The Sinister War of the Sexes

9a0794c0c5c13618677bdce96cdea2cd--dominatrix-mistress

I find most of the blogs and articles about “sinister feminine” pretty nauseating. Wouldn’t it be better to admit that one sucks at writing stories and creating complex characters? If some alien who knew nothing about the Earth laid his hands on some piece of sinister fiction, he would think we have matriarchy here and all the males are forsaken by nature and evolution troglodytes born only to serve some clique of female chauvinists.

When one reads Deofel Quartet or other ONA tales, one can see that nearly all the male characters are pretty shallow and one-dimensional, incredibly stupid and naive, devoid of free will, thinking with their dicks, not heads, which inevitably leads them to being abused by their female superiors. An example of such a male troglodyte can be Thorold, ensnared and manipulated by Lianna, who plays the role of the Black Widow, seeking the male to impregnate her and then (when his task is complete) probably sacrifice him to ensure that her crops will grow. That would certainly improve her finances. Business is business. But I’m not really interested in victims. The depiction of a sinister initiate is what I find intriguing.

No Room 101 or Falcifer Unproven

To those not well-versed in modern British literature, let me explain that in Orwell’s “1984”, the room 101 was Winston’s final stage on his way to self-degradation or self-liberation if one prefers the interpretation of the scene by Dr Mikey Aquino. Therein Winston faces his greatest fear – the fear of rats – and under its pressure he breaks his most important principle, his biggest life taboo; he betrays Julia. Only in this way can he be reborn with a new identity, that of the loyal servant of his tormentors. He can either choose this or die eaten up by rats – his greatest nightmare. In either case he loses. It seems Orwell doesn’t free his protagonists from facing the most crucial choices… but I’m getting ahead of myself.

So let’s come back to our “hero”, Falcifer. Much like the main character of “Gruyllan’s Tale”, who is ready to have half of London blown up in order to get laid (talk about desperation), Conrad is largely bewitched by a hot-burning pussy. As an archetypal Anti-Christ, he’s a rather disappointing and dull figure. Throughout the tale, he’s constantly led by the hand, as he realizes himself, the events happen through him rather than by him. That means he’s less doing the magic himself than the magic is done through him, with Aris, the Master, being the agent, the Magician, and Conrad being merely his magic wand. His passive role of a vessel for the forces of chaos is even visible in a way he does sex. He doesn’t fuck, he is fucked. Note the passive.

Susan kissed him as they lay on the ground and Tanith kneeled beside them to caress Conrad’s buttocks and back. In the excitement of the ritual and Tanith’s touch, Conrad’s task was soon over, and he slumped over Susan, temporarily exhausted from his ecstasy. He did not resist when Tanith rolled him over, and watched, as the dancers danced around them still chanting and the light pulsed with the beat of the drum, while Tanith buried her head between Susan’s thighs. Then she was kissing him with her wet mouth before she stood to kiss each member of the congregation in salutation.

So why there is no room 101 in “Falcifer”?

Because Denise escapes.

The whole story should get a prize for its wasted potential. If Denise hadn’t managed to flee, Conrad would have faced his most arduous ordeal. He would have had to decide whether to commit real evil and kill an innocent woman who saved him (which is much different than harming the villains who well deserve it) or ruin his wedding ceremony, disappoint his mentors, possibly waste his promised destiny and be forced to leave the group he so desired to be part of. To his credit, he refuses to rape her but never makes an effort to free her. How would he behave if ordered to sacrifice her during his marriage ceremony? In which case would he get a cookie from the Devil? Should an Anti-Christ set some limits to the Evil or not?

That would complicate the whole story, right? So I started with sex and finished on conformity and the nature of good old evil. After all, they are connected.

Advertisements

65 thoughts on “The Sinister War of the Sexes

  1. You hit on some good points here, and you inspired my follow-up video. I do not know how you view people posting links to their content on your website, so I will not object in any way to you removing my comment.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Yorkshire Rounwytha says:

    I have to agree, much of the Sinister Feminine meme touting is simple fantasy on the part of individuals wishing to realise something which simply isn’t there. I recall several ONA associates of mine who were female harassed by ONA wannabes on social media, all so desperate to ‘guide’ and groom them into the ‘Sinister’. I recall ABG Lodge doing this quite a lot, which was just embarrassing to behold.

    Judge the individual on their merit, not their gender. The fact remains, history has been and will continue to be shaped and sculpted by men.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Yorkshire Rounwytha says:

      P.S. There is definitely a place in this tradition for women, more so than most other traditions within the lhp at present; but fixating on this to the detriment of others is cancerous and short-sighted (in my own opinion anyway). My personal path for instance is allegedly one reserved ‘usually’ for women- do some consider my contributions to it less valid because of my gender? I hope not.

      Liked by 3 people

  3. WyrdSister says:

    Anna, you hit the proverbial “nail on the head” when – with one caveat – you wrote {quote} “the ONA recently emphasized the balance between male and female characteristics {/quote}. The O9A always has – from the 1970s on – emphasized that balance, evident in the rite of internal adept with its cultivation of the muliebral virtue of empathy.

    As for the “sinister feminine” it’s just an archetype associated with the lower learning stages of the O9A seven fold way; nothing more, nothing less. Experience; learn; make you own mind up; move on.

    As for ONA fiction: it’s designed for novices, with the depiction of some men in the Deofel Quartet being “shallow” because they were shallow in real life, given that those male characters are based on real individuals – and a good P.I. should be able to find out who individuals like “Mickleman” and Thorold and Conrad were in real life. So – what’s the problem? Some men are “shallow” or naive and remain shallow or naive. Some don’t remain so because they change via pathei mathos.

    As for subsequent comments elsewhere about the O9A being “male dominated”, such comments are just laughable. Even academics have documented that the O9A has more female supporters than either the Church of Satan or the Temple of Set and have more women with children. And let’s not start on Sapphic O9A nexions or mention the female Rounwytha tradition or the fact that the O9A has far more women than men…

    Liked by 2 people

    • annaczereda says:

      I understand the meaning of an archetype but, as I wrote, I’m interested in the portrayal of a sinister initiate. Un-Proven is the key word here. That means that because of Denise’ escape, he lost an opportunity to prove his character. What would he do if ordered to kill under the threat of exclusion from the Order? The act of disobedience to the Master is truly Satanic. All too often those initiates are submissive and obedient to those who promise to guide them. I find that lack of character pretty sickening.

      Like

      • WyrdSister says:

        Anna, thanks for the reply. You raise interesting esoteric questions, but like “we” noted, the DQ novels are all about O9A aural tradition and events involving real people which did occur. The choices those people made were their choices at the time. For sure, that says something about their character at that time. So if some of them seem submissive, maybe they were. Also, the events happened decades ago. Some in the 60s, some in the 1970s, some earlier. It was a different world then re occultism.

        As for “finding that lack of character pretty sickening” maybe someone can write some O9A inspired occult fiction – based on real life people – with both strong male and female characters? I’ve yet to check out the fiction of “the Yorkshire Rounwytha” but maybe he’s done that already?

        Liked by 1 person

      • WyrdSister says:

        The problem “we” have with the criticism so far is that the critics apparently are of the opinion the male characters aren’t based on real life people. The only argument advanced in support of this opinion appears to be that “men – or ‘satanists’ – in real life don’t behave like those characters.” Which is a gross generalization and an idealization of that species.

        Thus – and to give just one example – the critics seem to believe that someone like Thorold (from the novel The Giving) is unreal because he’s beshrewed by a woman. BTW, the unusual English word beshrewed was used in local Shropshire dialect (and in other dialects) to mean “bewitched” (by a man or by a woman) and thus does not just have the later Shakespearean bad sense of “to be cursed” or “to have evil invoked upon one”. The sense of it meaning bewitched is found in the 14th century English bible of Wycliffe: “The heart of him is beshrewed by women so that he followed foreign gods.” In the original: the herte of hym is beshrewid bi wymmen, that he folwide alien goddis.

        Many men over many centuries have been bewitched, beguiled, by certain women, often against their better judgement. To so bewitch, beguile, certain men and then use or manipulate them for certain ends – personal or ‘satanic’ – is part of the ‘sinister feminine archetype’. The female characters like Lianna in The Giving and Melanie in The Temple of Satan embody aspects of that complex archetype, as that archetype is manifest in O9A tradition, i.e. by the lower spheres of the Tree of Wyrd, Moon, Mercury, Venus. Which is why O9A texts associate the novel Falcifer, for instance, with the sphere of the Moon and Tarot images 18, 15, 13 and with the alchemical process of calcination. The Greyling Owl is related to the second sphere; the Temple of Satan to the third sphere; and The Giving to the transition from the third to the fourth sphere. All of which occult correspondences are mentioned in O9A texts dating back to the 1980s and early 1990s.

        In some ways, all the recent criticism of the DQ reminds one of the centuries old – rather silly – division of criticism into ‘plot’ and ‘character’ analysis. Is character less important than plot? Whatever their faults compared to mainstream popular novels, the DQ novels are just fiction designed to be read by novices and those new to the O9A and to impart to such people glimpses of O9A aural tradition and glimpses of 1970s O9A and pre-O9A occult goings-on.

        Like

    • Yorkshire Rounwytha says:

      >Even academics have documented that the O9A has more female supporters than either the Church of Satan or the Temple of Set and have more women with children
      That does not mean there are more women in the O9A, just that there are more women in it than the COS/TOS. (I am speaking only from a personal vantage point here, having met a ratio of 4:1 men/women of those claiming to follow the 7FW in a definite manner).
      >And let’s not start on Sapphic O9A nexions
      Still doesn’t mean the ONA is predominantly female does it?
      >or mention the female Rounwytha tradition
      Same criticism as above
      >or the fact that the O9A has far more women than men…
      Again, I only have personal experience to draw opinion from, but which academics exactly stated there were more women? The ONA would undoubtedly excel with ‘sinister’ females guiding the helm (a welcome difference in pace to most movements); however, radical, antinomian philosophies have and will always draw men, a very particular type of men- and it’s quite telling that of those individuals involved in the genesis of the tradition whose names are known (Long, Beest, Kerry Bolton, Richard Stirling), it is all men. The so-called female progenitors are conveniently shadowy individuals who are known only to the inner circle. Maybe it is the truth. But you cannot expect people to question these things.

      (I always regarded the tradition as being the same as Hitlers vision for the Aryan ‘ubermensch’ archetype- no, the founding members of the NSDAP/ONA were not Aryan supermen/Sinister feminines, but the work they crafted was done so to presence such an archetype and fulfill the NSDAP/ONA’s final mission).

      Liked by 3 people

      • Yorkshire Rounwytha says:

        @Wyrdsister, there are plenty of individuals who have published decent Sinister fiction afaik. You’d be pleasantly surprised I think.

        Like

      • WyrdSister says:

        You wrote: {quote} The so-called female progenitors are conveniently shadowy individuals {/quote}

        True in the main but that’s because they either have careers which would probably be ruined were they to go public or children who be unfairly stigmatised. To go public – as Moult for example did – is a personal choice. There’s are notes about this choice in old ONA texts one of which notes was published in the 1990s in “Hostia”. Bottom line for many is that by being covert they can achieve far more – in personal and other terms – than by ‘outing themselves’ or by being ‘outed’. Same with Sapphic nexions.

        The academic survey mentioning more women in the ONA was undertaken with the assurance of anonymity; hence why so many participated in it.

        Like

      • Yorkshire Rounwytha says:

        >True in the main but that’s because they either have careers which would probably be ruined were they to go public or children who be unfairly stigmatised.

        Understood. This is still however only the word of an anonymous individual on the internet. However, I am not suggesting being public is necessary or even desired for this work to be successful.

        Here’s to hoping those covert vemperesses continue to presence the Dark in their own respective ways if they are indeed out there.

        Liked by 1 person

    • annaczereda says:

      You should make up your mind whether the characters in DQ are real people or archetypes. I doubt DQ was inspired by real life people and events. If it were, it would be less shallow and fanciful. It doesn’t mean I find it uninteresting. The usual standard avalanche of shit-talk on your blog wasn’t really necessary. I was simply curious how the ONA Adepts would react if their initiate defied them and whether the sinister initiate would be able to behave in an honorable way while under the pressure. It would make the stories more insightful if both the male and female protagonists were more complex and faced difficult questions such as whether one can be honorable and evil at the same time and whether an archetypal anti-Christ should have any scruples.

      As for the ONA having more female initiates than males, we have to take your word for it. Referring to academics in this case doesn’t make sense because all they have is the information from you, which can’t be verified.

      Liked by 1 person

      • annaczereda says:

        P.S. It’s the reply to WyrdSister.

        Like

      • WyrdSister says:

        Anna,
        You wrote: {quote} I doubt DQ was inspired by real life people and events. If it were, it would be less shallow and fanciful {/quote}

        Well, that’s just your personal opinion. Some people involved decades ago with the ONA may well have been shallow in real life. What’s the problem with that? Some people involved with the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set may well have been shallow. Are you saying the ONA is and was an exception and thus has or had no “shallow” people associated with it now or in the past? Are you also saying that there are no men, in real life, who are not shallow, who cannot be manipulated by a sexy woman?

        You wrote: {quote} You should make up your mind whether the characters in DQ are real people or archetypes. {/quote}

        The women are or were real life examples of the archetypal ‘sinister feminine’ as understood via the lower spheres of the seven fold way. As for the male characters, they were what they were; real people, shallow or naive or otherwise, who succumb to that archetype. You seem to forget that most of those male characters were neophytes, uninvolved with the occult, until they were beguiled by someone who was involved.

        The proof of their reality of the males in the story is in their character, flawed or shallow as they may be. Like I said, a good PI could find out who some (or most) of them were based on. Like Mickleman, a lecturer at a specific English university in the mid-1970s who supported a certain football team? How hard can that be? Actually, it happened a few years ago. He was tracked down by an investigative journalist but the story was never published because there was insufficient evidence to mount a defence in a British court of law given that the person threatened to sue for libel. But his name is well-known in certain circles…..

        You wrote: {quote} Referring to academics in this case doesn’t make sense {/quote]

        Yet again, as seems to be your wont, you rubbish the work of academics when you don’t agree with their conclusions about the O9A or about Mr Myatt. Such academic works in books by academic publishers are regarded – until disproved by other academic sources – as reliable mainstream sources; certainly more reliable than the opinions of some anonymous person published via the internet or the opinions of some journalist.

        While some of the conclusions of some academics – and their methodology – may be questionable, unless and until you and other O9A critics publish some research of your own in some academic journal or in some book by some academic publisher which contradicts such conclusions, your opinion will remain your unreliable internet published opinion about the O9A, just as mine will. That is, our opinions lack credibility in the real world, although we each may have supporters in cyberspace.

        On this matter, as on most others re the O9A, we’re never likely to agree, so perhaps it’s best if we just agree to disagree. But your comments and opinions re the O9A are and have been most helpful, so thanks for the free publicity and adding to the O9A’s Labyrinthos Mythologicus.

        As a matter of disclosure, the “Sinister Feminine And Homo Hubris” article has been revised – following internal discussions – to include mention of the Rounwytha.

        Like

      • annaczereda says:

        My dear, the academics have an access to the same sources as an average internet user. More often than not, as people uninvolved in the occult scene, they even have less knowledge. I daresay your average dumbass academic knows less about the ONA than Anna Czereda. But in all seriousness, all they have is what you told them. Nothing of that can be verified so I wouldn’t call that an “academic research.”

        Liked by 1 person

  4. WyrdSister says:

    Anna,

    You wrote: {quote} academics have an access to the same sources as an average internet user. {/quote}

    I don’t know what universe you inhabit but in my universe academics have access to far more resources, including access to primary sources. Like Monette having access to Anton Long and access to ancient relevant Arabic texts (not on the internet) which he can read in their original language. Like Senholt having access to Mr Moult (I do believe he owns some of Moult’s original artwork for the sinister tarot). Like Kaplan having the O9A microfilm that contains dozens and dozens of old unpublished ONA and pre-ONA texts. Like Goodrick-Clarke taking the trouble to go the British Library and read old ONA material stored there, some of which has never been published. Like the academic now researching Myatt who has access to archive material about Myatt stored in places like the University of Northampton – Series 12, SCH/01/Res/BRI/12/004, and Series 21 SCH/01/Res/BRI/21/002. And so on.

    You wrote: {quote} all they have is what you told them. {/quote}

    Not so, they have access to primary sources which by their nature are not accessible via the internet!

    Like

    • annaczereda says:

      I’m not sure what universe YOU inhabit because I graduated from the university too and I know something about the limitations of academic research. Those who review and evaluate your work don’t have the time to study in depth the topic you researched even if it belongs to the area of study they majored in. Unless you study science, much more focus is put on the structure than content. In other words, what is evaluated is whether your work meets academic standards re the format and methodology rather than whether you got all of the facts straight. This is why your propaganda essays could meet academic standards even though you wrote total bullshit.

      How much time did all those academics devote to studying the ONA? How many MSS did they actually read? How many people did they interview? I won’t even mention the occult experience. If I remember well, you yourself criticized the academics. Even if anyone corresponded with you or your buddies, the research paper was written in line with your personal agenda and that is far from making it objective and reliable source of information about the Order.

      I also think you misunderstood the nature of my criticism of the sinister fiction. I’m aware that there exists quite a number of males who can easily be manipulated but, as I wrote, I’m more interested in the portrayal of a sinister initiate who should be more defiant and more perceptive than an average person. Because otherwise why select him for a candidate?

      Like

      • WyrdSister says:

        Actually, “we” inhabit academia – as I do believe you had guessed – and of course the depth of research done can and does vary. But in the matter of research into the ONA the authors of the most detailed papers/book chapters published so far spent a significant time undertaking research. According to our sources, the academic who conducted the most detailed research (so far) was Professor Monette who engaged in detailed correspondence with “Anton Long” and with one of “us” and who read a significant portion of the ONA corpus. He travelled to the UK to research some sources and arranged to meet with Mr Myatt in Oxford but due to other commitments Mr Myatt cancelled the meeting “at the last minute”.

        You wrote: {quote} you yourself criticized the academics. {/quote}

        An inaccurate statement because “we” have criticised some (not all) academics who have written about the ONA with most of those so criticised penning only a few paragraphs or a few pages about the ONA. Both Monette and Senholt provided a reasonable overview of the ONA.

        Like

      • annaczereda says:

        So if you inhabit the academia, then why such a child-like and uninitiated-like naivety? The study area you major in is usually rather broad. You don’t have that much time to study in depth every topic you research. For example, if you specialize in contemporary British culture, it’s technically impossible to devote years to studying every aspect of it, all the nuances of it. Neither do the reviewers of your work have time to read all the stuff you put in your bibliography to check whether you got your shit straight.They might be acquainted with some items but not all of them.

        As far as Monette goes, his work is not bad but there is nothing there which an average reader of the ONA MSS doesn’t already know.

        Like

  5. Agreed. Plus couldn’t we say it is heretical nowadays to be opposed to the homosexual agenda ie transsexualism (a documented form of psychosis that can be medically treated), feminism, etc.? Much of the propaganda of feminists can be easily debunked (ie the wage gap when accounting for all other factors equals out to a 4 or 7 cent difference between male and female not the 70-80 cent figure used by feminists). Overpromotion of effeminacy and meekness seems conductive to the “Nazarene sickness” of today. Women are no longer shackled to the kitchen. Especially in first world countries. Likewise with Islam in my home country (Canada) it is illegal to be Islamophobic now. So which is more heretical to me living in a feminist, pro-gay and pro-Muslim country? To be pro all of those normal, egalitarian things? Or to be opposed? And I have lived and (joined albeit briefly) a Communist party which was pro all of these things in the past as a sort of “insight role” you might say. And nothing heretical of nature could be detected there. Especially being opposed as they are to violent revolution. Why would they want to revolt when their beloved queers and sandniggers are treated like little darlings?

    Like

  6. WyrdSister says:

    You wrote: {quote} then why such a child-like and uninitiated-like naivety? {/quote}

    That opinion of yours seems to be based on certain assumptions. A particular public persona created for a specific (internet) purpose may not necessarily reflect the ‘inner’ personality or even the personality that the person deigns to “show/reveal to those in the real world.” We might ask why do you – who has professed to be a university graduate and a Christian and who obviously knows or intuits many things about modern occultism and occultists – use vulgar language, hang around ‘satanist’ forums, and sometimes make what can only be described as silly and/or pejorative assumptions about some others?

    Like

    • My question is what purpose does it serve to play these sorts of “games” with one another publicly. Many ONA “dramas” seem concocted. Trolls trolling trolls.

      I believe the intellectual approach of the ONA in contrary to the older writings of being an individual of action not an intellectual or being a “beast of prey”.

      Is on a higher level than these sorts of faux debates and faux drama. Even if it were legitimate drama many other ONA authors wrote criticism does not matter. Who cares?

      It just shows softness or lunacy and neither of those is building towards anything but an eventual halirious downfall.

      Not that the ONA hasn’t become a laughing stock in recent years. Whence Anton Long stepped down there was no other individual who could fill such a standard IMO.

      So now in lieu of actual real world evil, heresy, terrorism, etc what do we have but intellectual arguments and debates.

      The domain of those soft not hardened like steel.

      In fact why do many who gone on to do real world evil in the name of the ONA no longer have or desire an internet presence and when they do its infinitely superior to the academic approach or comical bickering or trolling.

      Liked by 1 person

      • WyrdSister says:

        Misanthropic Nexion wrote: {quote} My question is what purpose does it serve to play these sorts of games with one another publicly. {/quote}

        Our answer is that it is mostly propaganda; part of (to use a term of Savitri Devi) an “in time” dialectic. The purpose is to respond; to refute; perchance to intrigue a few. To present – or at least make some aware of – a Western alternative. An alternative to what? To Magian occultism and Magian ‘satanism’.

        But as we wrote in a reply to Anna C, “success in such matters is such a relative term, in the perspective of a hundred and more years from now.”

        More precisely, success in such matters is such a relative term in the perspective of what Savitri Devi termed Above Time. She herself, did she not, personally distributed pro-NS propaganda in post-war Germany when it was antinomian to do so. That, long before she wrote The Lightning and The Sun which book so inspired so many people over so many decades.

        Like

      • I am aware of this yet but unless I am mistaken and perhaps due to poor wording I was implying the “Anna C” character is “in” on your modus operandi. And perhaps airing out some things which someone ONA would respond to initially. Although this “Anna C.” does make some points that could be considered valid or invalid. With an ONA “insider” replying to either illuminate or conduct some Satanic manuiplation. Not only of the “Anna C” individual but the readers as well. Hence a “game” if you will.

        If your stated answer above was the reason for this dialetical or polemical approach then I suppose I overcomplicated matters.

        In my own case my interest in the occult and National Socialism grew in tandem concurrently if you will. Hence learning about the ONA and applying things simply acted to nurture an evil or demonic nature that was latent. Due to Nazarene upbringing it was perhaps suppressed.

        There was a lack in general of academic or scholarly oriented materials. Or collections of PDFs etc.

        Hence I am perhaps a bit cynical about a dialectical or academic approach. I’ve always been partial to the old school.

        Although I am always fascinated to see how it results in a connection between the Third Reich, the ONA and the Vedic line of thought.

        In 475,000 years at the end of the Kali-yuga. Sri Krsna returns as the Kalki avatara and slaughters most of humanity. Establishing a golden age. Due to the current modus operandi of the Kali-yuga being the age of ignorance and hypocrisy it is only natural the Magian-Nazarene ethos dominates. Hence the fall of the Third Reich.

        In exchange of course for the cess pool that like a factory produces degenerate filth en masse. Which will only get worse as time grows.

        Like

      • annaczereda says:

        @Misanthropic Nexion
        I’m not “in” on anyone’s covert bullshit. All of my posts are spontaneous and express my current views. I don’t discuss my posts with anyone before I post them. Neither do I post on request. I realize that some people might be doing that but this is not how I roll. I’m interested in sharing my thoughts and not role-playing. If by “Satanic manipulation” you mean talking shit about random people and creating drama, then that “game”, once started, proceeds to play itself. Chaos obeys no Master.

        Like

      • Well don’t I feel retarded in that case. And you’ve been successful there. Why the ONA in particular?

        Like

    • annaczereda says:

      As I wrote earlier, I’m not sitting in your head and I can only guess the motivations behind your behavior. Rather than wrap my head around that, I prefer to simply call out nonsense where and when I see it. It’s the internet. Everyone is evaluated here based on what and how they post, including you and me.

      You don’t have to believe that I’m a university graduate. I simply know from experience that your idealistic views re academia hardly reflect the reality.

      You might think I’m vulgar but I have my own standards, where occasional cussing is totally acceptable.

      Me introducing myself as a Christian was meant to be an act of honesty because I am one and didn’t want to be viewed as a poser. If I knew that people would be making such a damn fuss about it, I would introduce myself as a Satanist or Chaoist or whatever.

      Like

      • WyrdSister says:

        Anna C wrote: {quote} I simply know from experience that your idealistic views re academia hardly reflect the reality. {/quote}

        Another assumption – generalization – by you because academic institutions vary tremendously around the world. Particular – mostly long established – academic institutions certainly have a higher standard than some others both in relation to entry requirements and research be such research that of graduates or of “fellows”.

        Perhaps your reality does not encompass such academic institutions as “we” have experience of.

        You wrote {quote} I prefer to simply call out nonsense where and when I see it {/quote}

        What you declaim to be “nonsense” may well be – in a reality such as that of Lewis Carroll’s Snark – what someone else finds interesting and intriguing. Or it may just be that your declamation of what is “nonsense” is just a manifestation of the propaganda that you attempt to convince some here as elsewhere is “real” and “true” or desire some here as elsewhere is actually “real” and “true”.

        Naturally, “we” surmise that you may know all this but for tactical or propagandistic or personal reasons would never publicly admit that you knew.

        “Success” in such matters – would you not agree – is such a relative term, in the perspective of a hundred and more years from now.

        Like

  7. WyrdSister says:

    Anna C wrote: {quote} covert bullshit. {/quote}

    Such a repetition of such a cliche one might almost believe you are a bot…

    Anna C wrote: {quote} I’m interested in sharing my thoughts and not role-playing. {/quote}

    Given that you are a self-professed Christian, how can continuously posting on ‘satanic’ forums, and writing umpteen polemical articles about the O9A for over four years, and all done without bringing a Christian perspective to your forums posts and your anti-O9A polemics, be anything other than role-playing?

    If you are really interesting in sharing your thoughts then where are your thoughts on how a self-professed Christian views Satanism and the O9A and whether you believe Satan is an actual being and how Satanism and occultism in general relate to the ‘word of the Lord’ as manifest in the life, death, and resurrection of Yeshua?

    Just what game have you been playing with Satanists for over four years?

    Like

    • annaczereda says:

      All right. If you want to believe that I’m playing a game, then go on believe that. Whatever makes you feel better. It’s nothing more than psychological projection on your part.

      Like

      • WyrdSister says:

        Anna C wrote: {quote} Whatever makes you feel better. It’s nothing more than psychological projection on your part. {/quote}

        Anna, you merely make assumptions about “us” – thus repeating the mundane cliches you have used for over four years – instead of answering the questions asked. Perhaps you hope – as some propagandists seem to believe – that argumentum ad hominem will divert attention away from you (the propagandist) and onto those who ask you difficult questions.

        Like

    • Do not usually apologize to individuals but our apologies for the mishap. I fail to see or understand this individuals motives.

      Nazarenes always repulse me but confusing as to why a Nazarene would obsess itself with the ONA?

      A Vaisnavist perspective of the ONA is more edifying especially from a LHP perspective and the mutual overlaps with the Vindex and Sri Kalki mythos and the Third Reich.

      Shapeshifting entities eating humans, the Kali yuga, aliens, space travel etc. All stated in the Vedas thousands of years ago.

      Like

      • annaczereda says:

        Obsess? I’m simply interested in it. And writing down my own thoughts and conclusions. I would like to remind you that the whole drama was started by KS when she joined 600 Club. I only accepted her invitation into the ring.

        Like

      • I don’t follow ONA drama much. From time to time I like to “check in” and toss in my 2 cents. What interest exactly do you have in the ONA? And it is a vested interest to write about the ONA since 2015 according to this blog anyways.

        Shouldn’t you “turn the other cheek” as Jesus says?

        Liked by 1 person

  8. WyrdSister says:

    Anna C wrote: {quote} I would like to remind you that the whole drama was started by KS when she joined 600 Club. {/quote}

    Even if that were so it doesn’t explain why you, a self-professed Christian, jumped into a thread on a ‘satanist’ forum; why you for over four years jumped into every thread about the O9A on other forums; why you have posted umpteen articles on your blog about the O9A; why you post in threads on ‘satanists’ forums – and have done so for over four years – that have nothing to do with KS and the O9A; and and why as “we” asked you have never in all your posts and articles written about the O9A, about Satanism, about the occult, and about yourself, from a Christian perspective.

    Will you simply – as in the past – ignore such questions and just resort yet again to argumentum ad hominem thus making assumptions about “us” in an attempt to deflect attention away from yourself?

    Like

    • annaczereda says:

      I responded to your question many times. That I’m interested in Satanism and interested in the ONA. You ignore that all the time and try to convince others and, perhaps, even yourself, that I have some hidden agenda. Maybe it’s because you’re keen on trolling and socialize with comrades who only fuck around therefore you no longer know normal people, eh?

      What does Christian perspective mean for you? I write from my own personal perspective. I’m not a mouthpiece for some organization or religion. I simply write down what I think. I don’t wrap my head around whether it’s Christian in nature, Satanic, Wiccan or whatever.

      A lot has been written about abstractions, denotatum and empathy within the ONA. Why obsess so much about labels? Shouldn’t they be transcended?

      Like

      • WyrdSister says:

        Anna, you haven’t answered the question. You for instance wrote {quote} I’m interested in Satanism and interested in the ONA. {/quote}

        But why would a Christian be so interested? Especially since in all your years of so publicly writing about satanism and the ONA you have never once – to our knowledge – criticized satanism per se from a Christian perspective.

        Your evasive answer is that you “write from your own personal perspective” which in the past four or so years seems to mainly involve argumentum ad hominem.

        Thus you also write:

        {quote} You … try to convince others and, perhaps, even yourself, that I have some hidden agenda. Maybe it’s because you’re keen on trolling and socialize with comrades who only f*** around therefore you no longer know normal people, eh? {/quote}

        Which is a classic example of argumentum ad personam, quite apart from your quite un-Christian use of vulgar language. Another classic example of your evasion was your reply in response to our query about why not one of your thousands of replies and articles – on FB, on satanist and occult forums, on other people’s blogs, on your own blog – have criticized the ONA or satanism or satanists from a Christian perspective, for you – committing another fallacy – propagandistically and evasively wrote in an attempt deflect attention away from yourself:

        {quote} What does Christian perspective mean for you? {/quote}

        That you – as a self-professed Christian – are and have been for over four years so evasive, that you consistently use vulgar language, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad nauseam, commit other logical fallacies, and refuse to admit you do not know about certain matters ONA when it is obvious you do not know, raise suspicions that you do indeed have some “hidden agenda” and are not who you try so hard to convince us you are. To wit, just some Christian female Polish university graduate who is simply “interested in Satanism and the ONA and who writes from their own personal perspective.”

        Of course, we expect that in reply you will present us with just more argumentum ad personam, use more vulgar language, employ more diversionary tactics.

        Like

      • “A lot has been written about abstractions, denotatum and empathy within the ONA. Why obsess so much about labels? Shouldn’t they be transcended?”

        This would be to misunderstand how the ONA employs language and those terms. I am not going to explain as there is already a vast literature concerning those topics, hence you can read for yourself.

        Transcending the causal, material world is a lofty goal. That few can achieve even throughout thousands of years with a limited causal lifespan in mind.

        If you are a believer in reincarnation (as I am) it could take many, many lifetimes before finally reaching that end stage of transcending the material world into the acausal spiritual world.

        Like

    • annaczereda says:

      @WyrdSister

      You use far more logical fallacies than me as I pointed it out to you before. I never claimed my knowledge of the ONA is unlimited. I simply refused to back down under your pressure and this is what really bothers you.

      @Misanthropic Nexion

      I was referring to Myatt’s essays, like “Understanding and Rejecting Extremism”, which was devoted to the nature of abstractions. Those abstractions include national and religious labels, which cover up and distort the person’s physis, and make people assign others to categories, make generalizations, instead of trying to learn more about the individual nature of the person.

      Like

      • WyrdSister says:

        Anna C wrote {quote} this is what really bothers you.{/quote}

        More argumentum ad hominem. My dear, nothing about “you” bothers “us”. We – as we keep writing – are just O9A propagandists. But were we to speculate, we might suggest that it is “us” – and the ONA – who bother you and some others.

        Which is perhaps why you recently on a ‘satanist’ forum wrote: {quote} You know what? You, Niners, are f****** stupid. All of you, without even one exception. More so, you’re stupid by nature. So irrevocably stupid that no amount of herbs, rituals, secret tasks and forums is going to make you any wiser. You will always remain stupid {/quote}

        Perhaps also why several years before the above post you wrote: {quote} This is a f****** joke and you people are f****** stupid. {/quote}

        And also wrote: {quote} Oh for f***’s sake. It’s bullshit. {/quote}. And also: {quote} the guy talks out of his ass {/quote}

        So very Christian; so very enlightened. So repetitiously vulgar.

        Like

      • annaczereda says:

        So what? These are all sentences taken out of context, like the one which was about the “petition to ban the Order of Nine Angles”, which was indeed a fucking joke. What does that and the occasional use of fuck word prove? Nothing really.

        Like

      • Yes and I agree there and so does the tenets of Vaisnavism. Hence I see no contradictions. Vaisnavism and the ONA are linked. The connexions have gone mostly unnoticed and under the radar. Its my desire even ONA member reads the Bhagavad-gita and studies the Vedas.

        Like

  9. WyrdSister says:

    Anna C wrote: {quote} These are all sentences taken out of context {/quote}

    Anna, the context is (i) that you have posted far more polemical items about and made far more polemical comments concerning the O9A in the past four years than “us” and our predecessors combined, and (ii) those vulgar comments of yours are quite typical of what you have posted about the O9A over the years, especially when you are asked questions which you never answer.

    The excuse that some comments of yours “were a f***** joke” is just that, an excuse. A lame, typical, excuse at that.

    You have never once – in all your years of posting thousands of posts about the O9A – written a rational critique of the O9A, or aspects of it, using primary and historical sources. Why not? Also, when your assumptions about the O9A are contradicted and revealed to be fallacious you invariably resort to argumentum ad hominem and/or argumentum ad verecundiam and/or consensus gentium.

    Two questions you have been repeatedly asked which you have never answered are: 1) why have you posted far more polemical items about and made far more polemical comments concerning the O9A in the past four years than “us” and our predecessors combined, and (2) why have you as a self-confessed Christian made thousands of posts over some four years on satanist and occult forums, on FB, on blogs, and on your own blog, without once ever criticizing satanism and satanists from a Christian perspective?

    So, are you going to answer those questions now?

    Like

    • annaczereda says:

      I answered your questions a thousand times. If my answers are not satisfying for you, then I’m glad to be such a walking enigma for you.

      My posts about the ONA have been fairly reasonable. So far you haven’t managed to prove me wrong.

      I also thought it was quite obvious that I like our mutual conversations and vicious debates.

      Like

      • WyrdSister says:

        Anna, post links to where you have answered those two specific questions.

        You wrote: {quote} My posts about the ONA have been fairly reasonable {/quote}

        Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But in so many of your replies you have resorted to abusive ad hominem, which is not “reasonable”. In other replies you have made assumptions about “us” and our motives, which is also not “reasonable” and amounts to ignoratio elenchi.

        But the really interesting thing is that you do seem to understand the O9A and yet persist (and have for over four years persisted) with argumentum ad hominem, “a dicto secumdum quid ad dictum simpliciter,” and making vulgar comments. Which argumentum ad hominem, “a dicto secumdum quid ad dictum simpliciter” and vulgar comments seem to us to be such a waste – even if the intent may sometimes be dialectical – since you and “we” are O9A propagandists in our own ways and according to our different, apparently opposing, agendas. Such a waste partly because it seems to us you could write some well-sourced rational non-polemical articles about not only the O9A but about satanism and the LHP.

        Like

      • annaczereda says:

        @Wyrdsister
        I already told you thousands of times that I’m simply interested in Satanism and the ONA. You would wish me to write non-polemical articles. Why? Because you can’t stand the critique? Because you can’t stand the opposition?
        As I wrote before, I write down what I think. I’m not a propagandist, I’m simply calling you out on the misinformation that you post. In the debate on the Religious Forums, I pointed out to you the multiple logical fallacies that you had been using. Propaganda is the enemy of logic and has always been.
        Something about me obviously bothers you. What is that? Do tell…

        Like

  10. Just want to add in terms of Sinister fiction a certain nexion of the ONA practicing the Vampiric praxis have published two novels of Sinister fiction via Martinet Press.

    “Iron Gates” and “Bluebird” respectively. Highly recommend checking these out.

    Like

  11. WyrdSister says:

    Anna C wrote: {quote} I’m simply interested in Satanism and the ONA.{/quote}

    Just being “interested in the O9A” isn’t an answer to the specific question asked, which question concerned the vast amount of posts you’ve made about the O9A. “We” – as O9A propagandists and as O9A associates – are by definition more interested in the O9A than you and yet “we” over the years have made less than a quarter of the posts you have.

    The sheer volume of your posts about the O9A in particular and satanism in general indicates something. Like a specific and hidden agenda.

    Anna C wrote: {quote} I write down what I think {/quote}

    Your answer of “being interested” and “writing what you think” does not address the issue of why you – as a self-professed Christian – have never once in your thousands of posts criticized satanism and satanists from a Christian perspective.

    This raises doubts as to whether you are a Christian as well as being suggestive of you having some sort of hidden agenda. For if you really are a Christian doesn’t that mean you try to follow the example of Yeshua? Is persistently using vulgar language following his example? Is persistently using argumentum ad hominem – indulging in ignoratio elenchi – following his example? Is persistently making pejorative and public assumptions about the motives and character of a person or persons following his example? And so on.

    Anna C wrote: {quote} you can’t stand the critique…Something about me obviously bothers you. {/quote}

    More ignoratio elenchi. And another clear example of part of your modus operandi. Which is to make pejorative assumptions about the motives and character of a person or persons in an attempt to deflect attention away from yourself, and away from the topic or topics, and onto them.

    Anna C wrote: {quote} In the debate on the Religious Forums, I pointed out to you the multiple logical fallacies that you made {/quote}

    Wrong. You simply made accusations about the person(s) who years ago wrote about the O9A. In other words, you employed a tactic you still employ: ignoratio elenchi. Seeking to divert attention away from yourself and the topic by wrongly accusing them of making logical fallacies.

    Anna C wrote: {quote} You use far more logical fallacies than me {/quote}

    My dear, do please point out what you deem to be the logical fallacies “we” have committed in our replies on your blog here to this particular article about the deofel quartet.

    In the matter of “us” suggesting you write a non-polemical article or articles, you yet again make a pejorative assumption. We made the suggestion because, as we wrote, our presumptions were that you do seem to understand the O9A with our feeling being such an article or articles would be interesting to read and perhaps make better use of your talents. That you tried to turn this rather polite suggestion of ours into us “not being to stand your critique” and being somehow “bothered by you” is indicative and amusing.

    Like

    • annaczereda says:

      ” “we” over the years have made less than a quarter of the posts you have.”

      Not true. My polemical articles were direct responses to yours so I certainly didn’t make more posts about the ONA than you.

      It’s funny that such a bullshitter like you has a nerve to accuse others of having an agenda.

      “My dear, do please point out what you deem to be the logical fallacies “we” have committed in our replies on your blog here to this particular article about the deofel quartet.”

      Your focus on me, my character, religious affiliation, motivations and so on is a classic example of an ad-hominem fallacy. Remember what the topic of the discussion was? Sinister fiction, not Anna Czereda. You attack my person instead of refuting my arguments.

      “We made the suggestion because, as we wrote, our presumptions were that you do seem to understand the O9A with our feeling being such an article or articles would be interesting to read and perhaps make better use of your talents.”

      All right. Let’s make a deal. You will stop writing nonsense and I will stop calling you out on your nonsense. What say you?

      Like

      • WyrdSister says:

        Anna C wrote: {quote} My polemical articles were direct responses to yours so I certainly didn’t make more posts about the ONA than you. {/quote}

        The facts prove that you have made far more posts about the O9A – and about satanism in general – than “us”. Here’s just one example.

        You have made over 1731 posts on one particular satanist forum, many about or mentioning the O9A, and you are in their ‘top ten’ of most frequent posters. You made nearly 400 posts on a single ‘religious’ forum, the majority about the O9A. You’ve made hundreds of comments – mostly about the O9A – on various FB pages. This blog of yours is replete with articles and comments by you about the O9A; ditto with regard to your comments on other blogs.

        That’s some going for a self-professed Christian given that not one of your posts, comments, or articles – about the O9A or about satanism – has ever condemned either the O9A or satanism from a Christian perspective.

        Since you continually lambaste O9A people for the amount of posts they make on the internet, and have now claimed that you only respond to “us”, here is a comparison. KS posted 136 on the same satanist forum where you have made > 1731 posts. She made 142 posts on the same ‘religious’ forum where you made > 370 posts, while “jeff77” made 147 posts there compared to over 370 by you. Totals are AnnaC: 2101 and counting; O9A folk: c. 425.

        Anna C wrote: {quote} a bullshitter like you {/quote}

        More argumentum ad hominem.

        Anna C wrote: {quote} Your focus on me, my character, religious affiliation, motivations and so on is a classic example of an ad-hominem fallacy. {/quote}

        Wrong. It is not a logical fallacy – ad-hominem or otherwise – to ask questions relevant to the topic at hand. The topic is a blog post you made about the O9A’s DQ and subsequent comments by you, including gems such as {quote} avalanche of shit-talk on your blog {/quote} and your comment that led to our questions, for you wrote {quote} introducing myself as a Christian was meant to be an act of honesty because I am one. {/quote}

        Thus it is relevant to ask you rather generic (and interesting and reasonably polite) questions such as why a self-professed Christian has (i) not only here but elsewhere written articles and made posts about something ‘satanic’ without once, as a Christian, being critical of the satanic content, and (ii) why has a Christian made far more posts – over the years – about the O9A than we self-confessed O9A ‘satanists’.

        Note that we never once used vituperative language directed at you, such as “avalanche of shit-talk on your blog” or “a bullshitter like you.”

        {quote} I will stop calling you out on your nonsense {/quote}

        Asking you pertinent questions and pointing out your failure to answer is not “nonsense”.

        Like

      • annaczereda says:

        Look, it’s really simple. You started the drama in 2014. I accepted your challenge and played along, thought you wanted some battle royale since you admitted you thrive on conflict. So I’ve been giving you what I think you want. There is a little animal in all of us regardless of a religious affiliation.

        Like

  12. Lowenmensch says:

    offtop

    MOAC delete > Chloe back
    *c*o*n*s*p*i*r*a*c*y* :3

    Liked by 1 person

  13. WyrdSister says:

    Anna C wrote: {quote} it’s really simple. {/quote}

    Yes it is really simple: your continued refusal to answer certain pertinent questions.

    Anna C wrote: {quote} You started the drama in 2014. I accepted your challenge and played along {/quote}

    Even if we for the sake of argument accept your premise that “we” started something in 2014 – be that something dialectical or otherwise – it does not explain the following: (1) why you went on to make far far more posts about the O9A than we ever have, and (2) why you have made thousands of posts and comments not about “us” but about satanism on forums and blogs run by self-professed satanists, and (3) why you as a Christian have never once, in all these thousands of posts, criticized satanism and satanists from a Christian perspective.

    Anna C wrote: {quote} There is a little animal in all of us regardless of a religious affiliation {/quote}

    Even if we for the sake of argument accept this as a valid excuse, it does not explain the very interesting statement you made which revealed several apparently contradictory things: that you wanted to be honest but that you would be dishonest to avoid certain questions; that you did not want to be considered a poser but would be prepared to be a poser.

    Your statement was {quote} “Me introducing myself as a Christian was meant to be an act of honesty because I am one and didn’t want to be viewed as a poser. If I knew that people would be making such a damn fuss about it, I would introduce myself as a Satanist or Chaoist or whatever.” {/quote}

    Which intimates that there is/was a certain deliberation on your part and thus in all probability a conscious agenda behind your plethora of posts, thus invalidating your “little animal” excuse.

    Like

    • annaczereda says:

      I learned about Satanism when I was interested in Freemasonry. While visiting the website of the Grand Orient of Poland, I stumbled upon an article which was a lecture from some Polish lodge analyzing in some humorous way the Satanic Bible. I just got curious about it and read it. The next book I read was “Church of Satan” by Aquino. I thought it was intriguing so I read more literature. I don’t understand why it is so bizarre to be curious about something.

      I stumbled upon the Letters to the Devil forum by accident. Some parts of the forum were private so I thought if I signed up, I would be able to view them. I still wasn’t because they were open only to those who subscribed and payed for them. But I thought since I signed up, I could as well post something. My first posts were quite naive but I feel somewhat nostalgic about that today nearly defunct forum. I made some friends there, then I moved to SIN and finally to the 600 Club.

      That’s the whole history beyond my posting on Satanic forums. I’ve been on 600 Club because I like this forum and discussions there. I don’t attend any other forum. I have one blog where I post one essay per month on average. I rarely visit other people’s blogs to comment there. The only blogs I occasionally drop in belong to VK Jehannum and Darryl. But the emphasis is on “occasionally.” You exaggerate with the “plethora of posts” I made about satanism and the ONA. I’ve been posting since 2011 so it’s a time span of several years.

      As I wrote, I post from my own personal perspective. Please explain what a Christian perspective means. Do you think that all Christians share the same perspective? I’m a real person, why try to squeeze me into a little box? Why accuse of dishonesty if I’ve been pretty direct all the time?

      Like

      • WyrdSister says:

        Your wordy reply does not answer the questions asked, one of which was why would a self-professed Christian post so many posts on satanic forums and blogs without once criticizing Satanism per se or satanists per se.

        You wrote: {quote} I post from my own personal perspective {/quote}

        If you really are a Christian then you have a suprapersonal perspective by virtue of being, of self-identifying as, a Christian. If you have no such suprapersonal perspective – in which Yeshua as Christ and the Word of God (the new post-Mosaic Law) as revealed in the New Testament figure in some way – then you are not, ipso facto, a Christian. For a Christian is someone who follows or seeks to follow the life and teachings of Yeshua as revealed in the New Testament and as interpreted by a particular tradition (be that Catholic or Protestant) or by some Church or sect or by your own interpretation and study of God’s revelation.

        You also wrote: {quote} why try to squeeze me into a little box? Why accuse of dishonesty if I’ve been pretty direct all the time {/quote}

        Apparently yet another attempt to deflect attention away from yourself by asking questions of “us”. Which of course is ignoratio elenchi. Particularly as “we” did not accuse you of dishonesty, for we wrote that your own comment apparently indicated that you “would be dishonest to avoid certain questions.” That you – apparently yet again – ignored our careful phrasing and seem to have made an unwarranted assumption is interesting.

        Since it is obvious that you are not going to answer the questions asked, and instead will just make excuses for not doing so, and also employ ignoratio elenchi and argumentum ad nauseam to try and divert the attention of your readers from you failure to so directly answer, further comments by us on this particular matter are superfluous.

        But as a matter of interest – possibly for your future reference or for that a few of your readers, since the term argumentum ad hominem is regularly mentioned in internet “dialectical responses” – the term “ad” in the phrase argumentum ad hominem is usually taken as implying “against”, hence “against the person” – specifically against the character of the person – rather than “against” the argument advanced by the person. However, the precise sense is “to” rather than “against”, and the argument is thus directed to (that is, at) what the person has already advanced and/or at the logical consequences of what has been advanced, and so if used in this precise sense argumentum ad hominem may not always be a fallacy.

        An analogy is the cross-examination of a defendant during a criminal trial in a British Crown Court. The past convictions of the defendant – which might thus bring into question his/her character – cannot be mentioned unless, for example, the defendant during a cross-examination by the Prosecution or by a Barrister for a co-defendant mentions or identifies a particular person or persons by name in relation to certain events which may be of a criminal nature. It has been known for some Prosecutors or for a Barrister of a co-defendant to ask certain questions of a defendant in order to elicit a certain response.

        Like

    • annaczereda says:

      Being a Christian means belief in God and practising the virtue of misericordia in your daily life. Feel free to be my judge and a prosecutor as you’ve been for more than three years because apparently you know a lot about my life.
      As a side note, humility doesn’t mean being a sucker. The first Christians were humble but it took some degree of arrogance to throw down the gauntlet to the Emperor of Rome.

      Like

      • WyrdSister says:

        Anna C wrote: {quote} Being a Christian means belief in God and practising the virtue of misericordia in your daily life {/quote}

        Interesting, and perhaps indicative given that you make no mention of Yeshua, especially as belief in ‘God’ – in some supreme deity – and in practising the virtues of mercy and kindness, could describe many religions, including Judaism. For is it not written – Midrash Ruth Rabbah ii 13 – that “Rabbi Rav Ze’ira said: For what purpose was this (scroll) written? To teach how great is the reward of those who do deeds of misericordia.” As to whether the Latin misericordia is a reasonable translation of the Hebrew term used – chesed – is a matter for learned scholars, although given the various meanings of the Latin in classical and medieval times (such as compassion, mercy) and the accepted interpretation of chesed (loving-kindness) it seems apposite.

        All in all, and after a somewhat revealing debate, it is perhaps time for “us” to say adieu.

        Like

  14. annaczereda says:

    @WyrdSister
    So finally you figured it out. Yes, I’m a Jew. Here, have a cookie.

    There is a reason for the prohibition on making icons of God. The icon is not the Spirit, it merely represents the reality beyond, like the finger pointing at the moon. Don’t look at the finger, look at the moon.

    There is only one God, although known by many names and enshrined in many icons and religions ranging from antiquity to our modern times. All of them are merely feeble reflections of Divinity. “For now we see through a glass, darkly…” Being unable to understand this is failing to see the forest for all the trees there.

    I doubt you are an adept of any esoteric tradition, be it ONA or anything else. I also doubt you have any clue what the occult means because you exhibit the same superficial pedantry and the focus on theatrics as an average mediocre adherent of any organized religion or a cult. I bet it suits your mediocre pseudo-initiates just fine.

    Perhaps, it is indeed time to say goodbye because there is no understanding between us and never will be.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s