The basic differences between the Order of Nine Angles (ONA, O9A) and the Church of Satan, the Temple of Set, and the likes of Aleister Crowley, is (i) that the O9A celebrates and presences the muliebral (the matriarchal) in contrast to the masculous, the patriarchal, ethos and praxises of the Church of Satan, the Temple of Set, and the likes of Aleister Crowley, and (ii) that the O9A celebrates and presences the aristocratic, the cultural, the intellectual, as opposed to the plebeian, the vulgar, ethos of the the likes of Howard Levey, the Temple of Set, and the likes of Aleister Crowley who drone on and on about such vulgar patriarchal manifestations as “might is right”.
That these differences have been unappreciated by the majority of Occultists and by self-described satanists in this internet-age is unsurprising, given how the O9A has been portrayed by propagandists of the old, patriarchal, order. So, to be O9A is to rebel against the current masculous, patriarchal, system, while to be anti-O9A is to be a lick-spittle of the old masculous, the old patriarchal, status quo.
This difference is why the O9A has archetypes such as a female Baphomet; why they have a code of kindred honour; and why they have guidelines regarding culling.
Meanwhile the masculous Old Order propagandists of the Church of Satan, the Temple of Set, and of Aleister Crowley, will continue to try and demean the O9A. For they – whether or not they know it – are simply lackeys of the old, Magian, patriarchal order. Manifest as that old masculous order is in Nasrany, in Islam, and in the Church of Satan, the Temple of Set, and the likes of Aleister Crowley.
However, what is not altogether unsurprising is they of the Old Order have a few women – and a few anonymous others pretending to be women – who via the medium of the internet not only (i) defend the masculous, the patriarchal, ethos and praxises of the Church of Satan, the Temple of Set, and the likes of Aleister Crowley, but who also (ii) write propaganda designed to discredit the O9A. To whom in reply we refer to Myatt’s translation of a poem by Sappho:
I see he who sits near you as an equal of the gods
For he can closely listen to your delightful voice
And that seductive laugh
That makes the heart behind my breasts to tremble.
Even when I glimpse you for a moment
My tongue is stilled as speech deserts me
While a delicate fire is beneath my skin –
My eyes cannot see, then,
When I hear only a whirling sound
As I shivering, sweat
Because all of me trembles;
I become paler than drought-grass
And nearer to death …
Of course, we expect such anti-O9A masculous dilettantes and sycophants and plebeians and egoists to not understand the numinous meaning embodied in such poetry.
Therefore, QED in respect of not only their masculous, their patriarchal, ethos but also in respect of their prejudiced perceiveration and their prejudiced, Old Aeon, way of living.