The Weird Sister And Her Fairy Tales

image004

Hans Adolf Bühler “Homecoming”

This is a polemical response to an article written by an anonymous blogger, Wyrdsister, titled “Suspicious Propaganda.” The article is here.

The 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.” Apparently, Mr Myatt is a sacred cow that cannot be criticized, even if the said “criticism” boils down to mere demolishing of myths and legends that surround His Unholiness.

The part that Ms Wyrdsister has an issue with is:

One rumor is that Myatt inspired the bomber Copeland [but] all we have is the gossip of the leftist morons from Searchlight.

The original quote is:

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.

What Ms Wyrdsister omitted is “Perhaps, he did. Perhaps, he didn’t.” Mr Myatt might have indeed inspired the bomber David Copeland, as some shitty Anti-Fa journalists claim, but given that the police didn’t find sufficient evidence and that it is hard, if not impossible, to prove incitement to murder, we cannot be 100% sure whether or not Mr Myatt was indeed this dangerous thug that inspired Copeland to plant bombs in London. Especially, that David Copeland told the police he was inspired by a novel “The Turner Diaries.”

Copeland told police that he was inspired — as so many right-wing American terrorists have been — by The Turner Diaries, a race war novel by William Pierce, head of America’s neo-Nazi National Alliance.

He also drew on propaganda from the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations, based in Idaho, and told officials that he sought to emulate accused American clinic bomber Eric Rudolph.

Once Again, The Turner Diaries Inspires Bloodshed

What or who really inspired Copeland will probably remain a mystery if he really needed any inspiration. As with the Muslims recruited by ISIS, the mere inspiration is not enough to turn a peaceful guy into a bloody murderer. The disposition to violence and cruelty together with a huge dose of wishful thinking must already be there. Additionally, National Socialism has a pretty violent history.

After his arrest, Copeland claimed he had been having sadistic dreams from the age of 12. He had thought about killing his classmates and had wanted to be reincarnated as an SS officer. In May 1997, he joined the British National Party. A year later, Copeland joined the National Socialist Movement. In 1998, he was prescribed anti-depressants and told his GP he was “losing his mind.” Nobody doubts Copeland was suffering from some form of mental illness, but the severity of the condition was contested.

David Copeland: a quiet introvert, obsessed with Hitler and bombs

Then Ms Wyrdsister goes on to hype David Myatt and his diabolical disposition, claiming that he was far more sinister than Anton LaVey. What Ms Wyrdsister forgets is that the blog in question didn’t compare and contrast the sinister achievements of  Myatt and LaVey, didn’t claim which of them is a troo Satanist but merely compared those two figures because of the mythos surrounding them. The mythos is spread by both the supporters and detractors.

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.

The point is that both the Church of Satan and the Order of Nine Angles build the cult of their founders, showing them as an example to follow, some sort of Messiahs. Just like Christianity isn’t willing to deconstruct its own mythos, both the Church of Satan and the ONA perpetuate the myths, rumors and gossip to make the organizations look more prestigious and more enticing to potential recruits.

 

 

Advertisements

93 thoughts on “The Weird Sister And Her Fairy Tales

  1. . says:

    I wonder what colour socks David is wearing today?

    Liked by 3 people

  2. The CoS and ONA are entirely fueled by your attention, and if that attention were withdrawn, it would evaporate into obscurity. The Great Work requires no guide, no membership, no books, and no ones approval.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. The “belief” that these organizations have influence and power, is the only influence and power they actually have.

    Liked by 1 person

    • . says:

      Define influence

      Liked by 2 people

      • Influence, in this context would be defined as the ability of an individual or organization to gain the attention of others, and with that attention, plant the seed of ones agenda, via clever propaganda. This is how all lies, and all false man-made “orders” work. They require external study, and then a belief system. This is sorcery. This is evil…

        I am an agent pf Natural Law, for the truth is discovered within via study of ones self, and pertains to knowledge rather than belief. Understanding the inward workings leads to understanding the outward workings. This is truth KNOWN. This is Magic. This is righteous.

        Like

      • . says:

        I didn’t ask what you were, I asked for your description of what influence meant.

        So, if we are to go by your description, the ONA does indeed have influence.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sure, ONA has influence in that it attracts people from all over the internet who are seeking for an identity badge, and ONA will give them one, along with catch phrases, platitudes, books to buy, games to play, in groups and out groups… ONA is a great deal like Facebook and Twitter in that regard. The fact is, if people were to withdraw their attention from ONA, it would simply evaporate. ONA is an MMORPG as far as I am concerned.

        Like

      • . says:

        People withdrew from it during the days it seemingly died or vanished. It was in those days that I came across it, and for a time it seemed I was the only one flowing the 7FW. As such, your claim is false.

        The ONA is never going to die and that is something you’re going to have to learn to accept.

        Liked by 3 people

      • You almost sound like a real man, whit such big talk on the internet. Keep your ONA fantasy alive if you must. Just keep in mind that the difference between you and I is that you need an abstract identity, and I do not… You need a support group, and I do not. I am man enough to use my true identity, and you are not. I stand on my own philosophy, and you do not. You worship… I Preach… Know this!

        Like

      • . says:

        You also sound very autistic.

        Like

      • Remember what I said about ONA giving its followers little platitudes which utterly replaces their need to think for themselves? You just proved my point. Thanks.

        Other than “You’re autistic” you can also rely on “This was our plan all along”, “You’re a meme monkey”, and the classic “We just did that to confuse everyone”… et al…

        If you memorize them all, you’ll never need an original response ever again. Don’t forget to mention Naos, and pretend to be very mysterious, no matter how transparent you actually are.

        Like

      • . says:

        Well given I was the one who made autism such a buzzword, lifted from Internet culture and it still isn’t used outside DC talk, but OK Darryl.

        As stated, there’s nothing more to add. I’m giving you no more attention and not stopping to online bickering with a man child.

        I’m sorry you haven’t found peace yet.

        Like

      • Thats right, you call me names and run away to hid behind a sock account, but I’m the child here? I waiting for you and your spells and culling to come on out to my neck of the woods, and we’ll see just how things play out.

        Rednecks and Shotguns vs Internet Satanist?

        I vote Rednecks…

        Like

      • . says:

        Why would I curse you? I don’t hate you. Only you are that trapped in ego to conflate disagreement with hate. I have no feeling toward you Darryl.

        The only conflict we have is on the matter of the ONA and your rudeness.

        Go back to the woods and hills you love and stop wasting time with people online whom you’ll never meet.

        Stop wasting my time, stop wasting your time.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Actually Anna brought up the hate issue. I’m no more emotionally involved than you are, and its not ego either. Honestly, most of the people I know consider me to be a nice but dedicated guy. Ill be nice, but I don’t sugar coat the truth, I just say it like it is, and some people want to say thats being rude. I don;t think it is, I just value truth above being nice. I am an Agent of Natural Law, thus Truth is my primary concern in all matters, not making friends. You’ll just have to accept that about me, as its who I am. And I am in my hills and wood right this moment, and as for meeting you, I’d love to. How that would play out would be determined according to your demeanor, and it may, or may not, be a waste of time. Time will tell.

        Like

      • lisbethangleton says:

        “The fact is, if people were to withdraw their attention from ONA, it would simply evaporate.”

        …and your point is?

        Liked by 3 people

      • My point is exactly that. ONA is an identity pin, which people use when they seek an abstract persona, likely due to lacking the desire, ability, or courage, to codify genuine character in the real world.

        I dare all of you to do what I did, and use your real names, and write about your own ideals, instead of worshiping David Myatt’s.

        My real name is D.M. Hutchins and I wrote https://hutchinsdm.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/corpus-nine-thirteen.pdf which includes my ideas pertaining to ONA and non-ONA philosophies, and I couldn’t care less what ONA thinks about my use of, and correction of, its framework.

        Now you try! What are your real names, and where are your own non-ONA ideals documented?

        Like

  4. WyrdSister says:

    My Dear Anonymous You,

    Thank you for treating us to yet another diatribe full of your personal opinions about Mr Myatt and the Order of Nine Angles.

    Accusations were made about Myatt and the point of our “wyrdsister” article (perhaps that should be our wyrdsisters article) was that you et al steadfastly ignored the documented life of David Myatt. As documented for example in books by academics, in contemporary newspaper accounts, in a television documentary, and in official police and Court records. Documents that are available to researchers and to any accredited academic and to any accredited historian who desires to write a biography of Myatt.

    You gave your personal opinion about Myatt without apparently doing any research “in the real world”. Of course you – anonymous you – are entitled to your internet presented opinion, as others are. But neither you or to our knowledge anyone else has done any research “in the real world” into the life of Mr Myatt. So that your opinion is just your internet presented personal opinion.

    In our article we gave details of where anyone interested in researching the life of Myatt can find the relevant documents. So, what are you complaining about?

    You wrote: “Wyrdsister goes on to hype David Myatt.” As we mentioned, there is no need whatsoever for anyone to hype Mr Myatt for his exeatic life – when objectively studied – is sufficient of itself to show how much he differs from the much-hyped Howard Stanton Levey.

    You also wrote: “the blog in question didn’t compare and contrast the sinister achievements of Myatt and LaVey.” So what? Our post was about Myatt and accusations made about him, with Myatt’s documented life sufficient to show that – regardless of whether Myatt was or wasn’t the mythical Anton Long – he makes Howard Stanton Levey look like a charlatan and wuss.

    That you et al – who criticize and who write diatribes about Myatt – never ever admit you’re not in full possession of all the facts about Myatt’s life is perhaps the most relevant fact about such criticism and such diatribes.

    Liked by 1 person

    • annaczereda says:

      First of all, that wasn’t a diatribe about Myatt. I’m not criticizing him but questioning the gossip about him that has been circulated both online and offline. I wrote he might have inspired Copeland but we can’t be 100% sure. Thus I’m not claiming anything, merely expressing doubts and questioning the claims others make. The burden of proof is not on me.

      Your referencing BBC panorama, newspapers and academics is hilarious. BBC journalists didn’t manage to interview Myatt and widely used in their report the “evidence” gathered by Searchlight. Besides, among the many Myatt’s NS writings I read, I didn’t find one that would encourage bomb attacks on civilians. On the contrary, there was even written in the National Socialist that: “The NSM is fighting a Holy War, as all genuine National-Socialists are. A Holy War is not fundamentally about fanatical “suicide bombers” taking on the enemy, as it is not fundamentally concerned with guerilla or “underground” warfare at all. Rather, a Holy War is basically a moral attack upon society and the individuals within it – it is a moral crusade led by fanatical revolutionaries, by individuals who are pure because they uphold high moral standards and are not prepared to compromise.”

      And even if Myatt justified or encouraged violence, saying that he inspired Copeland to plant bombs is a huge leap of faith.

      Liked by 1 person

      • WyrdSister says:

        Among your many propagandist untruths you wrote that “BBC journalists didn’t manage to interview Myatt” whereas of course they did as is evident in the broadcast BBC Panorama TV program about Copeland and in the comments made by Myatt which they cut from their broadcast and in which comments Myatt arranged to meet them at The Feathers hotel in Ludlow, Shropshire, to present – in detail – his case.

        Now, anyone can find the BBC transcript which proves that journalists from BBC Panorama did indeed interview Myatt – heck, the clip is even on youtube (or was when last we checked). Now had you done some investigation – in the real world – you might have found the journalist and the cameraman who were present at that documented (that filmed) encounter with Myatt. But no, you just anonymously repeat your accusations.

        For yet again you, anonymous internet you, make assumptions about Myatt without having done any research about him “in the real world”.

        You also wrote: “The burden of proof is not on me.”

        Yes the burden of proof is one you – anonymous you – for you have provided no documentary evidence whatsoever for your allegations concerning, and your assumptions about, David Myatt.

        In contrast we have provided details of where anyone interested in actually researching the life of Myatt (in the real world) can find the relevant documents and so write an unbiased and documented account of Myatt’s life and deeds.

        Like

      • lisbethangleton says:

        Why does it matter?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Its been a while since I read Myatt’s NS work, but if I remember correctly, he used a certain term… Something along the lines of “Ethical Socialism”… or something in that regard.

        Like

  5. So what you are saying is that Anna’s opinion pertaining to Myatt’s attack on the Magian infrastructure, is not valid because Anna has not adhered to the Magian infrastructure?

    Also, you just logged in, and posted on the internet, that Anna’s post is invalid because she posted it on the internet?

    ONA is a joke…

    Liked by 1 person

  6. WyrdSister says:

    Dear Mr Hutchins,

    What we WyrdSisters are attempting to point out is that the anonymous person who goes by the nym Anna C has made unsubstantiated allegations, via the internet, about Myatt. Thus the burden of proof is upon her/him/it to substantiate their allegations by providing documentary evidence obtained through investigations in the real world.

    We have provided sufficient details – in our wyrdsister post – for her/him/it, or anyone, to find such documentary evidence.

    Until anonymous individuals such as Anna C provide actual documented evidence their assumptions and allegations about Myatt then we’ll continue to dismiss their allegations as Magian (or as Magian inspired) propaganda designed to discredit Mr Myatt.

    Like

    • You very nearly have a point there, just not quite. You see, while indeed Anna owns the burden of proof pertaining to her claims, you own the burden of your own claims as well… and you haven’t any more evidence than she.

      You are yourself using a nym, and yet mocking Anna for using an nym, and you wagging a finger at Anna for making claims without evidence, while you are yourself making claims without evidence.

      What can you show me that will demonstrate that Anna is Magian and has an agenda to discredit Myatt? What is your evidence of this? Perhaps an opinion is just an opinion.

      Personally I hold Myatt in high regard in terms of The Numinous Way, and I disregard all else that he published. Am I slandering the man when I say that? No, I’m simply addressing what he offered, that I happened to find to be of worth in terms of my preexisting agenda, but that is not the same as having an agenda towards Myatt or his work. Its just Myatt playing into my agenda. It is a slight, but very important, difference.

      That being said, anyone demanding, or even suggesting, that everyone must revere everything that Myatt produced, well, seems a bit sycophantic, and I cannot take that seriously.

      Liked by 1 person

      • annaczereda says:

        “Its been a while since I read Myatt’s NS work, but if I remember correctly, he used a certain term… Something along the lines of “Ethical Socialism”… or something in that regard.”

        There is a rumor that he wrote a “A Practical Guide to The Strategy and Tactics of Revolution” or “Practical Guide to Aryan Revolution”, which encourages violence, assassination of politicians, cops, bombing of civilians etc. The emphasis on “rumor.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • . says:

        “if everyone stopped talking about the ONA…”

        Lead by example then.

        Or better yet, stop flitting around the ONA when you haven’t even done one thing which the 7FW proposes. Your opinion on the ONA is not taken seriously because of that very reason. There are 21 Pathways laid before you, Darryl. I don’t get your obsession with something you despise so much.

        Liked by 2 people

      • I will always say what I please, without consideration of your opinion(s). You betray yourself with your own words. I have spoken to you perhaps twice in as many months, and this you would call “always”. You seem a bit defensive. Why is that? No one is going to conform to your demands pertaining to a nonsensical “Way” when living ones own life is infinitely more rewarding and educational. And what knowledge would you claim of my past? What have I done, and how do you know. Lets see the evidence of your hallow claims. I am not obsessed, this is the comedic relief to a stressful morning. Thanks for that.

        Like

      • . says:

        ‘haha I’m actually having a laugh at your expense, checkmate buddy’.

        You’re hanging around a scene that you have no respect for and which has no respect for you. Whatever criticism you level at me from your position of ego-image, I’ll at least never be so tragic as that.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sure, if by “hanging around” you imply that I got a notification on my WordPress bar, clicked it, and offered Anna’s page five minutes of my time…

        I’m not sure why you believe that respect is something that happens on the internet, or why I would value having your respect, were it offered. Tell me then, what is the value of your respect, and what good would it do me, if I had it… Perhaps it is your ego which we are addressing here?

        Like

      • . says:

        You’re just rambling, I can’t make any sense out of this. You’re going to have to accept some people find the 7FW a valid and rewarding system at some point. That’s really all I’m doing.

        There’s nothing more to discuss.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sure there is, there is plenty to discuss. Show me the evidence that you follow this “Way” and the “payoff” for having followed it. I didn’t bring this up, you did, so show me. You made a claim, now demonstrate it.

        Like

      • . says:

        You’re going to have to accept some people find the 7FW a valid and rewarding system at some point. That’s really all I’m doing.

        There’s nothing more to discuss.

        Like

      • I accept that you can easily make such claims online, with zero supporting evidence. You’ll convince me when you come show me. Thats the only discussion I care for. Fuck ONA…

        You have an internet belief system, and I have a four state wide militia of Three Percenters armed to the teeth… If you cant tell, I’m not worried, lol.

        Like

      • annaczereda says:

        The tragedy of Darryl is that he is influenced by the ONA, yet he denies that. Just imagine hating something that is in your head.

        Liked by 1 person

      • What do I hate? Show me what ONA is other than bickering teenagers bragging about doing things for which there is zero evidence. They won’t even use their real names, they won’t show their faces, they just make hallow claims about worshiping a book that no one takes seriously. I don’t hate them, I ask them for evidence, and so they hate me… Any of you could easily prove me wrong…

        If you’re all spell casting, human culling, occultist, satanist, and this and that… cast your spells on me. Come kill me… My name is Darryl Hutchins, and I live in North Carolina, thats in the redneck part of the USA. I’m not one for all this bragging on the internet nonsense. I’m a real man, with a real name, and Mr. Gage and I will meet you at the door… Period.

        Like

    • annaczereda says:

      “Now, anyone can find the BBC transcript which proves that journalists from BBC Panorama did indeed interview Myatt ”

      I read the transcript earlier and this is why I wrote they didn’t manage to interview Myatt because they didn’t. All they managed to squeeze out of him was that he had no comments to make.

      And please tell me what claims and allegations I made. Saying that I doubt that Myatt inspired Copeland is hardly a claim. You can try to convince me otherwise if you want.

      Like

      • WyrdSister says:

        You repeat your statement that “BBC journalists didn’t manage to interview Myatt” when a clip from their interview with Myatt in the year 2000 was broadcast on BBC Television. The clip is on youtube and there is a transcript published by the BBC. Here’s a still valid link to the TV programme: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/archive/811720.stm

        It even has an image of Myatt being interviewed! BTW, filming someone and asking them questions, and getting several responses from a person is classed as an “interview”. That the responses of Myatt were of the “I have no comment to make about anything to do with that” kind doesn’t alter the fact that they were answers to questions. Ergo, it was interview.

        Also like I said – and this can be verified by an accredited researcher by a search of BBC archives – the interview lasted longer than the clip that was shown, with Myatt talking about his conversion to Islam and offering to meet the BBC journalist and film crew again at the local mosque in the presence of the Imam.

        That you made such a silly claim in the first place was funny. You now try to avoid admitting you were wrong by stating that it “wasn’t an interview”

        As for the accusations and allegations you’ve made about Myatt in the past, here are a few quotes

        You wrote: {quote } The only sinister thing [Myatt] ever did was take part in some minor street fights during his involvement with C18…He’s never been in the war-zone so he has no clue what jihad is. All he did was travel to some Muslim countries, talk to some Muslim friends, read Quran, attend mosques and participate in the Muslim forum…{/quote}

        Such allegations have been discredited, by providing evidence and stating where details of Myatt’s violent, criminal, activist, Jihadist past could be found by an accredited scholar or academic researcher. Some of the evidence is supplied in this article:
        https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2017/01/02/modern-satanists-and-the-green-eyed-monster/

        Like

    • . says:

      I want to read Wyrdsister’s personal journal of her advancement along the 7FW up to this point.

      Liked by 1 person

      • WyrdSister says:

        Ignoratio elenchi. The discussion is about the anonymous person – author of this blog – who has for years pontificated about the ONA and who for years has also made allegations about Myatt. That neither you nor anyone else seems to point out how he/she tells porkies about Myatt (like his/her recent silly claim that Myatt was never interviewed by the BBC) but rather attack the person asking him/her questions is most interesting,and par for the course.

        After all, the ONA and Anton Long are anathema to self-described modern satanists and must be disparaged at every opportunity.

        Like

      • . says:

        Quite perhaps, but it’s getting tiring seeing all this talk of Myatt and the ONA by people with zero evidence of having followed the way.

        Where have I attacked you? I didn’t mean this in a wholly aggressive way.

        And a bit of criticism is not going to kill anyone. It’s invited every time you post. Perhaps then focus more on pursuing the way and less on writing about it and the world would seem less filled with anonymous haters and critics.

        And if it turns out you have an adequate degree of experience, it will be illuminating to see such for our own benefit and progress.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yorkshire Rounwytha says:

        After all, I am a sincere initiate of the 7FW, and honestly think your efforts could be directed along more efficient channels. Why does it matter what the internet says if, by ONA rhetoric, the whole system will be torn down in time by the presencing of Sinister energies?

        Like

  7. annaczereda says:

    @WyrdSister
    You posted a fine piece of propaganda, quoting my posts out of context. Here is the whole relevant discussion:
    http://www.the600club.com/topic106310-3.html

    You omitted the vital part of the discussion where I pointed out that there is a difference between a real person and his myth. I even gave an example of the wizard of Oz. You are trying very hard to make Myatt into some really dangerous thug while he was more of a creative idealist.

    I wrote “The only sinister thing [Myatt] ever did was take part in some minor street fights during his involvement with C18” and you wrote: “he was involved in many street brawls and arrested and convicted several times… leading a gang of skinheads in a violent racially-motivated attack.” How is that refuting my statement? I’m not denying he took part in street fights but that was all. No other more serious things, like terrorist attacks, assassination etc.

    It’s also a fact he has never been in the war zone and never directly and actively participated in Jihad. So he doesn’t have a direct experience of it. It’s not an allegation, just stating a fact.

    It’s also a fact that his NS writings aren’t really extremist but rather utopian and idealistic. He was a dreamer, basically having good intentions. There is hardly any hatred there or call to violence.

    You wrote: “It would be interesting to know just what actual deeds the anonymous denigrator – and other anonymous denigrators of Myatt – have done in the real world so that their lives could be compared with the life of Myatt.”

    I clearly stated in the forum that “To his credit I can say that at least he has more experience than me.”

    I wonder why even mildest criticism of Myatt and debunking his mythos bothers you. Oh wait, it’s rather obvious.

    Like

    • WyrdSister says:

      You wrote: {quote} I wonder why even mildest criticism of Myatt and debunking his mythos bothers you. Oh wait, it’s rather obvious.{/quote}

      Once again you fail to admit your mistakes and instead of answering questions about why you continually attack and besmirch Myatt you (yet again) use ignoratio elenchi in an attempt to deflect attention away from yourself.

      For you’ve made similar accusations about Myatt for several years, on other forums, in the comments section of blogs, and on your own blog. Truth is, you have always tried to downplay Myatt’s exeatic life: such as his documented violence and political activism, his terms of imprisonment for violence, him forming and leading a criminal gang (for which he was busted in 1976 by the then Yorkshire Regional Crime Squad), and so on and so on.

      It’s perhaps no coincidence that your accusations and allegations about Myatt echo those of most self-described (usually anonymous) modern satanists. For they also try to downplay Myatt’s life and also write derogatory things about him. And, just like you, when someone contradicts them about Myatt’s life they chant their mantra of “Myatt fan-boys” and rant about ONA people “hyping Myatt” with some even going so far as to accuse anyone who contradicts their illusory beliefs about Myatt of being Myatt himself.

      These attempts to downplay Myatt’s life – involving almost identical accusations and allegations – having been going on so regularly for so many years that one begins to wonder why, especially given that all these latter-day satanists claim that David Myatt is Anton Long.

      So perhaps it is that they – derived as their ‘satanism’ invariably is from Howard Levey – need to try and discredit Myatt and downplay Myatt’s exeatic life because if he is/was Anton Long and did found and lead the Order of Nine Angles for decades then he really does make Howard Levey look like a wuss, a charlatan, a pretentious pseudo-intellectual, with the ONA making Levey’s ‘satanism’ appear just part of the current, materialistic, patriarchal, status quo.

      Which also explains the reluctance of latter-day satanists to credit the ONA with any originality or with representing a much older esoteric, non-Hebraic, genuinely antinomian tradition, and why almost every month latter-day satanists repeat the same old propaganda lies about the ONA such as that the ONA stole the idea of ‘the nine angles’ from Aquino.

      Which brings us to your intent and (i) why you hang around and post on satanist and occult forums and post in the comments section of blogs penned by self-described satanists, and (ii) why you join in with their accusations and allegations about Myatt; and (iii) why you, like they, never provide any actual documented evidence for your accusations and allegations about Myatt; and (iv) why you go on and on, as they do, about people hyping Myatt when no does or even needs to given that Myatt’s life speaks for itself, and (v) why you, as they do, go on and on about “ONA WordPress clowns” while you just like your latter-day satanist buddies only really exist in cyberspace (on forums and blogs) and fill your posts with argumentum ad hominem and anti-ONA rants, and (vi) why you, as they, have never written an informed, intellectual critique of ONA esotericism and of ONA texts such as “Alchemical And Hermetic Antecedents Of The Seven Fold Way,” and, lastly, (vii) why you, as your latter-day satanist buddies do, always commit the fallacy of illicit distribution given that no one person or nexion can represent the ONA or can speak on behalf of the ONA or make ONA policy.

      Perhaps you could answer some of those questions? We, of course, have some theories about your intent and have made some assumptions in order to arrive at some answers of our own to the above questions. But these answers of ours are nothing to be made public. Yet.

      BTW, the complete (printed) Oxford English Dictionary defines an interview as “a meeting between a representative of the press and some one from whom he seeks to obtain statements for publication. Similarly in broadcasting.” So, despite your attempts to wriggle out of admitting you were wrong (by trying to redefine the word interview) Myatt actually was interviewed by the BBC.

      Which failure to publicly admit you were wrong is another trait you seem to share with the vast majority of self-described modern ‘satanists’, along of course with your desire to remain anonymous while making accusations and allegations about a public figure.

      Like

      • annaczereda says:

        My dear anonymous WydSister(s), I’m telling you once again that I never besmirched David Myatt. On the contrary, I even defended him when your beloved Chloe Ortega (cough cough Anton Long’s “daughter”) talked shit about him on various WordPress blogs, including the recent Moac Gazette, in the comment sections of various blogs and on 600 Club forum under various nyms. I only don’t know whether she was trolling and posting that for the lulz or she was genuinely pissed. It is the secret of Polichinelle that she resigned before because it was difficult to put up with your stupid shit. Your Inner Circle are the bulldogs fighting under the carpet and you tend to sweep the dirt under the rug so that the general ONA fandom will never see your dirty laundry. This is why you are trying hard to find an Enemy to cover up your own internal conflicts and bullshit.

        Prattle on about “latter-day Satanists” but the truth is that most of anti-Myatt rants on WordPress and 600 Club forum have been posted by your “daughter”, Ms Chloe. Everyone can recognize her sock accounts so you’d better invent some bogus narrative to “explain” all of that.

        Feel free to tell the whole world what you have uncovered about Anna Czereda. Come on, I’m not so bad. You could adopt me, mommy. You would have less problems with me than with your other brats. 😛

        Like

  8. WyrdSister says:

    Someone using the nym Anna Czerada wrote: {quote} [you’re] quoting my posts out of context {/quote}

    My dear, just who are you? Do please enlighten us because for years you – anonymous you – have pontificated via the medium of the internet about the Order of Nine Angles and about David Myatt.

    Why? Just why have you – anonymous you – posted literally thousands of anonymous comments about the Order of Nine Angles and about David Myatt?

    Like

    • annaczereda says:

      I already told you I find the ONA intriguing. I’m also interested in Satanism in general. I find some of Myatt’s insights valuable. I’m as anonymous as you but I gave sufficient info about myself. I’m from Poland. I’m a Christian but interested in the occult. I live near Warsaw. I studied English literature, worked as a teacher but currently I’m looking after my grandmother, who is 96 years old.

      Like

      • WyrdSister says:

        Anna, the problem is that you try to make Myatt appear – in your words – “just an ordinary chap.” You do this by omitting most of Myatt’s life story such as his violent years, his imprisonment for violence, his leadership of a criminal gang, his time as monk, his arrest for incitement to murder, his heretical public praise (under his own name) of the 9/11 attacks and of bin Laden; his links with Hamas; his Muslim travels in the mid-East when the West had invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. You omit his intellectualism, and lots of other stuff as well.

        You use weasel-speak in an attempt to belittle the public sources that have documented Myatt’s life, for example writing about “tabloid bloggers and shitty journalists and gullible academics.” Why do you try to belittle such sources? Because they tell about someone who is far from being “just an ordinary chap” and thus contradict the myth about Myatt that you seem to want others to believe.

        In addition, you have not done any real research about Myatt in the real world, as in going through court and arrest records, newspaper reports of his arrest and trials, and as in finding out about things such as “Operation Periphery” and the three year long investigation into Myatt by the FBI, Interpol, the RCMP, and Special Branch. Such records and findings can be found by an accredited researcher or academic historian.

        So, there is a lot of material, lots of primary sources, “out there” and thus a lot you don’t know about Myatt’s life. Yet you refuse to publicly admit that you don’t have all the facts and continue to propagate the myth that he is “just an ordinary chap” when he clearly is not.

        Like we keep saying, there is no need for any of us “to hype” Myatt’s life. His life speaks for itself.

        BTW, we intend to post an article on our blog explaining and contradicting your “Myatt myth” since it’s almost identical to the myth about Myatt pedaled by many self-described satanists.

        Like

  9. annaczereda says:

    WyrdSister, you are obsessing over a few of my posts which you took out of context. The context is a discussion. I linked the relevant thread. We were not discussing the whole of Myatt’s life and legacy but one essay, Breaking My Silence, and all the facts that were relevant to the discussion.

    That essay was naive and childish. The author (if it was even Myatt) projected the Western values and his own Western judgement on Muslims, especially on ISIS warriors. The act of terror seemed to deeply unsettle his sinister mind. Why? Provided it was written by him and he’s sincere, then perhaps it’s because he’s never been an actual extremist, has never conducted a terrorist attack and has never killed anyone. Participating in street brawls is not the same as killing a defenseless and seemingly innocent person with cold blood. Preaching Jihad is not the same as getting your hands dirty with the blood of random civilians, including women and children.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, madame, but you are trying too hard to make Myatt into some super evil character while he was only being naughty. You all seem to be suffering from the eviler than thou attitude.

    Like

    • WyrdSister says:

      You wrote: {quote} you are obsessing over a few of my posts which you took out of context. The context is…{/quote}

      A few posts? You have posted more comments – on forums and blogs – about Myatt and the ONA in the last four years that all self-described satanists combined.

      Every time the ONA and/or Myatt is mentioned on some internet forum or on some ‘satanist’ blog you jump in with your comments. So, it’s actually you who seems to be obsessed – for what reason – with the ONA and with Myatt.

      You, anonymous you, then go on to write more propaganda about Myatt – “he never killed anyone” – in some attempt to distract attention away from your failure to address our criticism that you deliberately neglected whole aspects of Myatt’s documented strange, extraordinary, life and thus of him being a possible example of what following the ONA Seven Fold Way means in real life. As for example in terms of exeatic, antinomian, Insight Roles. And as for example in – a sinister way – getting others, manipulating others, into doing the real “dirty work”. Now such manipulation of others is far more sinister than doing it yourself.

      That you, anonymous you, write that Myatt “was only being naughty” perhaps says it all about you, about your propaganda, and about your hidden (or personal) agenda. Does your “being naughty” include being imprisoned for violence? Does your “being naughty” include being the leader of a criminal gang and being convicted of leading that gang? Does your “being naughty” include being arrested in a Dawn Raid by armed police officers? Does your “being naughty” include being on bail for three years and subject to a three year long international, law enforcement, investigation? Does your “being naughty” include risking imprisonment and rendition by publicly defending terrorists and terrorist acts?

      For the fact is that Myatt lived a violent, antinomian, life for years.

      So, just who are you to pass judgement on someone with a violent, a criminal, past? Just what are your deeds, in the real world? How does your life compare to that of Myatt? Do you even have a documented violent, antinomian, life in which you were imprisoned for violence, in which you ran a gang of thieves, in which you manipulated people into doing violent, criminal, deeds?

      Unless and until you “come clean” and detail your actual and documented experience of violent, criminal, antinomian, deeds in the real world then your anonymous criticisms of Myatt will just be the vapid words of some anonymous person who has some political, or religious, agenda or who has some psychological or personal motive. No one of any sagacity would take seriously the vapid words of such a person. Your words do, however, provide “us” with some amusement as they serve and have served, for some years, a useful role in the matter of our “sinister dialectic.” For they really do serve to distinguish “us” from the likes of “you”, as witness the following image: https://regardingdavidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/p1000146.jpg.

      For there is someone ONA “being really naughty” by being part of some real army and holding an actual functional, deadly, weapon.

      Like

      • annaczereda says:

        “And as for example in – a sinister way – getting others, manipulating others, into doing the real “dirty work”. Now such manipulation of others is far more sinister than doing it yourself.”

        It’s wishful thinking on your part. There is no evidence that Myatt manipulated Copeland or anyone else into doing the “dirty work.” You, yourself, wrote he was released due to insufficient evidence. If you can prove that Myatt managed to manipulate anyone into committing some heinous act, then prove it.

        “So, just who are you to pass judgement blah blah blah”

        Your constant accusations are the symptom of your paranoia. I wrote he has more experience than me and I’m not denying he lived an adventurous, or call it exeatic, life. What I have an issue with is you trying to make him into some evil character and blackening the reality. Judging by the facts from his life and also by his writings, he was more of a dreamer and an idealist than a ruthless extremist or terrorist.

        “For there is someone ONA “being really naughty” by being part of some real army and holding an actual functional, deadly, weapon.”

        So what? Plenty of males serve in the army. What’s so antinomian about that? Just another doggie serving his Master – the government.

        Like

  10. WyrdSister says:

    Anna, yet more excuses and more propaganda from you. You just cannot seem to admit that you – having done no research in the real world – don’t have all the facts about Myatt and also lack an esoteric (an initiated) understanding of the O9A.

    Now, if you really are as you claim to be a Christian (and a Catholic, since you claim to live in Poland) such a refusal to admit your fallibility in such matters seems somewhat odd, contra to the personal humility that the Catholic Church presences and encourages and has encouraged for centuries.

    Also, if you really are as you claim to be a Christian just why have you written more about the ONA and about Myatt in the past three years than all of “us” (we traditional satanists) combined?

    In addition, your blog contains more comments and articles about the ONA and about Myatt than about anything or anyone else? Why?

    Do pleas enlighten us.

    Like

  11. WyrdSister says:

    Anna. It seems you also have no answer to why you omitted so many documented details about Myatt’s life, omissions detailed here: https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2017/01/14/concerning-an-anonymous-propagandist/

    Like

    • annaczereda says:

      What did I omit? Contrary to your propaganda I wasn’t denying the facts from Myatt’s life that you listed. The focus of this blog is on the gossip spread by Searchlight journalists that Myatt manipulated Copeland into planting nail bombs. You yourself wrote that the police didn’t have sufficient evidence for that. So if it hasn’t been proven, then it remains speculation.

      You also harp on about the discussion on the forum which was about Myatt’s one text and his involvement, or rather lack of it, with terrorism. My point was that since he didn’t actively participate in Jihad, wasn’t a perpetrator or victim of terrorist attacks, has never been in the war zone, then he has no gnosis of Jihad. Dunno about you but for me preaching Jihad and writing essays defending “honorable” Bin Laden is not enough to consider someone an “extremist.” I don’t recognize “hate speech” or any bullshit like that. Only those who actually kill others are extremists.

      As I wrote before, I’m not denigrating Myatt, I have respect for him. I only think you are trying very hard to make him into some kind of demi-god, super duper dangerous and evil thug or, using Chloe’s words, a sour-faced prophet while he is an ordinary, probably nice, guy with some interesting experience, a gifted writer, an idealist and a dreamer with his head in the clouds.

      And all the time you are asking me to admit that I don’t have something that you imagined. Where did I claim infallibility? I’m questioning the mythos that you and others spread. Here and on the 600 Club I present my views, which the readers can accept or reject according to their judgement.

      Like

      • WyrdSister says:

        My Dear,
        Whoever (and wherever) you are, you have written more about the ONA and Myatt than “we” have and while you have indeed have made some positive comments about Myatt and the ONA the fact remains that – in your own words – you have tried to make Myatt appear as just “an ordinary chap” and have done so by omitting many aspects of Myatt’s documented life. That documented life does seem to make Myatt an “extremely violent, intelligent, dark, and complex individual.” Why can’t you just admit this? Perhaps because you have an agenda.

        You write that Myatt has never been in a war zone, yet he grew up in Africa (Kenya) during Mau-Mau terrorism where he and his sisters were conveyed to school with an armed guard. He also lived for a while in Northern Ireland during “the troubles” and visited occupied Palestine and Iraq following the Western invasion of Iraq. In addition, Goodrick-Clarke in his book “Black Sun” happens to mention that Myatt was a mercenary in Angola in the 1970s.

        Now, as we’ve pointed out, you can dismiss all this – and say that Goodrick-Clarke was a “gullible academic” – but the reality is you just don’t know all the facts about Myatt’s life because you haven’t done any research in the real world using primary sources. So, you’re just presenting your personal opinion about Mr Myatt. Furthermore, you continually refuse to admit that you don’t know the reality of Myatt’s life.

        Now, had you personally researched Myatt’s life using primary sources (and published a peer-reviewed book about Myatt) your opinion would carry some weight. As it is, you’re just giving us your personal opinion based (we assume) on what you’ve found via the internet and (perhaps) based on whatever prejudice you may harbor toward Mr Myatt and the ONA.

        Like

      • WyrdSister says:

        Who else do you know, designated under their real name by mainstream sources as a Satanist, who has the variety of documented experiences of Mr Myatt? How does his varied and documented life compare with that of Howard Levey?

        Myatt’s documented life makes Howard Levey seem like a stay-at-home wuss and a charlatan. Did Levey go to jail for violence? Did Levey lead a gang of thieves? Did Levey travel to the mid-east and preach Jihad to Muslims? Did Levey translate and write a commentary on Hellenic hermetic texts? Was Levey ever arrested by the police on suspicion of incitement to murder? And so on.

        When one compares the life of Howard Levey with that of David Myatt one is led to a certain unassailable conclusion. Which is that Myatt is by far more antinomian, more radical, and more satanist, than the stay-at-home Howard Levey.

        That you et al continue to describe Mr Myatt, despite evidence to the contrary, as just “an ordinary person” is really amusing. Are you then hyping Howard Levey and the likes of Aquino? If so, why? Even Aquino, despite his military career, looks like a stay-at-home pseudo-intellectual wuss when his life is compared to the diverse, violent, documented, and intellectual life of Myatt. Little wonder then that so many self-described satanists et al have tried so hard for so many years to demean Mr Myatt.

        For Myatt makes the likes of Howard Levey and Aquino (and let’s not forget, Crowley) seem like charlatans and pseudo-intellectuals.

        Also, you keep repeating your mantra that “we” are “trying very hard to make him into some kind of demi-god, super duper dangerous and evil thug,” whereas we have no need to do any such thing because as we have repeatedly said Myatt’s documented lie speaks for itself.

        You wrote: “Only those who actually kill others are extremists.”

        Once again you attempt to redefine a term so that it fits your propaganda. Last time you attempted to redefine the term “interview” to bolster your claim that Myatt wasn’t interviewed by the BBC. This time you attempt to redefine the term “extremist” to bolster your claim that Myatt wasn’t an extremist.

        Now, the complete (printed) Oxford English Dictionary defines an extremist as “One who is disposed to go to the extreme, or who holds extreme opinions,” with “extreme” defined as “Existing in the utmost possible degree, or in an exceedingly high degree; exceedingly great or intense.”

        Various Western governments have also, in terms of law, defined the term “extremist” with the UK government for example defining extremism as “vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”

        Myatt himself – with his forty years experience of extremism – has defined an extremist as “a person who tends toward harshness, or who is harsh, or who supports/incites harshness, in pursuit of some objective, usually of a political or a religious nature. Here, harsh is: rough, severe, a tendency to be unfeeling, unempathic.”

        Thus according to all definitions of the term extremist – all, except yours of course – Myatt was for some forty years an extremist.

        Like

  12. annaczereda says:

    “You write that Myatt has never been in a war zone, yet he grew up in Africa (Kenya) during Mau-Mau terrorism where he and his sisters were conveyed to school with an armed guard. He also lived for a while in Northern Ireland during “the troubles” and visited occupied Palestine and Iraq following the Western invasion of Iraq. ”

    If so, then I stand corrected. He has been in the war zone and has some gnosis of war and terrorism.

    “In addition, Goodrick-Clarke in his book “Black Sun” happens to mention that Myatt was a mercenary in Angola in the 1970s.

    Now, as we’ve pointed out, you can dismiss all this – and say that Goodrick-Clarke was a “gullible academic” – but the reality is you just don’t know all the facts about Myatt’s life because you haven’t done any research in the real world using primary sources.”

    Goodrick Clarke also writes Myatt was a contract killer in Ireland. I wonder where he got those revelations from. The problem with Clarke is that he uses Searchlight, Diablerie and ONA texts extensively, the sources that are full of gossip, legends, mythos and fairy tales. So he largely gives the information that one can now find on Wikipedia, the stuff like, for example, that Myatt took the ONA from some lady and refined its teachings. And that lady then went to Australia.

    My dear lady, perhaps, it’s all true. Perhaps, both you and Myatt are combing the English woods or American cities for opfers and I’m underestimating you. The thing is that there is no tangible evidence for this and this is why it’s all pure speculation.

    I never said I know all the facts from Myatt’s life. The large part of his life is shrouded in mystery and legends and I have every right to doubt the gossip. Yet you are asking me to believe the “mainstream sources”, like shitty anti-Fa newspapers and books written by “academics” who have never ever met Myatt, and your propaganda. WTF?

    What’s wrong with saying that Myatt is an ordinary chap? He himself wrote many times that he is a fallible human being.

    Like

  13. WyrdSister says:

    My Dear,

    Thank you for your reply, which we appreciate. But to get back to the real point of our dialectic, it seems to us (and we admit we may be wrong in this respect) that you have been assiduously propagating the myth that Myatt was “just an ordinary person” who was perhaps somewhat sentimental and idealistic (and thus rather other-worldly) while the documented facts of Myatt’s life contradict that myth. Multiple violent deeds over several years, and imprisonment for violence, one of which terms of imprisonment was for leading a gang of skinheads in a racist attack. Arrest and conviction for leading a gang of thieves. Bodyguard of Colin Jordan. And so on, for that’s only the 8 years from 1968 to 1976. Those are the deeds of an extremist activist, not some “ordinary person” and certainty not the life of some sentimental other-worldly idealist.

    Given Myatt’s varied and documented life, from 1968 to his post-2011 translations and philosophical writings, with 40 years of that life as an extremist, it seems apt to describe him, as an academic has, as an “extremely violent, intelligent, dark, and complex individual.”

    In our view, the term “complex individual” sums him up while your “he’s just an ordinary person” is so way off the mark that it has to be either ignorance or (as we have surmised) a repeating of a propaganda myth about Myatt manufactured by and propagated by self-described modern satanists for the purpose of discrediting and being derogatory about Myatt and the ONA given that such self-described modern satanists equate Myatt with Anton Long. A surmise about you made by us given your repeated attempts to redefine terms (such as interview and extremist) and your attempts to discredit those who are sources of information about Myatt whom you have described as “tabloid bloggers and shitty journalists and gullible academics”.

    What we find somewhat strange is that a self-confessed (albeit anonymous) Catholic should help self-described modern satanists spread their silly propaganda. Why?

    Also “we” just love how you – and such self-described modern satanists – continue to ignore Myatt’s intellectualism, so evident as that is in Myatt’s translations of and commentary on three of the most important hermetic texts from the Corpus Hermeticum. In this respect he certainly makes Levey, Aquino, and Crowley, seem like pseudo-intellectuals. Wouldn’t you agree?

    Like

    • annaczereda says:

      Saying that he’s an ordinary person is not a derogatory statement. It’s meant to differentiate the real person from the mythological figure. Myatt himself, as appears in his writings, has never posed as a sage or devil incarnate. On the contrary, he has always described himself as a fallible human being offering a bit of his experience. You are trying to make him into a demigod because it serves your agenda, because you are building the cult of Myatt, which is to replace the cult of LaVey.

      I’m not denying his antinomian deeds. He’s indeed a complex and intelligent individual though I wouldn’t describe him as extremely violent. National Socialists can generally be violent and I think that if Myatt stood out somehow, it was more due to his intellectualism than his violent activities.

      I got an impression that he was an idealist from his writings, including those NS writings. A lot of space is dedicated to honor, building a new society and praising the ethos of National Socialism. It’s all rather utopian. Perhaps, it was because he was younger.

      As for the supposed denigration of Myatt by the mythical Satanists, it’s only your propaganda. You simply need an enemy. As I wrote those who bitch about Myatt the most are your own former disgruntled members.

      Like

      • WyrdSister says:

        My Dear,

        Thank you for your reply which we yet again appreciate.

        You wrote: {quote} It’s meant to differentiate the real person from the mythological figure {/quote}

        There is no “mythological figure” except perhaps in your mind and in the minds of self-described modern satanists.

        You also wrote: {quote} You are trying to make him into a demigod because it serves your agenda, because you are building the cult of Myatt {/quote}

        All we are doing is pointing out the documented reality of Myatt’s life, most of which life you and self-described modern satanists choose to ignore because, it seems, it somehow conflicts with your anti-ONA agenda.

        It’s you and self-described modern satanists who are and who have spreading myths about Myatt.

        You also wrote: {quote} he has always described himself as a fallible human being offering a bit of his experience {/quote}

        No, he did not “always” so describe himself. He only so publicly described himself post-2011. Privately – in since published private letters – he occasionally did so post-2002. Thus for over thirty years – longer than most of his critics have been alive – he maintained his public persona as a hubriatic extremist: for thirty years as a neo-nazi ideologue and then for around ten years as a radical Muslim. That you don’t seem to know such details seems to indicate that you really haven’t done any detailed research into Myatt’s life.

        You also wrote: {quote} those who bitch about Myatt the most are your own former disgruntled members {/quote}

        In truth those who bitch about Myatt the most are you and scores of self-described modern satanists and those opposed for whatever reason to the ONA. From Aquino to Blubberwood to (most recently) some anonymous self-described (probably jealous) satanist who laughingly wrote that Myatt was “an irrelevant idiot.”

        You and such types have spent years criticizing Myatt – writing literally thousands of internet posts and thousands of words, as well as promoting a certain myth, about him – while Myatt is and has been only occasionally mentioned by those who, self-describing themselves as ONA, have grumbled about Myatt only because they assume he is or was Anton Long.

        For example, someone using the nym Ryan A complained for a while about Myatt (assuming as he did that Myatt was Anton Long) but even he has apologized for the allegations he made about Myatt (kudos to him).

        It’s really only you, self-described modern satanists, and political or personal opponents of Myatt who grumble and moan about Mr Myatt in person, as Mr Myatt. Trying so hard over so many years (and mostly anonymously)as you and they seem to do to describe him as “just an ordinary person” or as “an irrelevant idiot,” or trying in some way to discredit him by posting over and over again that “he’s hacked this or that forum; he’s employed people to attack disabled people; he’s a homosexual; he’s a police informant; he’s a paedophile; he’s a modern Fagan; he’s a psychopath; he’s a friendless man who depends on the kindness of others; he’s a weak little coward…” And that’s only a few examples from the last ten years.

        You also wrote: {quote} it’s only your propaganda {/quote}

        Ignoratio elenchi, yet again. Because the propaganda about Myatt is yours and that of self-described modern satanists while all we are doing is pointing out the documented (note: documented) reality of Myatt’s life; a documented life which contradicts your and their propaganda about Myatt. All you apparently have in answer to such a documented life is to propagandistically try and besmirch the sources who have documented his life, describing such sources as “tabloid bloggers and shitty journalists and gullible academics”.

        What’s interesting is that once again you have failed to answer questions asked of you. Such as why a self-confessed (albeit anonymous) Catholic should help self-described modern satanists spread their silly propaganda about Myatt.

        Like

  14. annaczereda says:

    “Thus for over thirty years – longer than most of his critics have been alive – he maintained his public persona as a hubriatic extremist: for thirty years as a neo-nazi ideologue and then for around ten years as a radical Muslim.”

    And still his writings from that period show him rather as an idealist and a dreamer, having basically good intentions, dreaming of building better society and even at that time searching, longing for the numinous. And although there are some more aggressive writings, some of which are only attributed to Myatt (gossip again), he wasn’t just a ruthless extremist. For sure, people are complex and everyone has their dark and light side but you are now deliberately trying to blacken the image of the guy. The sources that you cite are a pseudo-scholar and tabloid newspapers that focus only on the “hateful Nazis”, adding some unverified gossip of their own. You rant so many times about the union of the sinister and numinous so why look at only one side of the coin?

    Like

    • WyrdSister says:

      You keep going on about Myatt as “a dreamer”, about a “Myatt mythos” and about ONA people hyping Myatt and, in your words, “making him into a demigod.” Well, do please provide references to where actual ONA folk hype Myatt.

      For if you read what actual ONA folk have written about Myatt you’ll find that everything they say about Myatt is referenced to what has already been published about him by others. For example, there is the 84 page book “The Radical Occult Philosophy of Anton Long”, published in 2015, part two of which has several chapters about Myatt. In regard to Myatt’s life, references are made to what various academics have written about Myatt (for example, Raine, Monette, Kaplan, Weitzmann, Goodrick-Clarke, Michael, Senholt). References are also made to comments about Myatt by journalists nearly all of which comments are somewhat negative and derogatory. None of the comments or statements about Myatt, referenced in the book, “hype” him or make him out to be some sort of super-duper villain, or some assassin, or (one of the favourite rumours) to be working for MI5 (or MI6 in a variant rumour), or (another favourite) an actual terrorist.

      In that book there are only three possible points of contention. The first is what Mr Parker concludes – following, it should be noted, the likes of Senholt – that Myatt’s life is an example of the ONA Seven Fold Way. The second is when Mr Parker (in that context) describes Myatt as a Mage; as having reached a certain stage on that Seven Fold Way. The third is the comparison made between the lives of Myatt, Aquino, and Levey, with Mr Parker concluding that “in terms of life and practical experience [Myatt is] not only the most satanic, the most sinister, but also the one who has most embodied and manifested the numinous.”

      That you even now go on about “pseudo-scholars and tabloid newspapers and unverified gossip” is perhaps the most indicative thing of all. For apparently you just can’t accept that Myatt’s documented life makes Levey seem like a wuss. For you, anonymous you, yet again try to discredit any and all sources who depict Myatt as antinomian and who contradict your myth about Myatt.

      Now, we could quibble for days about what – in terms of life and practical experience – being ‘satanic’ and ‘sinister’ means, but a reasonable person would conclude that Myatt’s documented life is very different from the documented lives of Levey and Aquino. If for the sake of argument we equate satanic/sinister with being antinomian then it’s obvious that Myatt has been antinomian in a greater variety of ways than either Levey and Aquino, given that “antinomianism has been described as “nonconformity through the concept of transgression,” (qv. Jesper Aagaard Petersen, ‘Smite Him Hip and Thigh: Satanism, Violence, and Transgression’, in ‘Violence and New Religious Movements’, Oxford University Press, 2011. p. 353).

      Myatt in a practical way transgressed the law through violence and crime (spending time in prison for some of those transgressions) and being part of an illegal paramilitary group (Column 88) which trained with weapons used by the British army. Myatt was being ‘nonconformist’ and transgressive when publicly supporting bin Laden and suicide attacks, and when publicly supporting holocaust denial and National Socialism. In contrast, Levey’s only transgression – and a mild transgression at that, since it was not against the law – was forming a ‘satanic’ group which didn’t preach or incite violence or murder or crime. When the Church of Satan is compared to Myatt’s violent NDFM and his later NSM, Levey’s Church looks positively tame. The NDFM, by the way, held several violent public meetings and demonstrations in Leeds in the 1970s, the most violent of which was on the steps of Leeds Town Hall which descended into a riot, with several police officers injured, with Myatt arrested and later found guilty of “inciting the violence.”

      Like

    • WyrdSister says:

      That you keep trying to discredit the sources regarding Myatt’s life – describing such sources as “pseudo-scholars and tabloid newspapers and unverified gossip” and as “tabloid bloggers and shitty journalists and gullible academics” – is the most interesting thing of all. Such an attempt to discredit such sources points to either desperation your part and/or to your desire, for whatever propagandistic reason, to continue to try and discredit Myatt and make him appear “just an ordinary person.”

      Also, are all the sources of information about Howard Levey also pseudo-scholars and tabloid newspapers and unverified gossip and tabloid bloggers and shitty journalists and gullible academics? Do please enlighten us.

      If you claim such sources about Levey are not just “pseudo-scholars and tabloid newspapers and unverified gossip and tabloid bloggers and shitty journalists and gullible academics” then your anti-Myatt agenda is most certainly exposed.

      More pertinently, and in respect of Myatt, is Professor Weitzmann a gullible academic and a pseudo-scholar? Is Professor Kaplan? Were the attendees as various NATO conferences, who happened to mention Myatt, just pseudo-scholars and/or shitty journalists or were they just repeating unverified gossip?

      For it seems that in your world anyone – whatever their credentials and/or experience and/or occupation – who in whatever way contradicts your myth that Myatt being “just an ordinary person” is or must be a “tabloid blogger or a shitty journalists or a gullible academic or someone repeating unverified gossip.”

      Like

      • annaczereda says:

        I think I made myself clear that I’m not denying his antinomian deeds that have been documented and thus remain facts. I’m also not denying that he’s an embodiment of the 7-fold Way. What I’m contesting is unverified rumor. That Myatt inspired Copeland is speculation. That he was a contract killer is speculation. That he culled or manipulated anyone to cull is speculation. That he was an inspiration for Nazi, Muslim or any other terrorists is speculation. His involvement with the O9A belongs to the realm of speculation too. Another thing I’m saying is that judging by his writings he doesn’t appear as a totally ruthless extremist. There is some degree of sentimentalism and naivety present in his so-called extremist essays but there is also nostalgia for the metaphysical.

        You might sing paeans to great academics all day long but they know about Myatt and the ONA what an average idiot knows i.e, the stuff available to the general public and not even all of that. That none of the pseudo-scholars seem to to know what the foundation mythos is and that it doesn’t have to be true is, using your words, indicative. Everyone can read on Wikipedia about the origins of the ONA but the critical approach to it is advisable. Then there comes treating Myatt as a bad Nazi or a dangerous Satanist (Wasn’t he more complex than that?), neglecting his metaphysical writings, spreading of gossip etc. The “academic” works about Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan leave much to be desired too. Plenty of events from LaVey’s life cannot be verified, still they are given as facts.

        As for your plethora of false accusations, all my posts about the ONA and Myatt are archived. Everyone interested can read them or believe your bullshit that I have anti-ONA agenda. It’s you having anti-Czereda agenda.

        Like

      • annaczereda says:

        Why did Ms Chloe 352 talk shit about Myatt? After all, she’s Anton Long’s daughter. Once she deleted her blog because she was pissed. Now she talks about the ONA being taken over by mundanes. Why are you silent about that? Why are you seeking the enemy so desperately?

        Perhaps, you are trying to cover up your stinking dirty laundry. I never talked shit about Myatt and still you are throwing false accusations. The ONA Old Guards behaving like the swines wallowing in their own shit. It’s truly disgusting. At least, Aquino and the CoS clergy have some grace.

        Like

  15. WyrdSister says:

    Apropos your comment about Chloe.

    Since “we” don’t know Chloe – and have no contact with her – we don’t have her side of the story so prefer not to comment.

    Individuals – anonymous and otherwise – have been praising Myatt for decades and then, after a while, disowning him and saying silly and derogatory things about him. Ryan A was a case in point. I guess that human nature.

    You wrote: {quote} she talks about the ONA being taken over by mundanes {/quote}

    If true, that’s funny, given recent ONA works such as “The Esoteric Hermeticism Of The Order Of Nine Angles” (which includes the text ἀρρενόθηλυς) and given that others have complained that the ONA has become “too intellectual”.

    Also, like “we” keep pointing out, no one or no cabal can “take over the ONA” because it has no leader, no hierarchy, is anarchic, and is basically just an esoteric philosophy (propounded and partly devised by Anton Long) and three esoteric methods of individual change (seven fold way, Drecc/Niner, Rounwytha).

    You can’t “take over” an esoteric philosophy. You can only criticize it, add to it, be inspired by it, or use it as the basis for your own esoteric philosophy, things which Anton Long has been saying for forty years.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. WyrdSister says:

    In another reply you wrote: {quote} What I’m contesting is unverified rumor. {/quote}

    Which rumours about Myatt you won’t – as I pointed out in a previous reply – find in mainstream ONA texts such as “The Radical Occult Philosophy of Anton Long”, published in 2015.

    So apparently all you’re doing is complaining that some people – be they self-described ONA people or not – repeat rumours about Myatt. You then commit the fallacy of illicit distribution by apparently saying that the ONA (whatever and whomsoever the ONA is) are trying to create a “Myatt mythos”.

    Yet, as noted on the ONA blog and elsewhere: “no can one publicly speak ‘on behalf of the O9A’. Nor can anyone now or in the future speak ‘on behalf of the O9A’.”

    You wrote: {quote} you might sing paeans to great academics all day long {/quote}

    Mainstream ONA texts don’t “sing paeans to great academics” they just quote what some established academics have written about Myatt and which academics invariably give sources. Many of those academics have used primary sources, such as – for example – Professor Michael actually interviewing Myatt himself, and Monette corresponding with Myatt.

    As to the vexed example of whether Myatt inspired Copeland, there is some circumstantial evidence gathered by the British police (with the help of the FBI and the RCMC) which was not sufficient to secure a conviction in a British court of law. As I pointed out, following Copeland’s bombs Myatt was interviewed about Copeland by officers from the anti-terrorist branch and in addition SO12 (Special Branch) officers flew to Canada to work with the RCMP to gather evidence against Myatt in the matter of the ‘Practical Guide to Aryan Revolution’ which was first posted on a Canadian server. Furthermore, Myatt was on bail for three years while evidence against him regarding that Guide and Copeland was collected. Evidence which included a detailed forensic examination of Myatt’s seized computers. While on bail Myatt was interviewed many times – usually at Charing Cross police station in London – about that Guide and about Copeland. There’s also the interesting fact that a distant relative of Myatt had to obtain security clearance for a job and was interviewed at length about Myatt by officers from MI5 “who knew all about him”.

    So, like I previously said official files about Myatt relating to that Guide and Copeland exist, some or many of which could accessed by an accredited historian or academic. Some would have to wait because of the “50 years rule”.

    To conclude: the rumours of influence could be true but until an accredited historian or academic undertakes research using such primary sources we just don’t know, and should admit we don’t yet know.

    As for us “having an anti-Czereda agenda,” if that’s you want to believe or (for the benefit of your readers) want to claim, then so be it. But given – like we have said many times – that you over a period of several years have written far more about the ONA and about Myatt than we have, it seems only fair that we take you to task on some of your comments and accusations.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yorkshire Rounwytha says:

      Why does it matter?

      Like

      • WyrdSister says:

        You wrote: {quote} Why does it matter? {/quote}

        Perhaps in cosmic terms it doesn’t matter. But according to our limited understanding it matters in terms of:
        1. Fairness.
        2. Because such disputations are or may be a dialectic whereby an approximation of what is true and what is false (re the O9A) can sometimes be revealed. At least for some.
        3. Quid est veritas? We all have our own answers, usually based on some abstraction rather than on personal pathei mathos.
        4. If Myatt is indeed a practical example of the O9A 7FW then his ‘sinister-numinous’ life reveals something interesting about the O9A.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yorkshire Rounwytha says:

        You are trying to cast this back and forth as a ‘dialectic’, Wyrdsister. That simply reduces the notion to a banal one.

        Stop fixating on what Myatt has done and strive to outdo him, like some of us are.

        Liked by 1 person

    • annaczereda says:

      “So apparently all you’re doing is complaining that some people – be they self-described ONA people or not – repeat rumours about Myatt. You then commit the fallacy of illicit distribution by apparently saying that the ONA (whatever and whomsoever the ONA is) are trying to create a “Myatt mythos”.”

      I have always been addressing you. Saying that I’ve been addressing the general ONA is another thing that you imagined. This blog is a response to yours.

      “To conclude: the rumours of influence could be true but until an accredited historian or academic undertakes research using such primary sources we just don’t know, and should admit we don’t yet know.”

      That’s what I’ve been saying all the time; that perhaps he did inspire Copeland or, perhaps, he didn’t. We can’t be sure. If the cops had found sufficient evidence, he would have been convicted. So what exactly it is that you are arguing?

      “But given – like we have said many times – that you over a period of several years have written far more about the ONA and about Myatt than we have, it seems only fair that we take you to task on some of your comments and accusations.”

      You are simply spreading false accusations as the one that I’ve been discrediting Myatt for years. As I wrote, my posts are archived and I post on public venues. Anyone interested can see for themselves.

      Liked by 1 person

      • WyrdSister says:

        Let’s cut this to the bare bones.

        1. Does Myatt with his documented antinomian and sinister-numinous life make Levey (sans the fabrications he made about his life) look like some stay-at-home wuss.

        2. Does Myatt with his ability to read Ancient Greek, Latin, Arabic, Farsi – and thus his ability to read primary hermetic, alchemical, gnostic, and occult sources in their primary language – make Aquino look second-rate given that Aquino can’t read the primary sources he relied on to fabricate his Setian world-view and thus had to rely on the translations and interpretations of others. For it’s documented that Aquino can’t read, in their original language, Egyptian hieroglyphics, nor ancient Gnostic and Hermetic texts, nor the Greek of LXX, nor the Hebrew of medieval qabalistic texts, nor the Latin of medieval books about alchemy, all of which sources he used to fabricate the Setian world-view behind his much-hyped Temple of Set.

        3. Why then have both Aquino and Levey been systematically hyped by the media, by various authors, and feted by numerous academics, while Myatt has been subject to derogatory comments in the media, lambasted by various authors, and (with only a few exceptions) ignored by academics?

        Naturally, “we” have our own answer to question #3. Which is that both Levey and Aquino – and their respective law-abiding Church of Satan and Temple of Set, are no threat whatsoever to the status quo and thus are not antinomian in practice, while Myatt’s ONA (if we assume for the sake of argument that Myatt is/was Anton Long) actually is a threat to the status quo and actually is antinomian in practice.

        Liked by 1 person

  17. moacgazette says:

    LOL…

    This was a very amusing blog and comment section to read. It’s been a while since I’ve encountered some funny discordian drama… ever since the 600 Club banned ONA threads, there wasn’t much funny business to relieve some stress after a long day.

    Looks like all the players are back in their stations: Anna still doing what Anna does best. Dave still an anonymous nexion of all female adepts. Darryl still egocentric and ONA obsessed. You guys make me laugh…

    I’m particularly impressed with Darryl’s evolution! He started off all hardcore into scientism… and now he has swung in the opposite extreme all believing in the anunnaki [LOL], David Icke [LOL], Alex Jones [LOL], conspiracy theories [LOL], ‘pizzagate’ [LOL].

    In closing, my hope regarding o9a: that in a few years it will be what it was before 2008. Not dead… just dead to the internet… just an obscure [occulted] something one or two people find, study, practice; in private. Minus the inner circles, Daves, Moults, old guards, etc, etc. As it was before 2008.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Say what you will about me. For those with eyes to see, my agenda has been most certainly accomplished, in ONA, The 600 Club, and on this very thread. It’s interesting that you read my blog, but I don’t read your own, yet this you would call obsession? If you super sinister occultist ONA guys aren’t clued in just yet, I’d suggest a study in astrotheology, the alchemical romance, ancient Sumeria and Egyptology. You know, those genuine occult studies that only become possible once you pull your heads out of David Myatts ass…

      On a side note, Alex Jones is a sycophantic Jew loving Zionist.

      Like

  18. WyrdSister says:

    Yorkshire Rounwytha wrote: {quote} Stop fixating on what Myatt has done and strive to outdo him, like some of us are.{/quote}

    We’re not fixating on what Myatt has done, we’re only pointing out (against a deluge of propaganda to the contrary) that (i) his life is a practical example of the seven fold way and (ii) that (as we said in our reply to Anonymous Anna) his life places the much hyped Levey and the much hyped Aquino into perspective, and (iii) that unlike the Church of Satan and Temple of Set the ONA really is antinomian in practice, and (iv) most important of all that Anton Long has consistently said, for over 40 years, that the ONA and he himself should and must be outdone and surpassed.

    Liked by 1 person

    • annaczereda says:

      Did I understand it well? You’re jealous that LaVey and Aquino have more media attention than you?

      Like

      • WyrdSister says:

        Of course you don’t understand it, ignoring as you do (perhaps for propaganda reasons) the essence of the argument and deploying as you do the weasel-word “jealous”.

        The essence is why the media and so many academics have hyped Levey and Aquino despite them conforming to the status quo, and why the media and so many academics have ignored Myatt despite him having a documented antinomian life.

        Like

  19. annaczereda says:

    @Wyrdsister and Moac Gazette.
    Please, keep the discussion on a decent level.

    Like

    • WyrdSister says:

      My apologies. But in mitigation: (i) the person trying to hide behind various nyms has spent years stalking Myatt and has put up several blogs devoted to discrediting and making accusations about Myatt, and (ii) no one ever, satanist or otherwise, has called this person out and asked for evidence which back up his malicious rumors, and (iii) his accusations about Myatt have been far from decent.

      Like

      • annaczereda says:

        I usually don’t delete comments but if people want to just relieve stress after having a difficult day they have their own blogs for it. That being said there is no need to debate and chew on the trashed replies, at least here.

        Like

      • WyrdSister says:

        In respect of the anonymous author of a certain anti-Myatt blog, Anna said not that long ago that: “There you go again with your Don Quixotic fantasies, living vicariously thru others better and more important than you.”

        She also quoted the following informative post from a now deleted ONA blog:

        [quote]
        “Myatt has stated on several occasions when asked about the matter – for example to Nick Lowles of Searchlight, in an interview at Craven Arms, Shropshire, in 1997 – that the mysterious Anton Long was a “long-standing friend” of his…

        Who, therefore, might this mysterious long-standing friend of Myatt’s be? Myatt once let slip that he was an Oxford academic, in the 1990’s – a fact confirmed by Julie Wright in her short pseudonymous essay “A Personal Encounter with DWM”. But the real clue lies in the Acknowledgments section of a scholarly book published in Oxford by the OUP in the late 1980’s, where the the author states that over the years his intellectual development greatly benefited from discussions with […..] – and here, a certain Anton Long is mentioned – along with a host of Professors, and other academic luminaries.

        Research into the author of this academic work – which is now a standard text on the subject used by Universities all over the world – has revealed the astonishing fact he was in the NF [National Front] in the early 1970’s and lived, at that time, in the same Yorkshire city where Myatt then lived and where Myatt, with his fellow neo-nazi and friend Eddy Morrison, founded the ultra-violent neo-nazi organization, the NDFM. Further research has revealed (1) that, at the time and for a brief period, the girlfriend of the future author of this academic work was none other than the elder of Eddy Morrison’s two sisters; and (2) that it was this person – the future Oxford Don – who acted as the go-between in arranging an interview between aspiring newspaper reporter (and then University student) Nicholas Witchell and the even then notorious street-thug David Myatt, which interview appeared in a student newspaper under the headline “Evil Genius”.

        After the publication of the aforementioned work, the academic career of this Oxford Don blossomed, and he was, in the early years of the twenty first century, appointed to the Professorship at a German University, where he remained for many years, until his recent appointment as a Professor at another University.

        Is this now renowned academic the mysterious and secretive Anton Long? There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence to support this assumption, for he has certainly been a life-long friend of Myatt; certainly had an interest in the Occult in the early 1970’s, and certainly was present in Oxford when regular ONA sunedrions were held in that city at a certain hotel owned by a lady member of the ONA, although it is rumored that he and Myatt became estranged sometime in the early part of the twentieth century when both became involved with, and fell in love with, the same woman, of East European descent.”
        [/quote]

        Any comment by us seems to be superfluous.

        Liked by 1 person

  20. Rudolf says:

    Reblogged this on rudolfblog.

    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