°°°°°°°°°

Order Of Nine Angles Sigil

O9A

°°°°°°°°°

Editorial Note: We republish here a recent article about the O9A and the attempt by a certain anti-fascist group to have the O9A banned – proscribed – as a terrorist group. As the so-called “chief executive” of a certain political advocacy group states in his “on-line petition”,

[quote]
            We, the undersigned, are writing to you with concern over the Nazi-Satanic group ‘Order of Nine Angles’ and call on you to use the powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 to proscribe them as a terrorist group. […]

           The Order of Nine Angles (O9A) seeks to overthrow the alleged “Nazarene/Magian” (Jewish) influence on society by subverting and destabilising society through both chaos and terrorism. It is the most extreme Satanist group in the world and is having an increasing influence on a generation of young nazis who are being drawn into terrorist activity.” Source: https://action.hopenothate.org.uk/page/signup/proscribe-the-order-of-nine-angles
[/quote]

He also states that the O9A is

[quote]
           a British neo-Nazi satanist group that encourages extreme violence among its followers to destabilise society, and overthrow what it sees as Jewish control of global culture and economics.
[/quote]

That they have, to date, over 5000 signatures – including members of the British Parliament – is indicative of how the O9A is now perceived among mundanes.

However, as the following article mentions: “From the perspective of the Order of Nine Angles (ONA, O9A) this is all marvelous propaganda, and may well have Levey-type Satanists envious and desirous of penning even more anti-O9A diatribes.”

°°°°°°°°°

The Demonizing Of Mr Myatt

With the publication in March 2020 of a report by the left-wing political advocacy group calling itself Hope Not Hate, the demonizing of Mr Myatt {1} has reached a new level especially as the “chief executive” of that political advocacy group has, since the publication of that report, ranted about Mr Myatt on an internet audio forum where he, for almost half an hour, repeated his baseless accusations against the O9A. {2}

In that rant he stated, among other things, that Myatt became a Satanist in 1966 and that National Socialism was and is integral to the O9A; that the O9A advocates sexual violence; that in a March 2000 during an interview Myatt carried an SS dagger in the pocket of his Barbour jacket, and handed him a three page document concerning the Rules of Dueling. He also repeated the claim that if someone O9A could not find a suitable human opfer for culling they would sacrifice and animal. He also speaks of O9A supporters as having established groups on encrypted internet platforms such as Telegram which encourage violence and terrorism. He also claimed that the now banned Sonnenkrieg Division was an O9A network; that Myatt in the 1970s in Leeds did deeds of random violence including attacking homeless people; that in the late 1970s Myatt joined Colin Jordan’s British Movement, and that the O9A is the most extreme cult in the world and “has to be stopped”.

From the perspective of the Order of Nine Angles (ONA, O9A) this is all marvelous propaganda, and may well have Levey-type Satanists envious and desirous of penning even more anti-O9A diatribes.

In respect of Mr Myatt, the portrait presented by the “chief executive” of a certain political advocacy group is of Myatt as “an evil mastermind” whose raison d’etre is encouraging terrorism by whatever means. Kudos therefore to that “chief executive” who in his hatred has neglected Myatt’s voluminous post-2011 about rejecting extremism and neglected Myatt’s philosophy of pathei-mathos {3} and who thus has made Myatt into a modern icon of rebellion, Antinomianism, Satanism, and terrorism.

              However, for the sake of historical accuracy, we shall correct a few – note: only a few – of the many mistakes that the “chief executive” of a certain political advocacy group made in his audio rant.

° In 1966 and for most of 1997 Myatt was a schoolboy living in Singapore. He thus could not then have become a Satanist as the “chief executive” alleges.

There is nothing probative – no evidence – that Myatt became a Satanist in the late 1960s. There is only the fictitious forgery titled Diablerie.

° National Socialism is not and never was integral to the O9A, as a perusal of such O9A texts as The Seven Fold Path explains.

° The O9A has never advocated sexual violence, as a perusal of the O9A corpus would reveal. Indeed, the O9A has issued texts denouncing misogyny and rape: see for example Fake News.

° As noted elsewhere Myatt never carried an SS dagger in the pocket of his Barbour jacket {4}, but once did admit to sometimes carrying a .22 Bersa semi-automatic pistol.

° There is no three page document written by or circulated by Myatt concerning the Rules of Dueling. What exists is a short one-page statement by Myatt which we reproduce here:

[quote]
             “The most acceptable and civilized form of duel is by pistol, and those abiding by the Code of Honour are expected to use this form as and when necessary.

              A formal challenge to a duel must be personally issued, by one party to the other, at which a date, time and place are specified (Dawn is traditionally favoured). Each duellist must be accompanied by a Second, to ensure fair play and an honourable outcome, as there must be a referee.

              At the appointed time and in the appointed place, two revolvers, pistols or duelling pistols, as similar as possible, are checked and prepared by the referee, (ideally a man of honour should keep or have access to a matched pair of pistols specifically made for duelling, capable of firing one round and one round only). These revolvers or pistols, and the bullets, are also checked by the duellists and their seconds. [Note: whatever pistol is used it should be loaded or so adapted that one round and only one round can be discharged from it when the trigger is pulled.]

              The referee then allows the duellists to choose a weapon. The duellists stand back to back. At a sign or word from the referee they then walk a set number of paces agreed beforehand (ten being usual) before turning to face each other. The referee then says: “Take aim!” at which they take aim. The referee then says: “Fire!” at which they discharge the weapon. It is considered dishonourable conduct to aim and/or fire before the referee gives the signal to so do.

              Should one person fire and miss, or hit and injure, the other duellist before that duellist has also fired, then the person who has so fired must wait, without moving, until his fellow duellist has also fired, if he is capable of so firing.

              Honour is satisfied if the duel is undertaken in the above manner.

Some Notes On Duelling

              There are four things which need to be understood about personal duels of honour.
              (1) The etiquette, or rules, of duelling must be followed, for it is these rules which make this encounter between two individuals a civilized and thus an honourable encounter. A duel of honour is not a brawl, or merely a fight between two individuals – it is a dispassionate meeting of two individuals who use their own will, their own strength of character, to fight in a particular way.
              The rules, the etiquette, of duelling make it such a dispassionate encounter – for a duel is a test of courage, of nerve, of character, of personal honour itself. Any and all conduct which is against the rules is dishonourable, and as such the person who does not abide by the rules is not an honourable person, and thus forfeits their honour and their honourable reputation.

              If the rules are not followed, it is thus not a duel of honour.

              (2) In a duel of honour, deadly weapons must be used. It is the deadly nature of the weapons used, with the possibility of death, which makes the encounter an honourable one. Deadly weapons include pistols, swords and long-bladed fighting knives of the Bowie type.
              (3) The duel is a private affair between the two individuals concerned. As such, only the nominated Seconds, and a referee – acceptable by both sides – must be present. It is against the etiquette of duelling for any other people to be present.

              (4) A person challenged to a duel must either personally accept the challenge, or decline the challenge. It is dishonourable and cowardly conduct to ignore a challenge once it has been formally issued. If a person who is challenged declines the challenge, then they must issue a personal apology, and if necessary, or called upon to do so, a public apology.
              A man of honour will only challenge to a duel those individuals whom he believes can physically defend themselves and their honour with deadly weapons. Thus, it is dishonourable and cowardly if someone who is challenged to a duel tries to get someone else to fight the duel on their behalf.”

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20090607223524/http://www.cosmicbeing.info/duel.html

[/quote]

° Myatt joined Colin Jordan’s British Movement in 1968, not in the late 1970s.

° The allegation that “if someone O9A could not find a suitable human opfer for culling they would sacrifice an animal” is laughable given that no O9A text mentions this and that O9A texts clearly state that they abhor animal sacrifice since there is an abundance of human dross who could be sacrificed, qv. R. Parker, Praxis and Theory of The Order of Nine Angles – A Précis for Critics, Neophytes, and Academics. 2012.

° There is nothing probative to indicate that Myatt in the 1970s in Leeds did deeds of random violence.

Conclusion

That journalists and others who repeat the allegations and lies made by the “chief executive” of a certain political advocacy group without ever having perused O9A texts such as The Seven Fold Path and without having studied Myatt’s post-2011 writings surely indicates something about those journalists and those others.

That the “chief executive” of a certain political advocacy group does not, in his 2020 or 2019 reports or in his audio rant or in his conversations with journalists and others, mention Myatt’s voluminous post-2011 writings about rejecting extremism and Myatt’s post-2012 philosophy of pathei-mathos is both interesting and indicative.

Has the “chief executive” even read those writings? Probably not.

What is his comment, for example, on Myatt’s article A Balanced View Of Islam and The West and his books Extremism And Reformation, and A Rejection Of Extremism.

If the “chief executive” of a certain political advocacy group has indeed bothered to read such post-2011 writings by Myatt, is the “chief executive” in his fanaticism and prejudice under the delusion that such writings are the work of “an evil mastermind” and thus designed to deceive?

Failure by him to provide answers to such questions is not an option. For if he believes such a delusion that such writings are designed to deceive, then surely it expresses something about the psyche of “chief executive”, about his own physis, about his character, and about his own personal and political agenda.

Furthermore, that the “chief executive” of a certain political advocacy group does not mention the rumours that Myatt may, for decades, have been either working for “Special Branch” or be or have been an MI5 agent provocateur {5} is also interesting and indicative. Is the “chief executive” of a certain political advocacy group hyping Myatt so that Myatt can continue to be a State-sponsored agent provocateur and be seen by others as an icon of rebellion, antinomianism, Satanism, and terrorism?

Rachael Stirling
March 2020
v1.03

{1} For earlier attempts to demonize Myatt see https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/2019/05/11/demonizing-david-myatt/

{2} See for example https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/fake-news/

{3} Refer to https://davidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/dwm-rejecting-extremism-v3.pdf and also https://davidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/reformation-extremism-v3b.pdf

{4} https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/meeting-with-nick-lowles/

{5} See for example (i) https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/agent-provocateur/ and (ii) https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/undercover-spies/

°°°°°°°