Kill Me Once, Kill Me Twice, Kill Me Many Times.

You have to help me!

What do you want me to do?

I want you to kill me.

Kill me!!!

Fay Forrester, an attractive young lady wants to escape from her violent and jealous boyfriend Vince. So she hires Jack Andrews, a second class private investigator to arrange her death. She wants to restart her life with a new identity and the money she robbed together with Vince. Because of Jack’s financial problems he joins Fay after her fake death. Unfortunately Vince finds out that Fay’s still alive…

I watched this movie years ago. Now it’s on my mind again when I’m reading about poor David Myatt’s “death.”

It Is With Regret

It seems that the internet social experiment called the Order of Nine Angles enters a new phase. We will see what these diabolical clowns of Sinister Polemics are up to pretty soon.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Kill Me Once, Kill Me Twice, Kill Me Many Times.

  1. 39yvr2pmq says:

    The answer to what “they” may be up to depends on what assumptions the questioner makes. For those who assume the announcement may be false one answer might lie in another rumor about Myatt made over a decade ago and which answer might involve his participation in Column 88 and a rumor about Column 88 itself. For those who assume the announcement may be genuine, the scores of comments made so far on FB, on a certain forum, on a closed O9A form on the ONA ‘dark net’, in e-mails, and so on, provide an answer, being how DM and the O9A are being discussed both pro and con.

    Like

    • annaczereda says:

      I think you misunderstood. I’m not saying Myatt faked his death in the real world but that you faked his death on the internet, which means that you simply wrote bullshit.

      I’m also pretty sure your “darknet” forum doesn’t exist considering that the issues and questions “purloined” from there are nearly an exact copy-pasta of the issues discussed on 600 Club Forum.

      You simply respond to this forum discussions.

      Like

      • 39yvr2pmq says:

        You wrote:
        {quote} you simply wrote bullshit.{/quote}

        The expected, usual, response. An interesting and relevant question is why do so many self-described satanists, and so many O9A critics, get annoyed and vituperative – and, usually via the internet, commit the fallacies of argumentum ad hominem and illicit distribution – when someone, associating themselves with the O9A, practices Satanic virtues such a being mischievous, misleading, offensive, manipulative, sly, disruptive, irreverent, deceptive; someone who perhaps sees an ‘internet mindfuck’ or two as a jolly jape?

        For what is Satanism for these self-described satanists, and O9A critics? An Aquino-esque dislike of deception? A desire to acquire a reputation among, to be taken seriously by, and earn the respect of internet-dwelling self-described satanists? A need to “be responsible” and take one’s self seriously? Do they – do you – believe that being mischievous, misleading, offensive, manipulative, sly, disruptive, deceptive, is un-satanic?

        That you et al apparently can’t see “the funny side” and the irreverence – because you et al keep responding with your usual cliches – and don’t seem to appreciate that polemics and japes, looked at dispassionately, can sometimes raise interesting questions about the nature of satanism, and about anonymous “internet satanists” in general be they O9A or otherwise.

        Anyway, do you et al know for certain that DM is alive? You et al are just assuming the post was a “mindfuck” or a “poorly carried out jape.”

        You wrote:
        {quote} I’m also pretty sure your “darknet” forum doesn’t exist considering that the issues and questions “purloined” from there are nearly an exact copy-pasta of the issues discussed on 600 Club Forum{/quote}

        Do please provide us with a link to where questions such as the following are on that forum: “The O9A code of honour states that one method of settling serious disputes among comrades (among ONA folk) is a duel involving deadly weapons. What are the rules of such a duel?” I could of course give more examples.

        If you want to believe such a forum doesn’t exist, fine.

        Like

    • annaczereda says:

      Yes I assume Myatt is alive since his supposed death has not been confirmed. Since you have a reputation of a bullshitter and keep lying over and over again, then this time you’re probably lying too. As for doing the “research”, are you for real? Everyone has some life apart from the internet. Your antics are entertaining for sure but I doubt anyone will move their ass in order to solve your online riddles.

      I don’t know whether your forum exists or not. It’s a trifle. However, the samples of dialogues you quoted are so contrived that I simply suspect you were interviewing yourselves.

      Like

      • 39yvr2pmq says:

        You wrote:
        {quote} I assume Myatt is alive since his supposed death has not been confirmed.{/quote}

        Confirmed by whom, and where? As someone has already noted, if the place was Egypt, and if Myatt was living there under a pseudonym (possibly a Muslim name), then little or no documentation is likely to exist under his ‘real name’. No newspaper account is likely either given his anonymity and his lack of public significance in that country.

        You wrote:
        {quote} Since you have a reputation{/quote}

        Yes, among anonymous self-described internet-bound satanists and pseudo-intellectual critics of the O9A, most of whom are also anonymous and internet-bound. So what?

        You wrote:
        {quote} It’s a trifle.. so contrived… I suspect {/quote}

        Assumptions, while avoiding – again – answering a direct question. You stated that the questions are nearly an exact copy of those on a certain forum. I asked you to provide a link to a specific question. You haven’t, probably because your initial assumption was wrong and no such link exists.

        Like

      • annaczereda says:

        I meant your “Questions and answers about the ONA”, which were mostly a reaction to things discussed on 600 Club. For example, the one about Richard Moult and Esotericon, which was posted after Zorya’s post in David Myatt vs Christos Beest thread. Another one is about aural tradition and the ONA nexions that supposedly existed before the first MSS were published. That was posted right after my discussion with SIN Jones. Coincidence? I noticed several other “coincidences” as well, which I now don’t remember. I would have to browse those texts once again. Anyway, as I wrote, it’s not so terribly important whether such a forum exists or not. It’s not my business. But something just doesn’t click here.

        When it comes to Myatt’s “death, you posted a pedantic internet riddle that you call esoteric. And it’s a raison d’etre of the ONA? It has shit to do with real life.

        Like

    • 39yvr2pmq says:

      You wrote:
      {quote} I meant your “Questions and answers about the ONA”, which were mostly a reaction to things discussed on 600 Club {/quote}

      If that is what you assume, that is what you assume. Those Q&A – from 2013 on – were answers to the questions most often asked and discussed, month after month, year after year. The earlier Q&A – 2013 and 2014 – were mostly taken (with some editorial changes) from internet forums and/or e-mails, as it says in the blurb. That people on the O9A ‘dark net’ forum sometimes asked similar questions to some already asked elsewhere is only to be expected as they wanted answers from a reliable O9A source not from latter-day satanists.

      But many other questions – such as “In the text Azoth: Western Alchemy And The Seven Fold Way Of The Order Of Nine Angles, it is stated that Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica is a combination of the three alchemical elements…” – were never asked or answered on ‘open’, non-O9A forums.

      You wrote:
      {quote} When it comes to Myatt’s death, you posted a pedantic internet riddle that you call esoteric {/quote}

      If that’s what you assume/believe – for whatever reason or for whatever purpose – then that’s what you assume/believe. “We” posted a report we received from a source. Just like we posted the items about ‘The Green Damask Room’ and ‘Fayen’ that we received from another source.

      How “we” may have subsequently interpreted that report about Myatt is how “we” subsequently interpreted it. How others subsequently interpreted it is how those others subsequently interpreted it. How others projected onto us what they assumed or believed was our “intent” regarding publishing it was just their assumption or their belief, and reveals something about them, not about us.

      Like

  2. Reblogged this on V.K. Jehannum and commented:
    No doubt SP’s writers intend to mislead the ONA and effusively pat themselves on the back for doing so afterwards. They’ll say that it fulfills the “polemical” nature of their blog, which is of course nothing more than self-indulgent shitstarting.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Agreed there. Although I am inclined to more to mistrust now. Which is not building any sort of “Sinister solidary” in fact too much manipulation and games will create the opposite. After all everyones heard what happens when you cry wolf over and over.

      Liked by 1 person

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