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.

Advertisements

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.

 

 

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

You have to help me!

What do you want me to do?

I want you to kill me.

Kill me!!!

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

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

It Is With Regret

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

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.
.