Order Of Nine Angles
Unable To See The Nexion For The Nexions:
The Trouble With Critics


The trouble afflicting many critics of the Order of Nine Angles is two-fold. First, they seem unable to see “The Nexion” for “the nexions”. That is, they confuse a nexion – be it a sphere or spheres on the Tree of Wyrd (and the associated archetypes and Occult praxises of such spheres) or be it a group or lodge or temple of those associating themselves with the O9A – with The Nexion that is The Seven Fold Way and thus the O9A.

Second, they illogically generalize from the particular, assuming as they so often do that the opinion of someone associated with the ONA is “ONA policy”, thus ignoring as they do the fact that no one has the authority to speak or write “on behalf of the O9A” because there is no O9A “authority” and never was any O9A “authority”. There are only personal experiences, personal opinions, personal interpretations since the only real “authority” in the O9A is what the individual discovers, learns, via pathei mathos both esoteric and exoteric, when they undertake the anados that is the Seven Fold Way.

Similarly in respect of works about or inspired by the Order of Nine Angles. They have no “authority”. Which is why neither the Deofel Quartet nor any essay or essays about ‘the sinister feminine’ (or about anything else, such as the Seven Fold Way) represent O9A policy. They present only the the opinions, the interpretation(s), and perhaps the experiences, of their authors. And this applies even if the author is or was Mr Anton Long.

Given that all this has been explained many times in the past twenty and more years – including in the 1992 publication The Satanic Letters of Stephen Brown – then why do critics of the O9A continue to be so afflicted?

     The answer is simple: because of their physis, their character. Some are so afflicted because they are territorial, needing to defend what they believe ‘satanism’ and/or the Left Hand Path are, with some of these types additionally claiming that the O9A is just “one man with a typewriter” and, latterly, “one man with a word-processor”, and now, recently, just “one man with a computer and an internet connection.”

Some are so afflicted because they have gotten lost in the O9A’s Labyrinthos Mythologicus and emerge confused, finding their bearings again by believing that the O9A is ‘fake’ or ‘not real’ or ‘a joke’.

Some are so afflicted because – to be blunt – they lack the intellect to grasp the difference between “The Nexion” and “the nexions” let alone grasp the subtle intricacies of the Seven Fold Way.

Some are so afflicted because they are just ignorant about the O9A, having prejudged it often on the basis of reading a few O9A texts and what others have written (usually on the internet) about the O9A.

Some are so afflicted because of hubris, sincerely believing that they “know all about the O9A” even though, when asked, they cannot answer questions from O9A Adepts regarding O9A esotericism. Lacking the honesty to admit that their knowledge about the O9A is limited, such critics either arrogantly dismiss such questions as “nonsense” or as “without meaning,” or ignore them. One of the markers enabling diagnosis of this type of physis is that they cannot read primary esoteric sources in their original language and have to resort to translations.

Some are so afflicted because they sincerely believe themselves to be very knowledgeable about the Occult and, believing they have discovered flaws in the O9A, trumpet their “findings” in order to establish a reputation for themselves and in the hope of attracting followers. When their “findings” or their knowledge are challenged, they invariably resort to argumentum ad nauseam and/or to argumentum ad hominem, with some of these types sincerely believing that they are on a “justified crusade” to “expose the ONA.” As with the ‘hubriatic type’, one of the markers enabling diagnosis of their physis is that they cannot read primary esoteric sources in their original language and have to resort to translations, which lack of direct knowledge of such primary sources reveals the limitations of their knowledge of matters Occult and O9A.

Finally, some are so afflicted because they have a personal agenda, such as a belief in the dogma of the Nazarene, or an irrational dislike of the person they fervently believe is behind the pseudonym “Anton Long”.

Of course, despite what we wrote at the beginning about the two-fold cause of such an affliction, many of the afflicted critics will continue to inflict their criticisms on others, given that for them their criticism of the O9A seems to have become a necessary part of their public (usually internet-created and internet-managed) persona.

And in the matter of the genesis and the spread of such an affliction, we were glad to help.