in a discussion offers a counter argument. It’s great if everything is within the confines of logic but when you debate a bullshitter and a propagandist, the verbal ping pong often involves sharp retorts and even humorous insults instead of logical arguments. It’s quite laughable when a person who prides himself/herself on being a university scholar can’t write properly a logical syllogism. So what did the Mad Pointed Hatters, who started a smear campaign against Hollow and anyone who questioned their bogus claims, think? That someone will just lie face down on the ring and humbly take the beating, kicking or spitting? They could just take a stroll in the park and kick the rocks.

They keep bragging they have fun at other people’s expense and it doesn’t even enter their heads that they are themselves a source of free entertainment for those who enjoy heated arguments or writing satires. To retort suddenly means to be provoked. To respond suddenly means to be upset or annoyed. I wonder who is here more annoyed. Why are Czereda’s opinions suddenly so important? Why dedicate a blog after a blog to them? And of course calling Ms Scott Liddell out is considered by her and her buddies, who regard her as a troo Mistress, to be an attack on the whole O9A. Now Ms SL could repeat after Luis XIV: “L’etat c’est moi.” The country is me. The ONA is me.

The next turd: “they make mundane and quite laughable assumptions about us.” So say the people who themselves cast judgements on the people whom they have never met. Do unto others as they do unto you. You might be a moron online and a well of wisdom offline. I don’t know you and I don’t care to get to know you better since you yourself don’t care to understand other people’s points of view or motivations. It’s really hilarious when someone publicly humiliates you, ridicules you, calls you names, uses ad hominems in response to your arguments but when you pay them back with the same shit they cry that it’s unfair or that it’s rude, or that you have no manners. Sorry. Are we on the Christian forums? But you are a Christian, they will say. And how do you know? Never trust the words on the internet Anton Long says.

Another brain fart taken out of its original context: “One of the least-known but important signs of a genuine Adept of our Dark Tradition, our sinister way, is the ability to not take one’s self too seriously – to laugh, at one’s self.” I’m not going to laugh at myself, my dear chihuahuas, I’m going to laugh at your goofy asses and mock the shit out of you. Why? Because it’s fun. Dunno if it’s sinister fun but for sure it is fun.

Now it’s time for another turd again taken out of context: “Knowledge is numinous, a part of one’s life, whereas information – that which is presented/communicated by such an ephemeral medium as the world wide web – is lifeless, causal, an outer form…” So says a person who on the Religious Forums wrote that an online debate/dialectic is a “harsh experience”, which can lead to “pathei mathos” and resulting from it “self-honesty.” Oh how idiotic. Ms Scott Liddell and Mr Parker thought that shit-talking Mr RA (this hot Australian dude, you know) will be “harsh experience” that will teach him a lesson in self-honesty. And self honesty according to SL and Mr Parker is nothing else that accepting their crap at face value.

Finally the crazy Pointy Hatters write: “That it has provoked so much reaction so far is testament to the physis of those who have been provoked and have responded on forums and/or on their own blogs.” LOL. No comments. Now you can figure out someone’s physis on the basis of their blogs and forum posts. So much for the “sinister empathy” and “personal knowing.”

I’m pretty sure the Mad Hatters will respond with the standard narrative. Oh Czereda, you’re so mundane, you failed our internet test. But your plebeian rants serve the ONA. You’re spreading ONA memes on your super duper popular blog and on one forum which as many as ten usual Satanic whackos attend. That’s what you call Aeonics. Perhaps, some Mormons could teach the Old Geezers how to spread the Good Word play the Sinister Game.

Agios oh Modemoiselle Baphomet!!!

To be continued…

penny-witch

 

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Mad As A Hatter

  1. 39yvr2pmq says:

    Thank you, my dear, for yet again responding. But oh what a rant. What silly assumptions about “us”.

    You wrote:
    {quote} the first turd…bullshitter…another brain fart…they keep bragging…The Old Geezers, who now pretend to be novices {/quote}

    For years you’ve hung around satanist forums, making over 1460 posts on one of them alone. You – for years – have latched on to nearly every mention of the Order of Nine Angles on such forums or on other blogs, posting your opinions, on those forums or in the comments section of such blogs, about the O9A and about anyone who claims to support it or contradicts what you post about it or them. “We” post a few polemical items on some obscure blog and you latch onto them and post pages and pages of comments about “us”.

    Why? Given that you’re a self-confessed Nazarene, a follower of Yeshua.

    The most obvious assumption is that you, for some reason – and regardless of whether you really are a Nazarene or not – are obsessed with the ONA. And apparently have been for years.

    Obsessed, and apparently addicted to posting about the ONA and about ONA folk even though you’ve failed – for years – to answer questions about O9A esotericism. Note that I/we use terms such as “assumption” and “apparently”.

    You wrote:
    {quote}The Mad Pointy Hatters could check the word “dialectic” in their dictionary. In plain words it simply means a debate between two or more people, an exchange of ideas.{/quote}

    Wrong. The word dialectical also means the following. (1) Having premises which are merely probable as opposed to demonstrably true; based on probable opinions rather than on demonstrable fact. (2) Characterized by the existence or operation of opposing forces, tendencies, etcetera. (3) A disputant who disputes. The definitions, BTW, are from the 20 volume OED.

    Thus when the ONA write about ‘the sinister dialectic’ they are generally referring to meaning (2) in the context of esotericism; hence their term ‘the sinister-numinous’ to express that clash of apparent opposites (with the resultant pathei mathos) which is inherent in the O9A seven fold way and also part of O9A aeonic theory. When “we” and others use the term ‘dialectical’ we and they – depending on context – usually mean one or more of the three meanings above.

    You wrote:
    {quote} Why dedicate a blog after a blog to [Czereda’s opinions]? {/quote}

    Extreme exaggeration. If you had bothered to look at “our” blog you would have found that most of the posts have nothing whatsoever to do with “your” opinions. For example, were the following posts “dedicated” to your opinions? The O9A And Alchemy. Some Problems With The Satanism Of Howard Stanton Levey. O9A: Not What He Expected. The Green Damask Room. Fayen… And so on and so on. You apparently also failed to notice that several of our responses were to the opinions of others. As in, among others, “The O9A And Alchemy” and the “The Order Of Nine Angles And The Fallacy of Illicit Transference” posts.

    Of course some of your opinions have been responded to in “a dialectical way” because “our” blog is devoted, in the main, to polemics and because you (whoever you are and whatever you motivation) always sound-off about the O9A and have probably made more internet posts about the O9A over the past few years than anyone else, including all O9A folk put together.

    We have simply replied – to use your colorful, if vulgar, phrase – to some of your numerous “brain farts” about the O9A. The operative words here are “some” (in respect of us) and “numerous” in respect of you.

    But for some reason you can never seem to accept that such dialectical responses and such polemics can serve a useful purpose. You never accept this, even though the “why” has been explained numerous times over the years. Apparently, all you now have are insults and silly assumptions about those indulging in such a dialectic and such polemics. {quote} the first turd…bullshitter…another brain fart…they keep bragging…now pretend to be…{/quote}

    The bottom line, my dear, is that you really don’t know who we are. You apparently just pretend you know, probably because of your intended audience.

    Like

    • annaczereda says:

      “For years you’ve hung around satanist forums, making over 1460 posts on one of them alone. You – for years – have latched on to nearly every mention of the Order of Nine Angles on such forums or on other blogs”

      First of all, I post comments on other people’s blogs only occasionally and hardly ever on other Satanic venues except 600 Club. Actually, the 600 Club forum is the only forum I regularly (that means every day) frequent. I see no reason why, if some topic about the ONA pops up, I shouldn’t answer it. All of my comments on the forum have been fairly neutral and moderate and I wasn’t raving mad like some of your WSA trolls.

      “We” post a few polemical items on some obscure blog.”

      You’d been bashing me and Hollow for years, long before this little blog of yours was set up for mere innocuous discussion you yourself started. Now you still keep ranting about me every other day. Even if you write about the general Satanist, you quote my posts (out of context) so don’t be coy.

      “But for some reason you can never seem to accept that such dialectical responses and such polemics can serve a useful purpose. You never accept this, even though the “why” has been explained numerous times over the years.”

      I don’t accept bullshit explanations. I give you as much credit as I give to any shitty politician speaking on TV, that means none.

      “Apparently, all you now have are insults and silly assumptions”

      I simply use the same rhetoric as you use towards me and Hollow. You have made plenty of assumptions that have shit to do with the reality so I feel perfectly justified in making assumptions about you. The same goes for mocking and insulting you, which is nothing you don’t have in your rhetorical repertoire.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. 39yvr2pmq says:

    Yay! You reply and our stats are boosted by three more views…

    Heck, you were even given a positive mention on “our blog” – did you miss that? It’s here: https://sinisterpolemics.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/anna-czereda-on-the-o9a/

    Enjoy.

    Apropos our “dialectic”, I remind you of the video I previously mentioned of Dean Martin’s Sway – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrULwmbRYTY – where in that video a beautiful woman and beautiful man engage in a certain dialectic. So perhaps, as I once suggested, it should be we two gals together? Or would that be one gal (me) and one guy (you)?

    If you understand all this, then we “know” each other in a way far beyond words. I sense, and perhaps you also sense that the “game”, once afoot, has possibly run its course. If you do not know or intuit this, then perhaps the game is not, as yet, over. Which is rather sad, isn’t it?

    If its not over, then:

    You wrote:
    {quote} I don’t accept bullshit explanations {/quote}

    Meh.

    That said and it having been hereby recorded for eternity: in essence, despite your years of posts in which you make comments about the O9A and about various O9A folk you have never made any informed, rational, let alone scholarly comments about O9A esoteric philosophy nor about such matters as esoteric chant, and ἀρρενόθηλυς and the seven fold way. Neither have you been able to answer the various questions about O9A esotericism that various O9A folk have asked you during your years of posting about the O9A.

    Since you et al were first asked those questions – almost two years ago – some O9A folk have publicly given answers to at least two of those questions: what is the meaning of the term fayen, and why is each piece of the ‘advanced’ star game itself a nameable star. So neither you nor anyone else can use the silly excuse that such questions were or are ‘meaningless’.

    We’re still waiting for you to answer such easy questions as: (1) 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? (2) 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

    Also, FYI, the old crowd, the real OG – PointyHat, DarkLogos, et al – retired from disputations on the net ‘cos they got bored with the same old stuff from the same old lame latter-day satanists who wouldn’t know the difference, in terms of presencing, between the Diabolus in fifths and one in fourths even if it was explained to them.

    Like

    • annaczereda says:

      All right. If you don’t want it anymore then you don’t want it anymore. I will go now and split hairs with Darryl. He made his big come back to 600. Thank you.

      Your comments go to the moderation folder probably because of all the links. It’s spam protection. It’s automatically done by the software.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. 39yvr2pmq says:

    Oh, so now – yet again – our comments are awaiting your moderation and thus your decision as to whether they are acceptable. How so very Nazarene of you.

    Like

  4. 39yvr2pmq says:

    You wrote:
    {quote}If you don’t want it anymore then you don’t want it anymore {quote}

    You have yet again failed to answer any of the questions asked of you. Why? Failed to answer questions such as:

    1) Why are you, a self-professed Nazarene, hanging around satanic forums and posting thousands of posts on such forums?
    2) Why do you respond, and why have you for years responded, to any post on such forums and blogs which mention the Order of Nine Angles?
    3) Why have you, for over three years, never answered the questions about O9A esotericism that various O9A folk have asked you?
    4) Why do you never use the real name – Howard Stanton Levey – of the charlatan who founded the so-called Church of Satan?

    You have also failed to admit your many mistakes, such as – to give just one recent example – regarding your definition of “dialectic”. To so fail – because of pride? – is just so indicative of those self-professed Nazarenes who are hypocritical by nature and who thus lack the humility that persons such as William Penn and George Fox so well expressed in their sermons and writings. Or maybe you so failed because you’re just pretending to be a Nazarene…

    Like

    • annaczereda says:

      You see. You can’t even make up your mind whether to dance or not, play ping pong or not. 🙂

      1. I like 600 Club forum. The discussions there are of higher quality for me than on Christian forums. I’m also interested in Satanism. It offers a more realistic and less sugar coated approach to life.
      2. Since the ONA has a quite rich tradition and a corpus of texts then it is a good topic for longer ongoing discussion. It’s also more complex and interesting than the Church of Satan or some Luciferian stuff. Besides, I respond to nearly all active discussion threads.
      3. I already told you on the Religious Forums that I don’t know the answers to these questions but for some reason you didn’t want to listen.
      4. Anton LaVey is shorter than Howard Stanton LaVey.

      A dialectic is a discussion. You didn’t join the forum to talk to yourself.

      I’m a practicing Christian as I always introduced myself but I don’t feel the need to prattle on about my faith, which is something intimate, on a public forum, Satanic or not. I don’t regard all pride as a sin but I don’t see how sharing opinions on a forum is suddenly a matter of pride or arrogance.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. 39yvr2pmq says:

    Thank you for finally clearing up some matters by actually answering some questions.

    You wrote:
    {quote} I already told you on the Religious Forums that I don’t know the answers to these questions but for some reason you didn’t want to listen {/quote}

    That you equate me/us with someone else who has posted about the O9A on some forum (which has since banned all discussion of the ONA) is both flattering and mildly amusing. Perhaps it’s the still secret “ONA Manual Of Style” that keeps outsiders making such assumptions…

    Having now read your posts on that forum I can’t find where you explicitly stated you didn’t know the answers.

    Also, you have failed to admit your many mistakes, such as – to give just one recent example – your definition of “dialectic”. To give another: your exaggeration that “our” blog is devoted to your opinions.

    But such quibbles aside, we do hope you will keep commenting on the O9A. And yes, I/we gals much prefer to Tango with others of our kind…

    Like

    • annaczereda says:

      Thank you. However, you know nothing about my life so you can’t say whether I’m your kind or not.

      You can’t find my reply because the whole thread was deleted by moderators. I wrote clearly I couldn’t answer the questions because I’m not an ONA adept. Those who are adepts or are preparing for adeptship may wrap their heads about that since they practice chanting or the Star Game. I don’t so I’m not even remotely interested in that.

      Like

      • 39yvr2pmq says:

        You wrote:
        {quote} You can’t find my reply because the whole thread was deleted by moderators {/quote}

        Fair enough, I’ll take your word for it, for lying is – for a Roman Catholic – a sin, isn’t it?!

        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