Mad As A Hatter

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

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

mad_hatter_funny_motivational_quote_post_cards-rd6aa26177e6b483e85736ac54f540baf_vgbaq_8byvr_512

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agios oh Modemoiselle Baphomet!!!

To be continued…

penny-witch

 

Advertisements

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?

The Man Behind The Typewriter

b0848832c44561cf5aee3c945a827b65

Today on https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/ there appeared an extract from Myatt’s letter to a personal correspondent from March 2015. Since it keeps appearing and disappearing (Fata Morgana?) here it is:

concerning-scholarship

From how this shit reads, David Myatt has nothing to do with Anton Long and apparently such a thing as the Order of Nine Angles does not exist:

Such a smile, from me, because not only has no one undertaken any scholarly research either (i) into my life and diverse peregrinations and my recently developed weltanschauung based on my own pathei-mathos, or (ii) into that apparent ‘occult’ group with which I have, by many people and despite any evidence, been associated.
.
Well, it seems that old motherfucker and his close circle of bullshitters have pwned us all but before we start mourning, let’s see the brighter side of things. We no longer have to wrap our heads around this overwhelming question who is the real O9A and who is a pretender because since there is no O9A, there is nothing to imitate. What a pity the Church of Satan isn’t a hoax too because we wouldn’t have to wonder who is a true Satanist and who is a fake Satanist. Since there is no O9A, we don’t have to worry about some useless Code of Sinister Honor and sinister etiquette. Instead, now every O9A minion can call other O9A minions whatever vile names he/she chooses. You cunt, you dick, you jerk, you jackass, you faggot, you dumbfuck, you fruitcake, you stupid donkey, you fucking pedophile etc are all allowed. There are now no rules to follow and no mommy and daddy telling you what to do. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. This is not even democracy, this is happy anarchy! You no longer need to prove your sinister deeds to anyone and there will be no culling for sticking beautiful O9A feathers up your ass.
.
Moving-animated-picture-of-chicken-dance-7
*     *     *
There is beauty in rumors, gossip and conspiracy theories. They not only give birth to myths, legends and folk tales but also enhance the imagination of those engaging in them. Nothing feeds creativity more than mystery. Were those crop circles created by aliens? If so, why did they do it? What did their spaceship look like? Probably, it’s not true but who cares as long as it blows your mind?
.
After complaining about the gossip and assumptions about him, DM goes on to write:
It has always made me smile that those academics who have written about or who have mentioned me in articles, papers, books, or theses – and often in connection with rumours of a certain involvement by me in certain esoteric things – have never (with a few noticeable exceptions) bothered to do the honourable thing and thus contact and/or find me and/or request a personal meeting in order to ascertain my ‘side of the story’. The exceptions being Professor Kaplan, Professor George Michael, and Professor Monette, although even they never met with me personally.
.
Does it really matter who the man behind the curtain is? As long as the story is interesting, is it important who the author is? When you read a poem, does it matter what the poet had on his mind? When you look at a painting, does it matter what the painter wanted to show? Does a story or a poem have only one correct interpretation? I remember writing my master’s thesis about Angela Carter. Her novels were full of ambiguous intertextual figures and symbols. There were many scholarly works and PhD dissertations written after her death. Did anyone talk to Ms Carter? No, because she was dead. Neither did she ever explain what she meant in her often elaborate writings. So the readers, including students and scholars, have always seen in her fiction what they wanted to see.
*     *     *
How important is it whether Anton Long is one person or several peeps indulging in writing stories? Does it matter whether Anton LaVey was a theist or an atheist? Does it really matter whether real Jesus existed or what Buddha’s life really look like? The myth is real as long as it exists in people’s minds and as long as it continues to intrigue and inspire. What you see in it and what you take from it is up to you.
.