“Ecce homo,” behold the man! These words, proclaimed by Pontius Pilate when presenting a bloody and ravaged Jesus to an incensed crowd prior to his crucifixion (John 19:5), formed the title of one of Nietzsche’s last works. Of these, Walter Kaufmann has commented that “none has proved harder to understand than Ecce Homo.”[1] During his final days, Nietzsche is said to have written “a few mad but strangely beautiful letters” before “darkness closed in and extinguished passion and intelligence. He suffered and thought no more. He had burnt himself out.”[2]
Ecce homo. Behold the man. In choosing this title, Nietzsche was not suggesting a “close similarity between himself and Jesus” but nearly the opposite: “Here is a man! Here is a new, a different image of humanity: not a saint or holy man any more than a traditional sage, but a modern version.”[3]
Both characterizations are relevant to the current state of the o9a. Contrary to the seductive parachute-morality of the delightful blackguard Kurgan in Highlander, who declared that “it’s better to burn out than fade away,” I don’t think any of us want to see this tradition hornswoggled out of its inheritance, either burning out and extinguished from its “fruitless deeds of darkness” or fading away as a self-fulfilling effigy.
In a recent article titled “O9A: A Moral Dilemma?”, The Seven Oxonians insisted that the o9a should be considered defunct. I couldn’t disagree more. The issue of culpability and responsibility is a serious question considering the mendacious charges levied against the o9a by the media and renewed attempts to ban it as a terrorist organization. But I don’t think I’m alone in feeling rage, contempt, and disgust at the gaggle of moral mountebanks, psychopaths, degenerates, and pedophiles who have damaged the name of the o9a irrevocably.
Irrevocably? Maybe. But I think we all know better than to buy into the mendicant bullshit and skullduggery the media is selling us, outstretched and offered in obligation as a gift, as charity, while foiled and furled as a corpse and a curse, an ethical guillotine. Yes, we all know better. No one here is a stranger to tragedy. And the stories we hear in the media of the easy targets and impressionable lives ruined by callous disregard for the well-being of others is tragic. Unconscionable. Despicable. Who among us would sanction the kind of behavior we hear about the o9a daily in the media, let alone encourage it? Not anyone I would call my own. Time and time again, we’ve seen that opponents of the o9a aren’t interested in logic-chopping, fact-based argumentation, or any evidence it has to offer. They are interested in one thing: erecting a strawman in the mires of their moral Gethsemane worthy of chopping down.
But who can blame them? The Seven Oxonians are right in one important respect: the disavowal of any responsibility for said acts based on the o9a’s “anarchic nature” is completely disingenuous. For a tradition that prides itself on honor and the integrity required to uphold it, it’s disgraceful that anyone claiming association with this tradition can stand idly by and pretend the very real lives ruined, destroyed, and demolished by individuals who drew inspiration from their own radical misinterpretation of something so entrenched in enigmatic mystery and misdirection – “so well hidden by a ‘Labyrinthos Mythologicus’” – that only one or two individuals per decade can discern its hard-earned truths isnothing more than a theoretical pretext to eschew any responsibility! It’s shameful.
Yes, who can blame them? Who can blame the media for chopping down a strawman we provided? And who can blame anyone for insisting that the o9a should be considered defunct, that its “moral defects render it unsuitable as a modern practical guide to Lapis Philosophicus”? Some might say that it’s hard to find fault with either side. But viddy well, o my brothers and sisters, viddy well: find fault we must, and with both, for the o9a is very much alive.
Betwixt this bunker of suspicion and hostility there lies a deeper truth, a truer burden, a window of canteened doubt, charisma, and care. I care. We all do. Are we to just stand idly by and watch the holes we’ve bored at the base of this ship sink our kin and kith forever? Absolutely not. No, for all my years in academia studying philosophy, there’s one philosophy I live by: if there’s a chance, we have to take it.
So behold the man! What is needed now is not blame or random acts of cruelty, but decisive action, encouragement, clarity, precision, and a baseline of inspiration necessary to bring out the best in the o9a’s best and brightest. What is needed is a different image of humanity, a different o9a: “not a saint or holy man any more than a traditional sage, but a modern version.”
Now, in the words and moon-folk melancholic wisdom of Townes Van Zandt, who said all this better than I ever could: “Won’t you lend your lungs to me? Mine are collapsing.” If we’re banned, we’re banned; but at least we’ll tell the world that we tried.
Won’t you lend your lungs to me?
Mine are collapsing
Plant my feet and bitterly breathe
Up the time that’s passing
Breath I’ll take and breath I’ll give
Pray the day’s not poised
Stand among the ones that live
In lonely indecision
Fingers walk the darkness down
Mind is on the midnight
Gather up the gold you’ve found
You fool, it’s only moonlight
And if you stop to take it home
Your hands will turn to butter
Better leave this dream alone
Try to find another
Salvation sat and crossed herself
And called the devil partner
Wisdom burned upon a shelf
Who’ll kill the raging cancer
Seal the river at its mouth
Take the water prisoner
Fill the sky with screams and cries
Bathe in fiery answers
Jesus was an only son
And love his only concept
Strangers cry in foreign tongues
And dirty up the doorstep
And I for one, and you for two,
Ain’t got the time for outside
Keep your injured looks to you
We’ll tell the world that we tried
Nameless Therein
“Singing for the sake of the song”
March 8, 2023
[1] Walter Kaufmann, introduction to Ecce Homo, by Friedrich Nietzsche, trans. and ed. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Vintage Books, 1989), 202.
In the words of Jason “JD” Dean from the iconoclastic cult-classic film Heathers, I would like to wish our friends, idolatrizers, associates, apostates, and enemies alike a hearty “greetings and salutations” as we make our way into the spring season.
Amidst the usual intellectual hopscotch and foul-play we find levied at our invisible tradition by opponents, the reality behind these violent cognitive distortions is sadly not as exciting. No, behind renewed threats of banning the o9a and the Trojan hyperboles used to justify it, things have been relatively quiet in the o9a. Contrary to the usual smear-campaigns and low-hanging fruit the media is fond of plucking from the poisoned roots of their knavish distortions of this tradition, our obvious quest for conquest and global domination is in reality tempered by the ordinary and everyday: long evenings at home, family life, friends and work and the bonds that bind us through simple acts of kindness. No, not blindfolded heroin-readings of Evola in Blackmuir Wood while wearing the savage tears of our next sacrificial victim as a mask on the altar of Thulsa Doom; just ordinary, everyday living.
In many ways, the foundations of the o9a are ordinary and everyday. We hear the term “mundane” castigated and proclaimed like some kind of mortal victory over those who don’t share the same values, repeated like a prayer and elevated to sacrosanct status by those who both decry dogmatism and know better. But there is something to be said about finding beauty in the ordinary, the everyday, the commonplace. The ability to re-enchant our perception of the world through a quiet shade of light, a moment shared, a shadow cast, an unspoken word, an emotion, a thought, a contrary idea, a new way of repeating or seeing or speaking the same thing – this ability lies at the heart of the o9a as a kind of free-form alchemy: the ability to re-enchant the ordinary into the extraordinary, the sublunar into the lunar, austere and august, neverending.
The Fenrir team has received several emails from budding associates, many of whom appear sincere in exploring the sinister tradition and have asked for guidance. While appreciated and well-received, the truth is no one can provide that guidance. In my opinion, the lifeblood of this tradition doesn’t beat according to a series of “tests” to validate one’s existential “status” in an anonymous tradition populated by complete strangers who interact through self-made blogs on the internet. It’s founded on a core Satanic practice, one constituted not by primordial hatred but resolved in atavistic love through tremendous ordeals and overcoming. The ground of that overcoming cannot be provided, taught, or given: it’s hard-earned by each and every individual through ethereal loss, deep wounding, ecstatic grief, and long, long nights that beckon failure in the shadow of an indefinite destiny.
That ground is perennial. While it’s not ours to give, it is yours to stand on. And many who approach the o9a sincerely will find themselves standing on it already.
What then, weary wanderer? What will become of the o9a under threat of banishment, with all its devilry, sophistry, and miscreant illusion? Like each sincere individual, I believe the o9a has its own ground to stand on. For how long, who can say? But I don’t think its core tradition and values were ever expected to remain static, fixed, and unyielding, followed dogmatically and fideistically by a mob of unthinking fanatics. They were meant to be evaluated critically and adapted intelligently with deep and emergent empathy according to whatever the situation demands. This, in my opinion, is the basis for any tradition; and its everlasting practice, preserved in spirit with great care, is what distinguishes a living tradition from a dead one. In an effort to keep that tradition alive, I think something Bruce Lee said is helpful: “Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own.”
“And what is the point of this diabolical diatribe,” you ask, dear reader? If there is a point, let it be this: I once heard the president of the Søren Kierkegaard Society describe faith as risk with direction. Well, if risk without direction is stupidity, let us hope that the average o9a associate is smarter than they seem.
Meanwhile, it’s business as usual in the o9a. To our opponents: fuck you all.
Nameless Therein
In Hell
February 24, 2023
“And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”
The work contains three 2022 texts which challenge the post-2018 campaign against the Order of Nine Angles (O9A, ONA) and which campaign is the basis for demands by antifascists, politicians, and others, that the O9A be banned as a terrorist entity.
Chapter I: Black Propaganda, The FBI, And The O9A.
Chapter II: A Cautionary Tale, Revisited.
Chapter III: The FBI View Of The O9A: An Analysis.
Appendix: Knowing, Information, and The Discovery of Wisdom.
The case of Ethan Melzer is a classic example of: (i) why followers of O9A philosophy do not trust people they have not personally known for some time; (ii) why the Internet, and especially social media, encrypted messaging applications and e-mails, are flawed if occasionally useful causal mediums, and (iii) what following an esoteric philosophy or tradition such as the O9A involves, and in the past has involved, in the real world. In 2011 Anton Long publicly wrote about the perils of the Internet and how it had become a useful tool in the service of the O9A-pretendu crowd. More recently it has become a useful tool in the service of individuals and governments seeking to discredit the O9A, entrap people like Melzer, and trying to infiltrate the O9A.
It is interesting and instructive to consider the official US government view of the Order of Nine Angles (O9A, ONA) as described in a sworn affidavit by Special Agent Faye Stephan, assigned to the FBI New York Joint Terrorism Task Force, before Judge Stewart D. Aaron, Southern District New York, on the 4th June 2020. Which affidavit formed a core part of the criminal prosecution by the US Department of Justice of Ethan Melzer on charges of conspiracy to murder US military members, attempted murder of US military members, and of providing and attempting to provide material support in support of terrorism.
A section of the affidavit is devoted to the O9A under the heading Background Of The Order Of Nine Angles and the views and opinions expressed therein have since 2020 been widely quoted and paraphrased by the mainstream Media, by independent journalists and by antifascists all of whom have considered those views and opinions authoritative because deemed by them to be from a reliable source. The section lists five main points about the O9A, each of which we consider in detail.
The text concerns the origins of the campaign against the Order of Nine Angles (O9A, ONA) by the Establishment and which post-2018 campaign is the basis for demands by antifascists, politicians, and others that the O9A be banned as a terrorist entity.
The campaign was and is based on ‘black propaganda’ which is material which does not appear to be propaganda; whose real origins are concealed; which is misleading or designed to discredit, and which gives the impression it has been produced/circulated by a particular person or persons or by a particular group/organization or by a State-entity. Black propaganda was used by Allied governments during the First and Second World Wars as well as during the ‘Cold War’, and also between the 1950s and 1970s by the FBI as part of a Counter Intelligence Program to discredit domestic American groups and individuals including the Ku Klux Klan.
In the more recent case of the O9A, the ‘black propaganda’ was produced and circulated by an FBI informant turned agent provocateur.
For decades opponents of the Occult subculture known as the Order of Nine Angles as well as antifascists who have a hatred of David Myatt because of his past as a neo-nazi activist, have claimed that Myatt is not only the person behind the pseudonym ‘Anton Long’ but also founded the Order of Nine Angles (O9A, ONA) in the 1970s and wrote most of its primary texts.
When asked by proponents of O9A subculture or by supporters of Myatt to provide evidential facts (evidence acceptable in a Court of Law) they have: (i) remained silent, or (ii) taken refuge in the fantasy that anyone asking for such evidence is Myatt himself, or (iii) committed the logical fallacy of ad populum, claiming it is “self-evident” because so many others believe it, or (iv) committed other logical fallacies such as argumentum ad verecundiam – appeal to authority – by citing the personal opinion of some person or some opinion piece (propaganda) by antifascists or citing someone who committed the fallacy of Incomplete Evidence.
Some antifascists have now threatened to engage the professional services of an ‘author profiler’ who using forensic linguistics they believe will be able to show that Myatt was Long and the author of most of the primary O9A texts.
In the matter of Joshua Sutter and his Martinet Press, and also his testimony at the trial of Kaleb Cole, the antifascist so-called ‘investigate journalists’ and antifascists themselves have failed to answer questions previously asked of them, even though they have based their entire post-2018 anti-O9A narrative and campaign around Sutter’s black propaganda.
° The Matter Of Fallacies
As a useful guide for readers we list here the most common fallacies committed for over forty years by opponents and critics of the O9A who also repeat ad nauseam cliché after cliché and disproven claim after disproven claim.
In response to some of the things you have been writing, I will clarify a few things. This will not be an ongoing dialogue but a single address, as this kind of behavior should never warrant serious attention, especially on this website. Unfortunately, some of the false claims you are making do.
Though I will let her speak for herself, I will say on my word of honor and for the benefit of our readers that I am confident Clarice is not Joshua Caleb Sutter. Speaking for myself, I do not have any involvement with Josh and have not had any association with the Tempel ov Blood for many years now. Neither does anyone on this site as far as I know. But despite what you claim may or may not have happened between you two and despite rumors about Josh’s previous activities, what many of us find contemptible is your airing of personal and private grievances on a public forum – grievances concerning private information about someone you once claimed to be your friend. Publicly lashing out at those you perceive to have betrayed you using personal information – whether on your website(s) or in the comments section of a very respected ONA – is inappropriate. It’s disrespectful. And it’s dishonorable behavior. It goes against the Code of Kindred Honour as well as the Code of Personal Honour, both of which are foundational tenants of the ONA in distinguishing someone with the right constitution from someone lacking it. That is, someone with culture, as distinguished by the possession of empathy, reason, pathei-mathos, ethos, and, most importantly, an “instinct for disliking rottenness.” When these are lacking, the conversation ends. When you begin threatening and brow-beating others on top of that, there can be no conversation. And there won’t be. This distinctively uncultured response is no way to lead and is certainly not leading by example.
To address your other claims: Brett Stevens, despite what you have said to the contrary, is an honorable man and respected in the ONA. Clarice, despite my bumpy beginnings with her, is likewise an honorable woman and also respected, as is Chloe. As always, there is much more going on here than meets the eye with many mysteries surrounding the identities of certain individuals – identities known among a closed circle of adepts but which still remain something of a mystery. That you have failed to grasp this and have gone so far astray with your assumptions is revealing. That you have done so in such an unconscionable manner is vulgar and unacceptable. I will not entertain this further, and here the conversation ends. If you wish to escalate this further, that is your prerogative – feel free to “hate” away, as you’ve said; but we are not impressed, will not give it any further attention, and will not be bothered to respond. If, however, you ever wish to attract the audience you desire, it would be wise to take to heart the following words by the man you claim to so admire – words on the nature of his identity, words we would all do well to meditate with respect to this kind of behavior. Let that put an end to it, making explicit what those with common sense and decency have always understood as implicit:
My own rather old-fashioned view is and was that a personal knowing of someone, extending over a period of many months if not a year or more, is the only honourable way to form a reasoned opinion about someone. For honour means the cultivation of traditional gentlemanly and ladylike virtues and one of which virtues is that we strive to treat other human beings in a fair way; ignoring what others have said or written about them; ignoring their past (real or alleged); and giving them the benefit of the doubt unless and until direct personal experience, direct knowledge of them, reveals them to be dishonourable […]
In respect of allegations about involvement with satanism and ‘being Anton Long’ – and in respect of those who manufacture and propagate them – my own experience, my pathei-mathos, manifest in my philosophy of Pathei-Mathos, leads me to two conclusions. My first conclusion is that the research done by some modern authors and even some academics – whose works are published by reputable publishers or quoted by others engaged in academic research – is inadequate and does not meet the taxing criteria of scholarship. Thus these works are unreliable; they have no gravitas, no worth – in terms of learning – for the sagacious.
My second conclusion is that most if not all modern Media that concern themselves with the deeds and lives of individuals – from un-scholarly books and essays, to newspapers, to television news programs and political documentaries, to magazines, to the World Wide Web – are by their very impersonal and mass-media nature unethical. Why? Because they are un-numinous, and encourage and often embody hubris, being as they are the realm of personal opinions, hasty judgement, and misapprehension, and the abode of those for whom ‘a story’ or some personal/political agenda/prejudice or ‘their career’ or some unethical un-numinous abstraction (such as ‘the public interest’) come before honour, empathy, and the reasoned judgement of a personal knowing that has extended over a lengthy period of causal Time and/or been based on an extended period of scholarly research.
A corollary is that those who use such Media, and/or unscholarly books/essays, as sources of allegedly reliable information, as a guide, as a or as the basis for their judgement about and knowledge of someone or some many, are being unfair and uncultured because lacking in the following necessary virtues: (1) a reasoned, balanced, and thus ethical, judgement; (2) the empathy of manifold direct personal contacts; and (3) a scholarly research and/or a personal knowing extending over many years. Virtues which are the genesis of a genuine understanding of, and thence an unbiased knowledge of, another human being; and virtues which rapid, impersonal, mass means of modern communication actively discourage and which virtues are seldom, it seems, cultivated and employed by those involved with and who use and who rely on such modern means for information.
Quite simply it is matter of honour. Of personal knowing. As I mentioned above, the traditional gentlemanly and ladylike virtues and their cultivation are no longer the standard which individuals are expected to aspire to and to uphold. Thus I do not expect the plethora of rumours and allegations about me to suddenly cease, although I admit I do and perhaps naively nurture a vague hope that what I have written here may cause a few individuals to reconsider the veracity of such rumours and allegations.
