O9A Insight Role
O9A Insight Role

Recently some anonymous self-described ‘satanist’ – via some internet blog – wrote, in some attempt to distance modern (Levey – Magian – type) ‘satanism’ from ‘terrorism’, that:

{quote} This writer would like to highlight a problem within Satanist ranks called the Order of Nine Angles who share and promote similar extremist views to those of the Islamic State. The ONA was founded and is under the leadership of David Myatt, who formerly called himself Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt and Abdul al-Qari, and encouraged similarly extremist views as is pandered by Islamic extremists. The ONA are deeply embedded into Satanism, and sadly whilst they exist in our ranks, we are open to accusations of promoting similar outrages as has been inflicted upon the innocent by extremist Muslims. Like the Muslims it is down to the majority in Satanism to prevent the small minority (ONA) from being the image and voice of our religion.{/quote}

In a reply to their article we posted the following comment, which of course we do not expect to be published on their so-called ‘hardcore’ satanist blog.


Regarding the ONA and terrorism, you should have mentioned the following two texts written by “Anton Long” many years ago.

1) “We of the Order of Nine Angles do not, never have, and never will condemn acts of so-called terrorism (individual or undertaken by some State), nor do we condemn and avoid what mundanes regard as evil or as criminal deeds. For us, all such things are or could be just causal forms or causal means, and thus are regarded by us as falling into three categories, which categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive: (1) things which might or which can be the genesis of our individual pathei-mathos and which thus are the genesis of our own sinister weltanschauung; (2) things which aid our sinister dialectic or which are or might be a Presencing of The Dark; or (3) things that can or could be a test, a challenge, a sinister experience, too far for someone who aspires to be one of our sinister kind, someone who thus fails the test, balks at the challenge, or is destroyed or overcome by the experience.

For our criteria are not those of morality; are not bounded by some abstract good and evil; are not those defined by the laws manufactured by mundanes. Our criteria is the amorality of personal judgement and personal responsibility, whereby we as individuals decide what may be right or wrong for us based on our own pathei-mathos, and act and take responsibility for our acts, knowing such acts for the exeatic living they are or might be, and knowing ourselves as nexions possessed of the ability, the potential, to consciously – via pathei-mathos and practical sinister experience – change ourselves into a new, a more evolved, species of life. Herein is the essence of Satanism, for us.” A Satanism Too Far

2) “It is of fundamental importance – to evolution both individual and otherwise – that what is Dark, Sinister or Satanic is made real in a practical way, over and over again. That is, that what is dangerous, awesome, numinous, tragic, deadly, terrible, terrifying and beyond the power of ordinary mortals, laws or governments to control is made manifest. In effect, non-Initiates (and even Initiates) need constantly reminding that such things still exist; they need constantly to be brought ‘face-to-face’, and touched, with what is, or appears to be, inexplicable, uncontrollable, powerful and ‘evil’. They need reminding of their own mortality – of the unforeseen, inexplicable ‘powers of Fate’, of the powerful force of ‘Nature’.

If this means killing, wars, suffering, sacrifice, terror, disease, tragedy and disruption, then such things must be – for it is one of the duties of a Satanic Initiate to so Presence The Dark, and prepare the way for, or initiate, the change and evolution which always result from such things. Such things as these must be, and always will be, because the majority of people are or will remain, inert and sub-human unless changed. The majority is – and always will be until it evolves to become something else – raw material to be used, moulded, cut-away and shaped to create what must be. There is no such thing as an innocent person because everyone who exists is part of the whole, the change, the evolution, the presencing of life itself, which is beyond them, and their life only has meaning through the change, development and evolution of life. Their importance is what they can become, or what can be achieved through their death. their tragedy, their living – their importance does not lie in their individual happiness or their individual desires or whatever.” To Presence The Dark

Now, if these quotes are not “Satanic” and evil and “hardcore” and “antinomian”, then what or who is?


Certainly not The Satanic Temple nor the Church of Rational Satanism nor the Church of Satan; nor any other self-described ‘satanic’ groups or individuals – even those laughingly describing themselves as “hardcore satanists” – who all seem at pains to depict modern Satanism as no threat to anyone, as rather tame, and certainly not as genuinely, in practical life-threatening terms, antinomian, violent, and murderous.

Surely “Anton Long”, who wrote the articles from which the above quotations are taken, qualifies as evil and Satanic and antinomian, and perhaps even as a terrorist?


Kudos to whomsoever publishes the aforementioned ‘hardcore, satanicviews’ blog, for he/she/they published our comment and commented on it, to which comment of theirs we replied:

You wrote: “ONA was never Satanism.”

That is a moot point because it depends on how one defines “satanism” and “evil”. Obviously followers of Howard Levey define both terms so that their “satanism” is not “actually or potentially harmful, destructive, disastrous, pernicious; baleful; terrifying,” and so that they themselves are not “malicious; mischievous, sly, bad, dangerous, deadly.”

So it’s not a question of Nazarene definitions but of what is “actually or potentially harmful, destructive, disastrous, pernicious; baleful; terrifying,” and who are “malicious; mischievous, sly, bad, dangerous, deadly,” in real life.

Just trying to redefine “Satan” so that “he” isn’t “malicious; mischievous, sly, bad, dangerous, deadly, pernicious; baleful”, destructive” but instead is just some sort of “symbol” of carnality and egoism doesn’t answer basic ontological questions.

Or to put it simply, the ONA would say – and have said – that “Satan” is the archetypal “terrorist”. Which kind of places the remarks of some minor Islamic preacher into perspective […]

A minor point – perhaps, but you keep mentioning David Myatt in relation to the Order of Nine Angles and “Anton Long” even though you provide no evidence from primary sources that Myatt=Long or that Myatt founded or was involved with the ONA. Until you – or anyone – does provide such evidence from primary sources then you’re only making assumptions or repeating the unverified allegations of others.

Surely, if you really believed in the tenets of your Howard Levey style ‘satanism’ you’d either stop repeating verbatim the unverified allegations of others about a public figure or you’d add the words “alleged” or “allegation” when you mention Myatt in relation to Anton Long and the ONA.

But what amuses “us” the most about the very many comments Levey-inspired ‘satanists’ make and have made in the past decade about the Order of Nine Angles is that they show no esoteric understanding of, or have no interest in, ONA references to items such as Keynes MS 27 in the library of King’s College, Cambridge, or to Keynes MS 32 in the same library, or to MS 416, in Babson College’s Grace K. Babson Collection of the Works of Sir Isaac Newton, currently housed in the Huntington Library, San Marino, California. Not to mention that they show no esoteric understanding of, or have no interest in, Sloane MS 3189 in the British Library, nor in the passage in Iamblichus which mentions μητρίζω. And of course why they have no comment on the fact that the ONA has a distinct ontology while the ‘satanism’ of Levey does not. And so on and so on.

Instead, all we ever get from the likes of them is propaganda and allegations about the ONA as if they believe or hope that their propaganda and allegations and their argumentum ad nauseam will deflect attention away from the ONA.