Order Of Nine Angles
Order Of Nine Angles

To add to our portfolio containing previous personal examples of just how the Order of Nine Angles – with its Labyrinthos Mythologicus, its elitism, its personal standards, and its arduous, individual, Seven Fold Way – differs from other contemporary Occult groups and from self-described modern ‘satanists’, we – who among other things are propagandists in the most literal and dramatic sense of the word – present here another contemporaneous example, culled from the Internet.

One of the differences between “us” and “them” is, as another person associating themselves with the ONA wrote, that those who are ONA value “objective and impersonal evaluation and respectful communication.”

            The crux of this particular contemporaneous example is as follows.

A certain person – who once declared themselves to be ONA, and then declared they were ‘leaving’ the ONA – published a plethora of claims about Mr Myatt and about the ONA and which claims were responded to and rebutted by citing primary sources {1}. This person was asked to provide evidence from primary sources in support of their claims, which they failed to do. When this failure of theirs to provide such evidence was pointed out, the person proceeded – we presume in order to try and “save face” – to reduce the matter to one topic only, to wit that of Mr Myatt being Anton Long and of the name Myatt being on some old, typewritten MSS.

Let us call this person – for convenience and based on the fact that his blog is replete not only with Goetic, Magian-inspired, ‘demons’, but also (as we shall see) with logical fallacies and profanities – the Magian Mundane, or Miaman (phonetically: me-a-man) for short.

Here follow pertinent extracts from a post by the Miaman reducing the matter to one topic only, illustrative as these extracts are of what we, with some justification, describe as the Miaman type.

The Miaman wrote:

   {quote} “I postulated that Anton Long was the name adopted by David Myatt.” {/quote}

Notice how, instead of simply stating that in his opinion Anton Long was the name adopted by David Myatt, the Miaman tries to make himself appear in a good light by stating ‘I postulated’, probably unaware of the fact that the term ‘postulate’ as well as meaning “a premise that forms part of or the basis of a discipline or theory,” also conveys the meaning “an unfounded or disputable unproved assumption; a hypothesis, a stipulation, an unproven theory.”

The Miaman wrote:

   {quote} “The identification of Anton Long with one David Myatt is the consensus held by most individuals knowledgeable concerning the two.”{/quote}

In one short sentence the Miaman commits several logical fallacies – argumentum ad populum, “the consensus is” – and argumentum ad verecundiam, “knowledgeable individuals”, and the latter despite providing no evidence for who these individuals are, what their knowledge is, and what primary sources such knowledge derives from.

The Miaman wrote:

   {quote} “David Myatt has come to renounce both the Order of the Nine Angles […] A person who knows Myatt in real life has informed me that he still leads a parochial temple.” {/quote}

These types of statements are typical of the Miaman type. Firstly, a personal opinion is stated as fact. Secondly, no evidence is provided in support of that opinion, in this instance a web-link to an article on Myatt’s blog or official website where he wrote that has “renounced the ONA.” Thirdly, the committal of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, which here is the statement that “someone who knows Myatt told me that…” with there yet again being no evidence provided (let alone evidence from primary sources) to support such a statement of personal knowing, such hearsay.

The Miaman wrote:

   {quote} DarkLogos posited the autistic argument that these signatures should be considered meaningless and mysterious until they are forensically [profanity redacted] analyzed. {/quote}

Note here (i) the use of weasel words, “autistic argument”, and (ii) an unsupported claim by the Miaman that it was someone called DarkLogos who first mentioned forensics, based as that Miaman claim itself is on a another unsupported claim by the Miaman that Lianna is this DarkLogos person.

Note also that the Miaman fails yet again to address the central issue regarding ‘signatures’, which is that “a signature on some old ONA [typewritten] MSS proves nothing. Anyone could have affixed Myatt’s name on them at any time and until the original documents are made available and examined in a forensic way by a professional qualified to do so then it’s just speculation; just another rumor about Myatt.”

Thus, instead of answering relevant questions and instead of providing actual evidence for his many claims about Myatt and the ONA he, as Miamans are wont to do, resorted to argumentum ad hominem and profanities.

Which is why in the matter of his claim that Myatt is Long, the Miaman wrote:

   {quote} “In response to this [request for evidence], I created a fake account and started shit-talking her […] I proceeded to post lewd and sexually degrading comments regarding Lianna’s interest in me [since] sexually degrading profanities are an apt mechanism.” {/quote}

The Miaman then proceeded to ban the individual in question from making further comments, thus ensuring that – at least on his blog – he “had the last word”.

In addition, it is illustrative how the Miaman tried to justify and excuse his Miaman actions, which actions are in this case the failure to provide evidence from primary sources for the many claims made, resorting to misogynist comments, resorting to argumentum ad hominem, using profanities, and committing the logical fallacies of argumentum ad verecundiam and ignoratio elenchi. Part of the excuse by the Miaman was:

   {quote} “When debating an interlocutor of a pompous nature who considers herself to be lofty of intellect, sexually degrading profanities are an apt mechanism.” {/quote}

The excuse consists (i) of pejorative presumptions about the person – “pompous nature”, “considers herself to be” – and of (ii) unsupported assumptions, “when debating”, “an interlocutor”, and of (iii) “sexually degrading profanities” being, according to the Miaman, acceptable.

In truth, as the replies and posts by the Miaman reveal, there was no actual, rational debate and especially no intellectual debate about primary sources. In addition, someone asking for evidence for his many and various claims is an “interlocutor”, while those supportive of the Miaman are not; and with the use of anonymity to post “sexually degrading profanities” and make lewd remarks being, according to the Miaman type, acceptable.


As the published ONA portfolio of examples reveals {2} the ONA has an elitist approach which highlights the plebeian nature of Levey-type ‘satanism’ and of many self-professed modern LHP occultists. As someone ONA wrote:

   {quote} “Some of the distinguishing features of plebs are (i) that their behaviour is unmannerly (characterized by a lack of civility) and (ii) their speech contains profanities, especially when they emote, and (iii) they are prone to displays of anger and aggression (characterized by a lack of self-control and/or by displays of egoism, the later usually deriving from the erroneously high opinion they have of themselves and of their abilities). Such plebeious people have plebeianized occultism and especially satanism, something evident whenever modern (and so-called post-modern) self-described satanists opine, via the medium of the internet or otherwise, about themselves, about satanism, about occultism, and about whatever else they have a plebeian opinion about.” {3} {/quote}

Thus, in the particular example considered here, those associating themselves with the ONA responded in a civil way to the many claims made and provided evidence from primary sources – such as from medieval alchemical texts {1} – while the Miaman simply repeated the many accusations about the ONA and about Myatt (the fallacy of argumentum ad nauseam), then made other accusations (ignoratio elenchi), then attempted to reduce the topic to one particular matter, then indulged in profanities and lewdness, then committed the fallacies of argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad populum, and argumentum ad verecundiam.

Three Wyrd Sisters,
June 2017


{1} The claims and their rebuttal are here: https://omega9alpha.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/o9a-questions-2017-v5b.pdf

{2} The portfolio includes the example given in {1} as well as the following, selected from the many other examples available:

(a) https://wyrdsister.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/another-anti-o9a-example-v3.pdf
(b) Documenting Pretentiousness In Internet Occultism and Documenting Plebeian Physis In Modern Occultism in http://www.o9a.org/wp-content/uploads/o9a-modern-satanism.pdf

{3} The quotation is from the article Satanism Plebeianized, published in the 2015 compilation The Joy Of The Sinister, available at https://wyrdsister.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/joy-of-the-sinister1.pdf