Interview With Jake Hanrahan And ABG Lodge

Posted: April 17th, 2021 | Author: | Filed under: David Myatt, Drecc, Dreccian, Far-Right, Islam, Journalism, Labyrinthos Mythologicus, Leftists, Liberals, Media Attention, Mundanes, National Socialism, O9A, O9A Nine Angles, Occultism, Order of Nine Angles, Order of the Nine Angles, Reports, Satanic Heresy, Satanic Polemics, Sinister Japes, The Sinister Dialectic, The Sinister Game, The Star Game | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Interview With Jake Hanrahan And ABG Lodge

.:.Jake Hanrahan interviews one of the Founders of ABG Lodge about the Order of Nine Angles. I understand that Jake Hanrahan and ABG Lodge will be doing a series of podcast episodes regarding various ONA matters and stuff. The first episode:

I have no opinions about the content of this specific podcast episode. Never trust any person that forms an opinion about things in a matter of seconds or minutes, because such opinions are not intelligent or articulate: such opinions are emotive and born from whimsical emotions and feelings. And we know that emotions are by nature: irrational. It takes time to intelligently formulate an opinion about a given topic, matter, or issue; because one needs to collect data, information, intelligence, figure out the context of things, figure out the underlining motive of all parties involved, figure out who the intended audience is, and so on.

I do believe the ABG Associate answered questions asked of him well and honestly. Such answers may not always be the kind of answers a Questioner may always desire to hear.

Although I don’t personally have any opinions about the content of the interview, I have a small friendly suggestion for Jake Hanrahan:

There is nothing wrong with questioning ONA, nothing wrong with asking an ONA person questions about whatever topic or subject matter. There is also nothing wrong with having negative feelings and opinions about ONA.

But answers to a line of questions become pointless if and when the line of questioning is itself pointless and incoherent.

And so my little friendly suggestion for Jake is that you need to give your body of questions, your line of questioning, some kind of structure and format. Doing a freestyle and formless episode like this may be fun and easy, but it makes things hard for your listener/audience to Follow [per non-sequitur].

For example, there first must exist a desired outcome or an over-all idea that you wish to get across to your audience. You then break down that over-all idea into steps:

Over-all idea = ONA

Therefore: Who, What, When, Where, Why, & How. Thus:

Who: Who founded the ONA? Who is Anton Long? Who is Anton Long said to be? Is David Myatt Anton Long? Who is David Myatt?

What: What is ONA? What makes ONA different [or the same or whatever] from the Church of Satan, the Mormon Church, or whatever… What makes the ONA, the ONA?

When: When did the ONA come into existence?

Where: Where did the ONA come into existence?

Why: Why does the ONA exist? What is its raison d’etre? Why did Anton Long create the ONA?

How: How [in what way] does the ONA exist? How does a person become ONA? How might a person practice ONA?

And then each of those steps can be further, fractally, broken down into the Core Questions:

Who: Who is “Anton Long?” We know that “Anton Long” is a pen-name. To whom does that pen-name belong? Could it belong to David Matt as some journalists and academics say?

What: What evidence, or lack thereof, exists to show or prove that “Anton Long” is whoever people say he is. Is he David Myatt? How do we know that? Is he a professor at some university? How do we know that?

When: When did this “Anton Long” create the ONA? And what exactly do we mean by “create” and “ONA.”

Where: Where does this person using the pen-name “Anton Long” live? Can we obtain such information by the language and vocabulary and spelling that the said person uses?

Why: Why did this person behind the pen-name “Anton Long” create the ONA? What is his motive? What does he desire to accomplish? Does he just simply desire to be a cult leader of his own Satanic thing like Anton LaVey? Did he create ONA as a honey-trap to covert occult oriented people into Neo-Nazis? And for what purpose?

And you can have a different subtopic where you [Jake] would say: “So let’s talk a little about some things that ONA teaches or does… like worship the Devil or be racist nazis.”

You would then use the Core Questions to formulate a body of questions for your person you are asking pertaining to that subtopic. You articulate a coherent line of questioning, in order to derive or obtain an articulate body of answers. Because a properly articulated body of questions and answers produces something that is easy for the listener to also articulate in our/their minds. This is called “Effective Communication,” meaning that you desire, as a Communicator, to Communicate, Convey, a certain idea or concept – biased or unbiashed, objective or unobjective – to a given audience, such that your audience not only understands you but also sympathizes or even agrees with your ideas or concept you are trying to convey: hence the word “Effective.”

Formatting or structuring your line of questions is not for the person you are interviewing, it’s for the sake of your listener, it’s more effective at communicating an idea or concept, and it makes your content sound and feel more professional.

A secret to Effective Communication is that we [the person trying to communicate shit to others] must expend – in ratio – more energy and time into articulating and explaining our thoughts to our audience/listerner/reader, than the energy [brain energy taxes the body’s oxygen and food supply] our audience/listener/reader will put in to process the information we give to them.

And so, in an interview, such as a podcast like this one: Both you and the person being interviewed, must work together in order to expend more energy in articulating and explaining, so that your audience expends less energy to consume the information you are trying to give/convey to them. And a body of questions in a formatted or structured form is how you dance with the person you are interviewing, to work with them.

This is just simply how all biological organisms function on this earth: any organism, if it had to choose between a food resource that is easy to Digest and a food resource that requires a lot of energy to Digest: would choose the easy to Digest food. Fractally: if you are mining for bitcoins, and all of your computers use up more energy in Value than the value of the bitcoins you have mined: then… your bitcoins aren’t worth much, relatively speaking. Now… if you gave away those bitcoins you have mined to people for free: that is Effective Communication. Why? Because those people you gave those bitcoins to did not have to spend much energy mining those bitcoins, and so the ratio of Energy : Gain = Good/Beneficial. Less energy and more Gain = good/beneficial for all and any living organism.

Why does the ONA have an easy time growing and spreading? Because of this same Fractal Biological Principle of the Ratio of Energy:Gain. Anton Long expended 40-50 years in explaining ONA shit in 5000 pages of stuff. Therefore: as a person studying ONA who may be drawn to its Mythos, the energy:gain ratio is beneficial [you don’t have to put in 40 years, Anton Long is giving what he learned to you]. And, biologically speaking, what is beneficial means that not only will you be able to survive but also to Thrive. And so, the secret in Effective Communication is to take the Responsibility to help or cause your audience to Thrive.

It’s a simple Law of Nature that all biological organisms – including us human beings – and superorganisms and systems [such as an ecosystem] function on. Why do Fruit Trees propagate so well? Because Fruit Trees put in an enormous amount of time and energy producing sweet fruits for birds and animals to eat. Therefore the energy:gain ratio for those birds and animals regarding the fruits is “beneficial” meaning: Less Energy in exchange for More calories, sugars, food resource [the birds and animals eat the fruit, and spread its seeds via their poop]. One’s views, morals, opinions, ideas, inventions, religion, ideology function on the same fractal principle of energy:gain ratio. If the ratio = Beneficial, the said things will propagate easily.

And so, a secret to building an audience, for developing influence, for having Effective Communication skills is to simply take the full Responsibility in properly articulating, explaining, and conveying to people your ideas or opinions, so that those people easily understand what exactly you desire for them to understand without them using up their own energy to do so. What you are doing is giving them Free Knowledge without them having to expend their own energy to acquire that knowledge. Just like the bitcoin example, just like how an ecosystem propagates itself. It’s how genes and memes propagate. Less Energy : More Gain = Beneficial; Beneficial = Thrive. That is the formula for spreading ideas and opinions. By that same formula, all kingdoms and empires, all religions, all corporations, and political parties spread and gain adherents/markets. By that same formula, Hitler gained power over Germany: he helped Germany, which was fucked up after WW1, to Thrive. If an idea, ideology, political view/model helps a person or people Thrive, then it will spread, by Law of Nature: all organisms, superorganism [such as nation-states, political parties, ant colonies], and ecosystems, desire to Thrive.

/Chloe

 

 


Sheikh Abdul Aziz ibn Myatt

Posted: February 25th, 2021 | Author: | Filed under: David Myatt, Islam | Tags: , | Comments Off on Sheikh Abdul Aziz ibn Myatt

.:.There was a time when DM was a Muslim. During that time he wrote a lot of Islamic stuff. He kept most of his Islamic writings at a website once. To archive those writings, I made a copy of that website 9 years ago; to preserve DM’s Islamic stuff. I have read and studied everything written by DM.

Whenever you read and objectively study DM’s writings, you must always keep three questions in mind: 1) Who is/was his [intended] audience at the time of writing, 2) What is/was he trying to accomplish during the period of writing [what is/was his motive/intentions], & 3) Why was he trying to do what he was trying to do [to what End]?

And so, if you have not ever read those old Islamic writings of DM’s or if you don’t already have a copy of the collection, you can download a copy here [Please do keep in mind that DM has renounced all forms of extremism and that this collection is old stuff belonging to a previous decade and a previous/defunct “iteration of David Myatt”]:

Sheikh Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt
(PDF)

 

/Chloe