On Being Eco-Sinister

2560385_370

My buddy, Darryl, has recently shared The Temple of the Earth’s blog post, “David Myatt on Animal Cruelty”, thinking that it somehow proves his hypothesis that the ONA betrayed David Myatt’s heritage. Browsing this nexion of vegan nature lovers’ WordPress, the reader might get an impression that the ONA internet subculture, influenced by Myatt’s latest hippie writings, has turned into tree-hugging Wicca, having the sugar-coated vision of nature as something harmonious unless disturbed by humans. Turning its back on Satanism, the ONA virtual society has largely forsaken the more complex and realistic vision of nature, as depicted in the icon of Baphomet, the image of the nurturing and, at the same time, destructive Mother. But for now on, let’s focus on this particular blog, which mainly is a quotation from Myatt’s essay, “Honour, Empathy and the Question of Suffering.”

Myatt writes:

We should treat animals as we ourselves, as individual beings, would like to be treated. Would we wish to be subject to pain? To suffer? Would we wish to be captured, and held in captivity, and experimented on, and breed for food and for slaughter? No, of course not.

Now, who wasn’t moved, at least once, by all those tear-some Yahoo stories about faithful dogs and fluffy kittens abandoned and tortured, and murdered by all those cruel and heartless humans? Who didn’t shed a tear at the sight of Facebook campaigns to raise money to rescue a poor sick dog or adopt a lonely cat? Perhaps, we aren’t that bad since we feel for the poor suffering animals?

Now, what about bedbugs and cockroaches? Can we empathize with them? It’s not bedbugs’ fault that they bite our asses at night. Why are cockroaches to blame that they look so disgusting to our eyes? Why do we mercilessly fight with them? Why do we swap mosquitoes and flies? So what is the thing with our human empathy?

The nature lovers love the animals, sure, but only those which are… cute. Like the ones you see on Facebook photos. When it comes to the rest, which is less visually pleasant or is in some way bothersome, it’s the dog eat dog world.

Then Myatt goes on:

Thus, we need to feel and know – to accept – how we are but one small manifestation of Life, connected to all life in the Cosmos. What we do, or do not do, has consequences for ourselves and for other Life. To have empathy – to be empathic – is to be an evolved and evolving human being: it is to be and behave as an adult, a rational human being rather than as the children we have been for so many thousands of years with our tantrums, our squabbles, our pride, our need to fulfil our own desires regardless of the suffering we might or do cause to others, to animals, to Life.

Does anyone remember Michael Jackson’s famous “Earth Song”?

Did you ever stop to notice
All the blood we’ve shed before
Did you ever stop to notice
This crying Earth, these weeping shores
.
Aah, ooh
.
What have we done to the world
Look what we’ve done
What about all the peace
That you pledge your only son
 .
What about flowering fields..
.

All right. I’d better stop at this lest I get sick. But seriously, what about all those animals killing their young or mates? What about predators and parasites? What about the merciless nature regularly waging the war with humans through natural disasters? The eco-sinister nature-lovers would surely repeat after the Green Religion gurus that the animals don’t have reason like humans and that floods and tornadoes are the result of the global warming. That we should invest more money in solar or wind energy, become vegans or, like Darryl writes, close down the zoos. It doesn’t matter that an animal has a higher chance of survival in captivity than in the wild and that the veterinary care and captive breeding helped to save many animals and occasionally entire species forsaken by oh so cute Mommy Nature. But hey, there is not such a thing as natural selection, let’s sweep that dirt under the rug.

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.

 

 

Mad As A Hatter

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

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

mad_hatter_funny_motivational_quote_post_cards-rd6aa26177e6b483e85736ac54f540baf_vgbaq_8byvr_512

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agios oh Modemoiselle Baphomet!!!

To be continued…

penny-witch

 

The Satanic Icons And The Question Of Evil

 

The propaganda war between the Order of Nine Angles and other forms of Satanism resembles the epic marketing war between two famous brands: Coca Cola and Pepsi. Both sides of the “conflict” tried to emphasize their uniqueness and prove to the populace that one was better than the other. The point was not only to brag about one’s superior qualities but also put down the competition. So Coca Cola tried to convince the market that Pepsi tasted like shit and vice versa. When one recalls that legendary war, it’s then easier to understand why the Old Guards of the ONA keep bashing Anton LaVey and blowing their own trumpet at the same time. It’s also easier to understand why the Church of Satan keeps denigrating its competition like Aquino or the Satanic Temple.

The cult of personality is amusing when it comes to Satanism but it’s also understandable given human nature. Charismatic individuals and visionaries (such as Anton LaVey , David Myatt and any individuals who could use the pen name of Anton Long) tend to attract followers and fanboys, often unimaginative ones. It’s also the aim of those in business to make the pasture for the sheep greener by providing more and more bullshit; building the mythos and spreading gossip.

So on one side we have the Church of Satan and Anton LaVey’s fanboys who take all of what he wrote uncritically. If you want to be a true Satanist, follow LaVey’s teachings. The CoS priesthood builds LaVey’s mythos deliberately and spreads such nonsense like that he put a curse on Sam Brody, who died because of that, or that he played the Devil’s part in “Rosemary’s Baby.” Half of Anton LaVey’s life is shrouded in mystery and subject to rumors and speculation and it’s in the interest of the Church of Satan as an organization to perpetuate the mythos.

It’s not much different in the case of Anton Long and the ONA. It’s not known for sure who Anton Long is and the life of David Myatt, himself, is also shrouded in mystery. Some of his deeds are documented but there are also rumors, speculations and conspiracy theories. Myatt’s friends denigrate LaVey and try to replace the cult of Anton LaVey with the cult of David Myatt, at the same time perpetuating the legends and rumors about him. One of such rumors is that Myatt inspired the bomber, Copeland. Perhaps, he did. Perhaps, he didn’t. All we have is the gossip of the leftist morons from Searchlight.

It’s quite amusing how the ONA Old Guards keep accusing Anton LaVey of not being evil and creating a “philosophy of a rapist and a bully.” It’s hilarious not only because Satanism according to Anton LaVey has nothing to do with rape or bullying but also because it’s a contradiction. Bullying and rape are evil or, at least, they seem to be evil according to the popular understanding of evil as “morally depraved, bad, wicked, vicious, harmful, malicious, unlawful, dangerous, deadly.” This is the pop culture definition of evil and Satan embraced now by the ONA polemicists, slightly revised since “Geryne of Satan” was written. According to this brand new definition (taken straight from the horror movies and criminal stories) Mallam from “The Giving” is an embodiment of evil and a true villain since he breaks the ultimate social taboo – pedophilia. He and his comrades rape young girls and virgins on the altar of Satan. Deprived of any moral scruples, he resembles libertines as described by Marquis de Sade and as such he is antinomian, breaks the status quo, thus being the very embodiment of Satan and the left hand path.

This brings us to this great overwhelming question. What is evil? What does Satan really stand for? Isn’t there more to the antinomian evil than its cliche definition? The devil in Greek means a slanderer, a person who spreads false accusations. In Hebrew Bible Satan means a political or military opponent. In the Book of Job, Satan is a member of God’s council. He’s an adversary to Job, his accuser. He’s the one who doubts his virtue and wants to test him subjecting him to suffering. The adversity that Satan stands for shows what Job is made of. Only later in the Bible Satan becomes a tempter, an evil creature leading people to sin.

The concept of sin exists in every religion. It also existed in the ancient pagan religions; the judgement of Osiris, the torment of sinners in Tartarus, to name just the few. Though the Greek gods had all the human faults and weaknesses, a “sin” seems to be going against gods’ will. Prometheus, Sisyphus, Niobe and Arachne were all guilty of the sin of hubris; fancying themselves greater than gods and being able to outwit them. The “sin” of Prometheus is very similar to the original sin the first humans committed in Eden. Also Milton’s Satan was guilty of excessive pride.

In Xenophon’s “Memorabilia of Socrates” the goddess κακία appears who represents vice as opposed to arete (virtue). She offers Heracles an easy life full of indulgence and free of suffering and labor:

In the first place, you shall take no thought of wars or state affairs, but shall pass your time considering what meat or drink you may find to gratify your appetite, what you may delight yourself by seeing or hearing, what you may be pleased with smelling or touching, with what objects of affection you may have most pleasure in associating, how you may sleep most softly, and how you may secure all these enjoyments with the least degree of trouble.

That vision of vice is quite similar to the interpretation of vice/sin by Anton LaVey. Anton LaVey’s Devil also resembles a bit Slavic devils, Lukhavi and Chort, who embody the material/carnal world as opposed to the spiritual one.

Anton LaVey’s Satanism was a reaction to Christianity. It is evil because it opposes the Christian morality and embraces that which is regarded as sinful by the contemporary Christian society. The ONA goes much further in its antinomianism as it supports killing and the incitement to murder. However, the ONA heresy is tempered by its ethics (sinister honor) which somehow doesn’t go that far from the ethics of the modern society. Wouldn’t the majority of people applaud Lianna’s disposal of that bastard Mallam? There were a few cases in my country, when the angry mob of “decent citizens” wanted to lynch a murderer or a child abuser. It seems that the ONA repeats after Anton LaVey: “Do not harm little children.”

Does the Devil have any boundaries?

Puss In ONA Boots

e-Puss-in-Boots-web

The recent topic on the 600 Club forum titled Paris attacks and the ONA caught attention of Mr Parker, the famous ONA propagandist and a tabloid writer. For those who don’t know, the 600 club is a “plebeian forum” populated by “mundane pseudo-Satanists” who kill time by posting there their “worthless opinions”. That doesn’t put off Mr Parker though, who like a tabloid journalist reads every topic there, scrupulously takes notes and from time to time even screenshots like a professional paparazzi. The said topic, which dealt not only with the ONA but also with terrorism, ISIS and propaganda in general, got on Mr Parker’s nerves so much that he farted out several furious articles, most of them he later deleted, probably because he was ashamed of the neurotic behavior he displayed..

Now now… before anyone starts protesting vehemently that it’s all Labyrinthos Mythologicus, let’s not forget that a true comedy is an art and throwing tantrums online makes every comedy rather banal. Besides, such behavior is hardly befitting of a refined gentleman Mr Parker prides himself on being, just like some vulgar words he uses:

Cue, therefore, much blogorrhea and forumorrhea by such self-described modern satanists. (“What Would Be The Reaction” posted on http://www.o9a.org/)

Someone should tell Mr Parker to mind his manners. Shouldn’t the member of the aristocracy, the elite of the elite, creme de la creme be smarter and more aloof? Plato rolls in his grave and what would Aristotle say? Either Mr Parker behaves himself or he will prove himself plebeian. Let’s hold Mr Parker to his own standards.

In “Regarding the O9A” Mr Parker writes:

…the O9A’s ‘sinister game’ – with its Labyrinthos Mythologicus, japes, polemics, propaganda, and tests – has been played via the intert00b since at least 1998 ev. That self-described modern ‘satanists’ keep mentioning – if only to denigrate – the O9A via the intert00b is proof of just how successful the O9A have played that game.

Mr Parker now accuses everyone of denigrating the ONA though it was mentioned in the thread that the ONA mythos is a fascinating and intriguing thing to study. Hardly anyone bashed the ONA, criticizing specific people is not the same as criticizing ideas. One can appreciate the ONA and not appreciate the tabloid essays of Mr Parker, an armchair philosopher who tends to judge people on the basis of their posts and blogs.

Yet not one of these self-described modern, internet-bound, O9A-denigrating, ‘satanists’ (with their puffery and egoism and their mundane assumptions about satanism and the O9A and those involved with the O9A) can understand – let alone translate, unaided – a simple quotation such as the following: τὰ κατὰ τὸν Τάγμα των Εννιά Γωνιών ἤτοι ἱστορικῶς ἐκληπτέον ἢ πλασματικῶς καὶ ὑποθετικῶς διὰ τὸ εὐπρόσωπον τοῦ λόγου.

“What he says about Perses Order of Nine Angles must be understood either historically or as a matter of fiction and dramatic writing for the sake of giving an attractive character to the discourse.” (Hesiod) The attractiveness of Mr Parker’s discourse is highly disputable though I can agree his butthurt is epic.

For it’s just so indicative that those smug wordsmiths who – via the internet denigrate the O9A and pontificate about satanism – have no documented sinister, satanic, deeds to their name and prefer to remain anonymous.

Now, Mr Parker is fooling no one. Let’s see what “pseudonymous Anton Long” writes about anonymity in “The Satanic Letters”:

“In view of the controversy in Occult circles about using ‘pseudonyms’ and the desire of certain groups to operate ‘underground’ without media scrutiny – a subject mentioned by Dr. Aquino in his letters and since taken up by a number of others both within and without the LHP – the following observations are in order:

*It has been for many centuries an established principle among LHP Adepts to work in a reclusive manner in ‘secret’. The reason for this is basically two-fold: the magickal work is mis-understood by ‘outsiders’ [ and often by such people catagorized from their own social/political/religious perspectives] and to try and explain it to non-Initiates was seen as a waste of time; and, secondly, it enabled that work to be undertaken without hindrance from interfering individuals and officials. Without this secrecy, the LHP would not have survived. Today, conditions have changed somewhat, but still not enough in some areas .

* A labyrinth was created to confuse the merely curious and those seeking to disrupt the magickal work and tradition.

* Quite often, LHP Adepts have a ‘seperate professional’ life (which in some cases is part of their long-term magickal goals) and the ‘stigma’ of involvement with magick would be detrimental to that. Quite often this seperate life is beneficial to the evolution of the ‘Occult* in general as it provides opportunities for dissemination (mostly clandestine) .

That some individuals have gone ‘public’ is fair enough – that is their
decision. But those who prefer or need to work ‘underground’ in order to continue their own reclusive and secret traditions should not be castigated for in many cases they are guardians who can never have a ‘public’ Occult role. Societies, and the individuals within them, are still structured on the basis of categories and generalizations.”

Now from Hostia II:

“This working secrecy is necessary because Satanism cannot now be anything other than selective – it is elitist, being a hard and dangerous path, and part of its effectiveness lies in work of an underground, clandestine nature.”

Mr Parker seems to hold “mainstream sources” in a very high regard. Does that include tabloids? Or he’s simply lying and deliberately spreading disinformation. The latter one is more probable since Mr Parker regularly lies and even brags about being a “mischievous” liar though he’s a very poor one. Does someone living the sinister life need an acknowledgement by the books or the media? Is such an acknowledgement a fruit or a mere byproduct of someone’s sinister deeds?

Then, Mr Parker enumerates the adventures and achievements of David Myatt, saying that none of these self-proclaimed Satanists led an equally heretical and antinomian life and how does he know that? What can one say about people and their lives on the basis of their internet posts? Now, what about empathy and judging people on the basis of one’s personal knowing of them? What can you know about someone’s life if the only thing you have are the words on the screen? If someone wanted to psychoanalyze Mr Parker on the basis of his blogs, the only conclusion to draw would be that he’s a rather neurotic guy. How correct would be that psychoanalysis? Yet, Mr Parker casts judgements left and right.

Unless and until such self-described modern satanists have such or similar documented sinister and years-long experience, in the real world, then their pontifications about the O9A and about satanism will be worthless, the puffery of charlatans.

This is a purely fallacious statement. The appeal to the authority/accomplishment is Mr Parker’s favorite fallacy. The topic wasn’t about David Myatt, nobody negated his achievements. How is discussing things that interest you, exchanging views, opinions and learning through the dialogue puffery?

And finally, Mr Parker writes:

That some or many mundanes might be impressed by such charlatans – and take them and their pontifications about the O9A and satanism seriously – is most amusing.

Now, we can conclude that Mr Parker is a “mundane” considering the number of fucks he gives about our worthless posts. These are very important opinions since he reads them regularly and blogs about them. He and Ms Morticia aka Pointed Ears claimed many times they consider “plebeian opinions” irrelevant and don’t care about them but obviously they DO care since they wrote plenty of long diatribes against “pretenders”, “plebeians” and “pseudo-Satanists”, desperately seeking relevance among people they so ostentatiously despise.