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.




An Aeonic Perspective

Posted: March 12th, 2021 | Author: | Filed under: Anarcho-Nihilism, Anarchy, Current Affair, David Myatt, Far-Right, Generation Three, Heretical Texts, Iteration Three, Junk Journalism, Labyrinthos Mythologicus, Leftists, Liberals, Media Attention, National Socialism, Next Generation, Nihilism, O9A, O9A Nine Angles, Order of Nine Angles, Order of the Nine Angles, Phase Three, Reichsfolk, Satanic Heresy, Satanic Polemics, The Sinister Dialectic, The Sinister Game, The Sinister Tradition, The Sinisterly Numinous Tradition, Third Iteration | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on An Aeonic Perspective

 [ Originally posted at: ]




An Aeonic Perspective


1. Countering Anti-Fascist Prejudice
2. Transgression, The O9A, And Infiltrators
3. Appreciating The Philosophy Of Pathei-Mathos
Appendix: An Anarcho-Nihilist Esoteric Philosophy


The Seofonfeald Paeth


Transgression, The O9A, And Infiltrators

Posted: January 31st, 2021 | Author: | Filed under: Church of Satan, Far-Right, Howard Stanton Levey, Labyrinthos Mythologicus, Leftists, Liberals, Media Attention, National Socialism, News, Nihilism, O9A, O9A Nine Angles, Order of the Nine Angles, Psychic Readings, Reports, Satanic Heresy, Satanic Polemics, The Sinister Dialectic | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Transgression, The O9A, And Infiltrators



[Originally posted at: ]


Transgression, The O9A, And Infiltrators



Analysing Anti-O9A Prejudice And Propaganda

Posted: June 20th, 2019 | Author: | Filed under: Inner ONA, Labyrinthos Mythologicus, O9A, Order of Nine Angles, Order of the Nine Angles, Richard Moult, Satanic Polemics, The Sinister Dialectic, The Sinister Tradition, The Sinisterly Numinous Tradition | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Analysing Anti-O9A Prejudice And Propaganda


Analysing Anti-Fascist Prejudice And Propaganda
In Relation To The O9A

Prejudice is “preconceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience; bias, partiality; unreasoned dislike, hostility; an unreasoning preference or objection; a preliminary or anticipatory judgement.”

Propaganda is “the systematic dissemination of information, especially in a biased or misleading way, in order to promote a political cause or point of view.” {1}

In respect of the O9A (Order of Nine Angles), a reading of the “O9A” section of a 2019 report issued by a particular anti-fascist organisation is sufficient to (i) reveal that they are spreading disinformation and propaganda, and/or (ii) reveal their ignorance about the O9A, and/or (iii) reveal their prejudice. A revealing evident in their subsequent writings about the O9A.

Why prejudiced? To write or to speak about a matter or about a person or about a group in a reasonable, non-prejudiced way, is to have actual experience of the matter, person or group, or to be probative regarding the matter, person or group: that is, to have actual proof or evidence which validates what is written or said. Valid evidence would be evidence from primary O9A source material {2} and placed into the context of the O9A corpus thus avoiding the common errors of the fallacy of secundum quid et simpliciter, the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, and the fallacy of Incomplete Evidence, fallacies which some academics commit {3}{4} and which propagandists invariably commit either deliberately or out of ignorance.

In the matter of the O9A, the anti-fascists in question have no actual proof or evidence from primary sources which validates what they have written about the O9A. When they do quote O9A material or alleged O9A material they provide no references to the text, printed or on-line; do not give the author of the original material; often misattribute the quote, and fail to provide context (vis-a-vis the O9A corpus) and thus, either propagandistically or due to ignorance, commit the fallacy of illicit transference. {5}

In respect of their Prejudice and their Propaganda they, for example, wrote:

§ In the 1990s the leadership of the O9A was taken over by Richard Moult

This reveals a bias because there is no evidence to support the claim that the O9A has or had a “leader” with voluminous O9A texts from the 1980s onwards clearly stating that the O9A has no leader – and thus is a leaderless, non-hierarchical, Occult movement or sub-culture {6} – with the author of most O9A texts, the pseudonymous “Anton Long”, never making any claim regarding his authority and power, and even writing to Michael Aquino of the Temple of Set that in the O9A there is “no acceptance of someone else’s authority” and that “I claim no authority.” {7}

Furthermore, one of the foundational principles of the O9A sub-culture is the anarchist “principle of the authority of individual judgment”, which means that anyone, associating or identifying themselves with the Occult sub-culture that is the O9A, is free to interpret and to manifest O9A Occult philosophy in whatever way they choose. {8} This principle in practice also means:

(i) that no author, no individual, no nexion, can present or represent the view or the opinion of the entity termed the Order of Nine Angles,
(ii) that the O9A does not have, never has had, and never will have an “official policy” about anything, and never has, and never will make “official statements” about anything; and
(iii) that the only authority which is meaningful for the O9A is the individual one which results from the exoteric and esoteric pathei mathos of each individual who is part of or who associates themselves with the O9A.

In effect, the anti-fascists in question were (i) producing and spreading disinformation – deliberately false information – or (ii) they were revealing their ignorance regarding the Occult philosophy and the praxises of the O9A, or (iii) expressing their prejudice, their partiality, their unreasoned dislike, their hostility, about and regarding the O9A.

If they were spreading disinformation, it reveals their prejudice, their bias. If they were revealing in public their ignorance about the O9A then they were also revealing their prejudice, their unreasoned, ill-informed dislike of the O9A.

In another example they wrote, in respect of Moult and Myatt:

§ Rather than true conversions, they were following what they themselves describe as “insight” – a deliberate ploy to infiltrate, explore and subvert other organisations and religions, especially those that offer recruits the chance to learn violent skills

This reveals prejudice, a bias, for three reasons. First, because the anti-fascists provide no evidence for their claim that those “conversions” were not genuine; second, because they provide no evidence for their claim that either Moult or Myatt, in respect of the O9A, named and described something termed “insight”; and third, because the use of the term “insight” by such anti-fascists either (i) reveals that they were spreading disinformation about the O9A or (ii) reveals their ignorance about the O9A.

For what O9A texts repeatedly mention are Insight Rôles, not “insight”, and which rôles form part of the tasks of an External Adept and only last for between one year and eighteen months, after which the person moves on to other tasks. {9}.

Thus, the claim that the decades later “conversions” of Moult and Myatt were “insight” – that is, Insight Rôles – is nonsensical in the context of the O9A, since no one O9A undertakes Insight Rôles in their later years, as a study of O9A texts would have revealed.

In another example, the anti-fascists wrote:

§ Myatt has also publicly left the O9A

This reveals prejudice, a bias, for several reasons. First, they provide no evidence for their claim that Myatt publicly left the O9A. Where are the public texts written by Myatt where he states he has publicly left the O9A? Where are the public texts written by Myatt where he claims to have been O9A? There are no such texts.

Second, even if their defence is the claim that Myatt was the pseudonymous “Anton Long” then neither they nor anyone else has provided any evidence – any facts based on primary sources or documents – to substantiate such a claim, such a malicious allegation. It is thus a preconceived opinion, or disinformation, or the unreasonable repetition of rumours; in all of which cases it amounts to bias, to prejudice, to being unfair.

In addition, they conveniently did not balance their unproven claims about Myatt by mentioning that three academics have expressed doubts about Myatt being the pseudonymous “Anton Long”, with (i) George Sieg writing that he considered it to be “implausible and untenable based on the extent of variance in writing style, personality, and tone” between Myatt and Long’s writings {10}, with (ii) Jeffrey Kaplan stating that Myatt and Long are separate people, {11} and with (iii) Connell Monette writing that it was quite possible that ‘Anton Long’ was a pseudonym used by multiple individuals over the last 30 years. {12}

All people who have claimed or who claim that Myatt was the pseudonymous “Anton Long” present and rely on are two things: (i) forgeries such as the two manuscripts titled Diablerie and Bealuwes Gast {13} and (ii) the analysis by Senholt in a Master’s thesis, later updated and included as a chapter in the book The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity {14} with Myatt in a section of his essay A Matter Of Honour sub-titled The Logical Fallacy of Incomplete Evidence – A Case Study, {15} having analysed in some detail the claims made by Senholt, concluding that the claims are not tenable. As in the matter of the O9A, no one in the case of Myatt has studied and provided as evidence of involvement primary sources relating to his life {16}.

In another example the anti-fascists wrote:

§ but again this is highly suspect as Moult recently admitted that the two remain in regular contact

This is not a rational statement because they provide no evidence for their claim as to why it is “highly suspect”. Does the fact that two friends are in “regular contact” mean something suspicious or sinister is going on? No, it only means that two friends are in regular contact unless and until there are facts – evidence – to the contrary. Until there are such facts the statement remains either disinformation or prejudicial. In either case it causes or can cause prejudice.

In yet another example they wrote:

§ the presumption must be that he is still actively involved in the nazi occult organisation he has spent almost 50 years supporting and leading.

Their bias is obvious in three things. First, that their presumption “must be”. It is unreasonable to claim that a presumption “must be” since a presumption is just a presumption, and thus is “the action of taking for granted or presuming something; assumption, supposition.” This statement that their supposition “must be” is therefore either wilful propaganda or ignorance.

Second, obvious bias in the statement “still actively involved”, because no evidence, no facts based on primary sources, are or have been presented, by that anti-fascist group or by anyone else, that he – Myatt – was ever involved with the O9A in the first place.

Third, obvious bias in the claim that “he has spent almost 50 years supporting and leading” since yet again no evidence, no facts based on primary sources, are or have been presented regarding such supporting and such leading.

On balance, therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the entire statement is biased and misleading propaganda.

While many more examples of their bias and/or of their ignorance could be presented, sufficient have been presented here, and elsewhere {17}, for us to arrive at a reasonable conclusion in the matter of the pronouncements made about the O9A by a particular anti-fascist group.


It seems reasonable to conclude that the anti-fascist group in question is, in regard to the O9A, either deliberately spreading disinformation or is making statements and assumptions which are unreasonable because they are not evidential, that is, not based on a knowledge of the facts, on an unbiased study of primary O9A sources {2} and thus reveal either a basic ignorance of the nature of the O9A sub-culture or an unreasoned, an unethical, dislike; that is, a prejudice.

For a group which prides itself on offering “hope” rather than “hate”, their ignorance about or their bias, their prejudice against the O9A, and their ignorance about or their bias in respect of Mr Moult and Mr Myatt, contradicts their claim to champion “hope”. For ignorance, prejudice and disinformation, are often the genesis of hate.

Morena Kapiris
June 2019


{1} The definitions are taken from the complete Oxford English Dictionary, second edition (20 volumes), Oxford University Press, 1989.

{2} In regard to O9A primary sources, these consist of the O9A corpus – written by “Anton Long” from the 1970s to 2011, and later (2011-2019) by the “inner ONA” – and thus range from the 1980s Black Book of Satan to Naos, and The Deofel Quartet, to post-2011 works such as (i) The Pagan O9A, 2015, (ii) The Esoteric Hermeticism Of The Order Of Nine Angles, 2016, and (iii) A Compilation Of Some Recent O9A Texts: 2017 – 2019.

The O9A corpus amounts to over 5,000 pages of written material. As noted in an academic paper presented at the international conference, Satanism in the Modern World, held at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim on the 19-20th of November, 2009,

“the ONA has produced more material on both the practical and theoretical aspects of magic, as well as more ideological texts on Satanism and the Left-Hand Path in general, than larger groups such as the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set has produced in combination [which] makes the ONA an important player in the theoretical discussion of what the Left-Hand Path and Satanism is and should be according to the practitioners.” Archive source:

{3} A classic example of the fallacy of illicit transference is the 2017 essay about the O9A by Della E. Campion of the University of Washington. See

{4} A classic example of argumentum ad verecundiam – the fallacy of appeal to authority – is the section on the O9A by Massimo Introvigne in his Satanism: A Social History published in 2016. He relies on the opinions about the O9A by other authors, such as Goodrick-Clarke and Senholt.

He also commits another common fallacy, that of illicit transference, by arguing from the particular to the general, referencing one O9A item and then claiming that the opinion of the author in that item represents the opinion of the O9A. As we note later on in respect of the principle of the authority of individual judgment, no author, no individual, no nexion, can present or represent the view or the opinion of the entity termed the Order of Nine Angles.

{5} Examples of their misattribution and their committal of logical fallacies are given in

{6} A fact confirmed by Professor Monette in his book Mysticism in the 21st Century. 2013. Sirius Academic Press. p.89

{7} Satanic Letters of Stephen Brown, letter to Michael Aquino, dated 20th October 1990 ev.

{8} In respect of the principle of the authority of individual judgment refer to such texts as (i) judgement/ and (ii)

{9} See for example A Modern Practical Guide To The O9A Seven Fold Way, available from

{10} George Sieg. Angular Momentum: From Traditional to Progressive Satanism in the Order of Nine Angles. International Journal for the Study of New Religions, volume 4, number 2. 2013. p.257.

{11} Jeffrey Kaplan. Religiosity and the Radical Right: Toward the Creation of a New Ethnic Identity, in Jeffrey Kaplan and Tore Bjørgo (editors), Nation and Race: The Developing Euro-American Racist Subculture. Northeastern University Press. 1998. p.115.

{12} Connell Monette. Mysticism in the 21st Century. 2013. Sirius Academic Press. p.92.

{13} Refer to (i) A Skeptic Reviews Diablerie by R. Parker, a copy of which is available at and (ii) Bealuwes Gast: A Study in Forgery, available at

{14} Secret Identities in the Sinister Tradition: Political Esotericism and the Convergence of Radical Islam, Satanism, and National Socialism in the Order of Nine Angles. “The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity”. Per Faxneld and Jesper Aagaard Petersen (editors). Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 250–274


{16} Primary sources in regard to Myatt’s life would include original documentation relating to his neo-nazi decades (such as criminal proceedings, police interviews), and documentation relating to his decade as a Muslim and his time as a Christian monk.

Primary currently accessible sources regarding both his life and writings include the following post-2011 published works:
° The Numinous Way of Pathei-Mathos.
° Understanding and Rejecting Extremism: A Very Strange Peregrination.
° Religion, Empathy, and Pathei-Mathos.
° Myngath.
° One Vagabond In Exile From The Gods.
° Sarigthersa.
° One Exquisite Silence: Some Autobiographical Poems.
° Such Respectful Wordful Offerings: Selected Essays Of David Myatt.

{17} Refer to


More Lies About The O9A

Posted: June 19th, 2019 | Author: | Filed under: Inner ONA, Labyrinthos Mythologicus, O9A, O9A Nine Angles, Order of Nine Angles, Order of the Nine Angles, Satanic Polemics, The Sinister Dialectic, The Sinister Tradition, The Sinisterly Numinous Tradition | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on More Lies About The O9A


With the recent (June 2019) jailing of two young members of a British neo-nazi group for “terrorism” offences, an anti-fascist Zionist financed group based in England with connections to British Members of Parliament, to mainstream newspapers and to television companies has stepped up their smear campaign against the Order of Nine Angles (O9A, ONA) repeating and adding to the baseless accusations and lies that they wrote about the O9A in their February 2019 report about the so-called “state of hate” and which report was widely publicized and widely quoted from in mainstream media.

As in that biased propaganda report {1}, in their latest piece of smear propaganda they again try to link the O9A to paedophilia and to the promotion of misogyny and rape. They also wrote that “paraphernalia connected to the Order of Nine Angles […] were found at the home” of someone accused of being a member of the now banned neo-nazi group National Action, and that “British neo-Nazis are morphing into Satanic rape gangs.”

In respect of their lie in their February 2019 report that “O9A literature regularly advocates ritualised rape,” we wrote

[quote] A study of the O9A corpus from the 1980s to 2018 – from the pro-Sapphic novel Breaking The Silence Down to the essay The Anti-Patriarchal O9A Ethos – reveals the O9A attitude toward women, with the O9A code of kindred honour embodying respect for women and gender equality and with the O9A having [according to an academic] “more female supporters than either the Church of Satan or the Temple of Set [and] more women with children.” Nowhere in the corpus of O9A texts written by Anton Long between the 1970s and 2011 does the O9A advocate rape. In fact the O9A consider rapists as suitable candidates for culling. {2} [/quote]

We even helpfully provided a link to an O9A text distributed in 2015 which suggested that rapists are indeed suitable candidates for culling. {3}

Furthermore, several O9A documents refute the smear, the lie, that the O9A condones and encourages paedophilia, with one O9A text written in 122 yf – 2011 ev – making it clear “that individuals of certain proclivities, involving children, are regarded by us as dishonourable individuals who most certainly are not of our kind.” {4}

As befits their anti-fascist fanaticism, the Zionist financed group continue to use the Big Lie (große Lüge) technique, not only repeating their allegation that Myatt is involved with the O9A while failing to provide and evidence whatsoever but also continuing to attribute quotations by other people to Myatt, again failing to provide any evidence for their allegation. {5}

As befits their simplistic way of thinking, the writers of the Zionist financed anti-fascist group also continue to commit the logical fallacy of secundum quid et simpliciter. Which is the use of particular individual cases to form a general rule to then use that rule to describe, and thence to blame, or to castigate, or to defame a whole group.

Thus they illogically and propagandistically take the example of a few individuals with certain personal proclivities and fantasies, and who may support some aspects of O9A occult philosophy and praxis, as representative of the O9A as a whole.

Meanwhile, as befits their lack of even the most basic research – and/or their desire to place lies and propaganda and hate before truth and hope – these anti-fascist fanatics continue to ignore the fact that the O9A, esoterically understood and appreciated, is at its core neither neo-nazi nor ‘satanist’ but is a sinisterly-numinous occult tradition which

“is concerned with individuals undertaking an often decades-long hermetic anados (ἄνοδος) by which they might discover Lapis Philosophicus and thus acquire wisdom. A practical anados manifest in the O9A Seven Fold Way.” {6}

June 2019 ev

{1} In the space of the five pages given over to the O9A the author of that O9A section committed over twelve basic, factual, errors ranging from outright fabrications to misquotations. The errors are detailed at


The quotation by an academic about the O9A and women is from J.R Lewis, Satanic Attitudes, in Asbjorn Dyrendal, James R. Lewis, Jesper A. Petersen (editors), The Invention of Satanism, Oxford University Press, 2015. p.191; pp. 194–196.


The text describes a real-life incident.


{5} Their false attribution of quotations to Myatt is exposed in



Another Academic Misrepresentation

Posted: April 24th, 2018 | Author: | Filed under: Howard Stanton Levey, Inner ONA, Labyrinthos Mythologicus, O9A, Order of Nine Angles, Order of the Nine Angles, Satanic Polemics, The Sinister Tradition, The Sinisterly Numinous Tradition | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Another Academic Misrepresentation


A 2017 essay by Della E. Campion of the University of Washington – who has written various essays about modern esotericism and modern Satanism – deals with the Order of Nine Angles document titled The Culling Texts, containing as that document does the five (mostly vintage) texts (i) Concerning Culling as Art, (ii) A Gift for the Prince – A Guide to Human Sacrifice, (ii) Victims – A Sinister Exposé, (iii) Culling – A Guide to Sacrifice II, (iv) Guidelines for the Testing of Opfers, (v) Satanism, Sacrifice, and Crime – The Satanic Truth.

There are serious flaws with the essay and which flaws undermine the argument and conclusions of Campion.

The article by Ms Scott enumerates these five serious flaws and, by referencing O9A primary sources, deals with each in detail.

Another Academic Misrepresentation Of The Order Of Nine Angles

Joy Of The Sinister

Posted: February 9th, 2018 | Author: | Filed under: Heretical Texts, Labyrinthos Mythologicus, Mundanes, O9A, Order of Nine Angles, Order of the Nine Angles, Satanic Heresy, Satanic Polemics, The Sinister Tradition, The Sinisterly Numinous Tradition | Tags: , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Joy Of The Sinister

Joy Of The Sinister


° Preface.
° Introduction.
° Toward Understanding Satanism.
° The Church of Satan And The O9A.
° Satanism Plebeianized.
° The Place Of Satanism in the Order of Nine Angles.
° The De-Evolutionary Nature of Might is Right.
° The Gentleman’s – and Noble Ladies – Brief Guide to The Dark Arts.
° Concerning Culling as Art.
° Sunedrion – A Wyrdful Tale.
° In The Sky of Dreaming.
° Appendix I – The Geryne of Satan.
° Appendix II – The Drecc.
° Appendix III – The Joy Of The Sinister.

Academia And The Occult

Posted: August 12th, 2016 | Author: | Filed under: O9A, Order of Nine Angles, Order of the Nine Angles, Satanic Polemics, The Sinister Tradition, The Sinisterly Numinous Tradition | Tags: , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Academia And The Occult
Order Of Nine Angles

Order Of Nine Angles

In respect of the subject now often denoted by the term Western esotericism, can a lecturer or a faculty member at an established, mainstream, university or college be relied upon to present a well-researched, unbiased, scholarly, article or book?

Consider, for example, a recent (2016) book published by the prestigious Oxford University Press, Children of Lucifer: The Origins of Modern Religious Satanism, written by Ruben Van Luijk. This book devotes several pages (371-373) to the Order of Nine Angles (ONA, O9A) and to Anton Long, making various unsubstantiated claims while in the process getting almost every fact about Myatt wrong. That such an author, published by such an academic press, could make so many unsubstantiated claims and so many mistakes in so few pages – mistakes arising from a lack of research using primary sources – does not inspire confidence in the rest of the book nor in the process of academic peer review.

The mistakes by Van Luijk about Myatt include:

1) That Myatt joined the ‘British National Socialist Movement’ in 1968. Myatt in fact joined Colin Jordan’s British Movement that year, Jordan having disbanded his short lived ‘National Socialist Movement’ earlier in the year.

2) Van Luijk writes that Myatt’s pamphlet A Practical Guide To Aryan Revolution “included detailed instructions for the manufacture of explosives and the incitement of racial war.”

It seems that Van Luijk has not bothered to find and read that pamphlet, for while it does “incite racial war” (in the Racial War section) it does not contain detailed instructions about making bombs, with it being apparent that Van Luijk has confused that pamphlet with another similar one also attributed to Myatt {1}, the 15-page printed document circulated in the 1990s which announced the formation of The White Wolves and which document did indeed contain instructions on how to make home-made bombs, complete with diagrams.

That the pamphlet A Practical Guide To Aryan Revolution – attributed to Myatt – has never in its entirely been republished (on the internet or otherwise) and is not available in easily accessible academic libraries, surely makes it incumbent upon accredited scholars who wish to comment upon it to seek out and read it in its entirely in such few places as it can still be found.

3) Van Luijk repeats the claim made by certain other authors that Myatt is Anton Long without (i) providing any evidence from his own research using primary sources that Myatt is indeed Anton Long, and without (ii) referencing any academic sources which, on the basis of scholarly research using primary sources, have proven that Myatt is Long. {2} Furthermore, that there are no such academic sources which, on the basis of scholarly research using primary sources, have proven that Myatt is Long, is never mentioned by Van Luijk.

4) Van Luijk writes that Myatt was “initiated in 1968 by the female leader of a Wicca coven.” Nowhere, in the writings of Anton Long, is there any claim to have been initiated either in 1968 or by someone from a wicca coven. Rather, the claim made by the pseudonymous Anton Long is of being initiated in the early 1970s and by the daughter of a lady associated with a pagan, occult, tradition.

The unsubstantiated claims of Van Luijks about the O9A include:

1) That the name ‘Order of Nine Angles’ suggests inspiration from the ‘satanism’ of Howard Stanton Levey and his Church of Satan, whereas a reading of (i) basic O9A texts such a The Order of Nine Angles Rite of The Nine Angles: A Comparison with the Ceremony of Nine Angles by Aquino And A Brief Study of The Meaning of The Nine Angles, and (ii) of Professor Monette’s conclusion that “it is clear despite claims that the term ‘nine angles’ was introduced in the twentieth century, the term is centuries older, especially in esoteric or cosmological discourse,” {3} would have revealed there was no such inspiration.

Myatt himself even makes a comparison with the ancient Somnium Scipionis described by Cicero, in De Re Publica, Book VI, 17, which mention of ‘nine’ pre-dates Levey and his Church of Satan by over a thousand years.

2) That the O9A accept the Judaeo-Christian version of Satan, whereas a reading of basic O9A texts such as The Geryne of Satan would have revealed that the O9A do not accept that version of Satan, giving rise to the O9A understanding of a satanist as a person who – ‘diabolically’ or otherwise – is opposed to those who believe  themselves to be God’s chosen people; that is, someone opposed to the Jews.

3) That the O9A is just a development of the ‘satanism’ of Howard Stanton Levey, whereas a study of the O9A corpus, from the 1980s on, and O9A works such as the compilation The Esoteric Hermeticism Of The Order Of Nine Angles, would have revealed that the O9A represent an occult, essentially pagan, tradition wholly different from the qabalistic-centred occult tradition used by Crowley, Levey, Aquino, and other modern occultists. A difference evident in the O9A’s Seven Fold Way and their occult septenary system.

4) That the O9A Star Game is just a ‘board game’, whereas a reading of basic O9A texts such as Naos would have revealed its three-dimensional and unique nature, a uniqueness derived from the transformation of each piece when it is moved and the alchemical combinations and occult associations of each piece.

The lack of detailed, scholarly, research and the mistakes made by Van Luijk are unfortunately typical of many of the books and articles written by academics about modern Satanism in particular and the Western, occult, Left Hand Path in general, with many authors of recent works relying for instance on the opinions of others (and, sometimes, even relying on anonymous persons communicated with by means of e-mail) rather than undertaking their own years-long research using primary sources.

Thus, in respect of Western esotericism, can a lecturer or a faculty member at an established, mainstream, university or college be relied upon to present a well-researched, unbiased, scholarly, article or book? The answer, more often than not, is no, for so many such books and articles are written by those who, despite being accorded the status of academics, are not scholars because their approach to the subject they write about it is quite unscholarly. {2}

R. Parker

This a revised version of an article previously circulated under the title More Unscholarly Research.


{1} Searchlight, July 2000.

{2} Correctly understood, a scholarly approach means undertaking a meticulous, unbiased, research into a specific subject over a period of some years using, wherever possible, primary sources; formulating an opinion based on such learning, such knowledge, as results from such research, and in respect of writing academic papers and books about the subject providing copious, accurate, references to the source material. Primary sources include direct evidence such as original documents dating from the period under study, and accounts and works (written, verbal, published or unpublished) by such individuals whose life or whose writings or whose works form part of the research. In addition, if such sources – documents or accounts or writings – are in another language, then it is incumbent upon the scholar to have knowledge of that language and thus be able to translate such documents themselves, for a reliance upon the translations of others relegates such sources from the position of primary ones to secondary ones.

Hence, if the author of an academic book or academic paper writes about a person and/or about their works, or about an event, using only secondary sources – sources containing the opinions, the interpretations, or the conclusions of others – then the opinion, the interpretation, the conclusions of that author about such a person and/or about their works, or about an event, are unauthoritative because unscholarly.

{3} Monette, Connell (2013). Mysticism in the 21st Century. Sirius Academic Press. p.105.