Satanists Relying On Translations

Order Of Nine Angles
ΔΔΔΔΔ

One of the many indicative things about many modern self-described satanists – and self-described followers of a Western Left Hand Path – is that they pride themselves on their knowledge and understanding while having to rely on the translations of others.

This pride and reliance is obvious whenever such people write or pontificate about satanism, about occultism, or about other matters, and when they discuss such matters on internet forums and the like. It is indicative about them because they believe – and are prone to prattle on about – that their modern satanism (based as it is on, or inspired as it is by, the works of Howard Stanton Levey) means, among others things, self-empowerment, an abnegation of self-deceit, and a self-reliance.

For example, such self-described satanists – in reference to matters such as ‘satan’ and ‘evil’ – are often prone (to bolster their argument) to quote from the Old Testament, while in those and other matters they quote from the likes of Nietzsche, or Jung, or Plato, or Epicurus, or whatever author is flavor of the month, but with all their quotations being in translation and translated by others. So much for their “self-reliance”.

Thus they are relying on the interpretations and/or on the opinions of others and do not seem to understand that such prideful insistence (contrary to the facts) and such a reliance on, such a trust in, the interpretations/opinions of others fundamentally contradicts the satanism they adhere to or believe in or defend.

For when confronted with this reliance – with this taking on faith what someone else or some many has and have written – they do not have the self-honesty, the self-knowing, to accept and to openly state that their own knowledge about such matters is limited but instead make excuses, insisting, for example, that “using a translation is irrelevant as long as my reasoning is correct,” that “it’s not about semantics,” and – of course – often claiming that they really do know what they are talking about even though they have no first-hand knowledge and understanding of primary sources, such as – in the case of the Old Testament – LXX, and in the case of authors such as Plato the appropriate texts in Ancient Greek.

Lacking such knowledge and understanding, they are – whatever excuses they make – merely presenting their own personal opinion about matters they are ill-informed about. In some cases, this lack of self-honesty, this lack of self-knowing, amounts to pretentiousness or pseudo-intellectualism; in other cases it is simply a manifestation of unchecked egoism and arrogance.

That so many self-described modern satanists – and so many self-described followers of a modern Western Left Hand Path – cannot bring themselves to admit, to themselves and to others, that their knowledge and understanding of certain matters is profoundly limited, certainly says a lot about the type of person that such ‘modern satanism’ – and such modern Left Hand Paths – attract, and a lot about the type of modern satanism and the type of Left Hand Paths such persons follow, believe in, or have been inspired by.

KS
2016


On Sorcery In Virgil’s Aeneid

O9A Insight Role
O9A Insight Role
°°°°°°°

 

On Sorcery In Virgil’s Aeneid

 
Editorial Note: Given the interest generated by this part of the recent O9A text Some Questions And Answers About The Order of Nine Angles (2017) Part Two we reproduce it here as stand-alone post.

The item in question – titled On Sorcery In Virgil’s Aeneid – was a note written by Anton Long around six years ago which was published in Azoth, an internal ONA bulletin. The note includes Anton Long’s translation of the Latin quote by Virgil.

To provide some context, what is evoked by Virgil – the immolation of a lady (Dido) who would rather die than dishonour herself by having to live with a barbarian, and who is angry at Aeneas for deserting her and who seeks aid through The Craft via a Dragon-friendly priestess – is a manifestation of the Western ethos and a world away from what is evoked by the medieval grimoire, Magian influenced, tradition with its profusion of hierarchical ‘demons’, its alleged ‘secrets’, and its hollow promises that anyone can control such ‘demonic’ entities if they have the right accoutrements and the right Magian names.

 
[Beginning of article]

On Sorcery In Virgil’s Aeneid

 

The following text – along with an awful lot of classical literature – has long been misunderstood.

hinc mihi Massylae gentis monstrata sacerdos,
Hesperidum templi custos, epulasque draconi
quae dabat et sacros servabat in arbore ramos, (485)
spargens umida mella soporiferumque papaver.
haec se carminibus promittit solvere mentes
quas velit, ast aliis duras immittere curas,
sistere aquam fluviis et vertere sidera retro,
nocturnosque movet Manis: mugire videbis (490)
sub pedibus terram et descendere montibus ornos.
testor, cara, deos et te, germana, tuumque
dulce caput, magicas invitam accingier artis.

Here is a misinterpretation of the Latin, published in 1910, which completely distorts the meaning:

       “From thence is come a witch, a priestess, a Numidian crone, who guards the shrine of the Hesperides and feeds the dragon; she protects the fruit of that enchanting tree, and scatters there her slumbrous poppies mixed with honey-dew. Her spells and magic promise to set free what hearts she will, or visit cruel woes on men afar. She stops the downward flow of rivers, and turns back the rolling stars; on midnight ghosts she calls: her votaries hear earth bellowing loud below, while from the hills the ash-trees travel down. But, sister mine, thou knowest, and the gods their witness give, how little mind have I to don the garb of sorcery.”

Here is an interpretation which seeks to express what Virgil actually wrote:

       From there a priestess of the Massylian clan was made known to me – custodian as she was of the Temple of Hesperidum – who delivers food to the Dragon and protects the sacred branches of the Tree, sprinkling there moist honey and soporific seeds of poppy. She offers – to whomsoever she chooses – to release through song their feelings, and – for others – to let in lasting anxiety: to still the flowing waters and redirect the constellations to where they were; to drive away the Shades of Night. You shall perceive the Earth shake beneath her feet and the Mountain-Ash descend the mountains. And, my sister, upon the gods and by your dear life I bear witness that I reluctantly undertake the practice of The Craft.”

a) The word translated by song is carmen (as in Orff’s Carmina Burana) and might well be a reference to the power of song as evident in the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice.

The word translated by ‘feelings’ is mentes, although a suitable alternative translation would be ‘to free through song the heartache’ since the Latin and the context – abolere nefandi cuncta viri monumenta iuvat monstratque sacerdos, “that slimy man” – suggests the place in the body where strong emotions and feelings are considered to reside.

b) The phrase sistere aquam fluviis et vertere sidera retro is not meant to be taken literally, but rather metaphorically; as in ‘still the tears of heartache’ and ‘return to how things were’ before the anxiety. Similarly, nocturnosque movet Manis is turn away, move away, banish, the ‘ghosts’ that might haunt our sleepless nights.

c) The word translated by The Craft is magicas and which Latin word is derived from the Greek μαγικός with the etymology of the Greek word being uncertain, although μαγικός is the title of a work attributed, in the Suda, to Antisthenes, and by Diogenes Laertius to Aristotle (qv. V. Rose, Aristotelis Qui Ferebantur Librorum Fragmenta, Leipzig 1886). One suggestion was that the word derives from Magi, with the (popular but unproven) assumption being that the Magi were skilled in what is now termed ‘magick’ (or sorcery, γοητικός, qv. Aristotle Fragment 36), although there is evidence to suggest (qv. Fragments 33 and 35) that the ‘lost work’ with the title μαγικός – whomsoever the author was – treated the Magi as philosophers and not as sorcerers, with Plutarch in Adversus Colotem mentioning a work which dealt with Zoroaster as a philosopher.

In Ovid, Tacitus, and Pliny the Elder, magicus can be taken as meaning one or more of the following: (i) a particular type of chanting or singing, of an ancient kind different from what the word ‘incantation’ now implies; (ii) certain types of divination including what is now known as astrology; (iii) certain rites and practices, including human sacrifice (homo immolaretur); and (iv) the use of herbs to cure ailments and sickness. Pliny (Book XXX, iii) also comments that britannia hodieque eam adtonita celebrat tantis caerimoniis, ut dedisse Persis videri possit, “even now Britannia practices it so enthusiastically with such large ceremonies it is conceivable they gave it to the Persians.”

Hence to translate magicas here as ‘magic’ or ‘sorcery’ – replete as those words now are with accumulated meanings irrelevant to ancient times – is unhelpful, particularly as Pliny writes (in Book XXX, ii) that Homer’s Odyssey is based upon the Art (ars) in question and relates a legend that Pythagoras, Empedocles, Democritus, and Plato, all journeyed abroad to learn that Art.

Given what Ovid, Tacitus, and especially Pliny the Elder – and Homer in The Odyssey if we accept Pliny’s suggestion – wrote regarding the art that is magicas, then The Craft is a most suitable translation, redolent as it is of an ancient and almost forgotten Western esoteric tradition.

[End of article]


Questions For DM 2017: Swan Song Of A Mystic?

odal3

 

Swan Song Of A Mystic?

The latest effusion from Mr David Myatt, titled Some Questions For DWM 2017, is interesting for a variety of reasons not least of which is that it is permeated – as is his philosophy of pathei-mathos – with references to the classical culture of ancient Greece and Rome. It is also – perhaps unintentionally – revealing about Myatt’s character providing as it does facts about his life and how he now views his philosophy of pathei-mathos, which philosophy he has previously described as his weltanschauung, his own outlook on life.

The overall impression is of a man steeped in Western culture who is still ineluctably part of that culture but who – even though already withdrawn from the world – desires as a mystic might to cut what few ties still bind him to the world of vanity and materialism.

The Philosophy of Pathei Mathos

One of these ties appears to be his philosophy of pathei-mathos. This is a philosophy which is not only clearly pagan and part of the Western philosophical tradition {1} but also one which provides we Westerners with a cultured – a philosophical – paganism relevant to the modern world which is completely different from and even at odds with what has been termed both “contemporary paganism” and “neopaganism” with its invented rituals and ceremonies, its belief in and revival of ancient deities, and its lack of philosophical rigour. In effect, Myatt has continued, refined, and evolved the Western paganism – the ancient, the classical, paganism – evident in the works Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus, Cicero, the Corpus Hermeticum, and Marcus Aurelius, stripping away the old idea of gods and goddesses and replacing them with a modern mysticism centred around philosophical concepts such as Being and physis {2}, and virtues such as personal honour, pathei mathos, and empathy. Such a philosophical approach also conveniently does away – sans polemics – with conventional religions such as Christianity. {3}

Why then – given this gift to those seeking a Western alternative to the likes of Christianity who are unable to take “contemporary paganism” and “neopaganism” seriously – does Myatt in his latest effusion seem, as some have commented, to reject his own pagan philosophy? For among other things he writes,

       “All that ‘philosophy’ seems to be to me now is a rather wordy and a rather egoistic, vainful, attempt to present what I (rightly or wrongly) believed I had learned about myself and the world as a result of various experiences.”

My own view is that he is not rejecting that philosophy, only moving on, as a composer of musical works – finding themselves unsatisfied with their creations – moves on to other things, to new compositions. In other words, Myatt is only re-expressing what he said some years ago, which was that the philosophy of pathei-mathos was

       “simply my own weltanschauung, a weltanschauung developed over some years as a result of my own pathei-mathos. Thus, and despite whatever veracity it may or may not possess, it is only the personal insight of one very fallible individual.” {4}

In Myatt’s case he is simply moving on to concentrate on translations, and to live as his conscience dictates, or rather as his own pathei mathos informs him he should, which is life as a modern recluse and a learned mystic.

That he is not rejecting his own philosophy but instead is just not going to write anymore about it – or as he says, is not going to “pontificate” about it anymore – is evident in two of his replies. For in one reply he writes “I would suggest the tentative answers expressed by my weltanschauung,” while in another that such philosophical essays “can be, and in my case seem to have been, manifestations of vanity.”

But whether he will really write no more philosophical essays remains to be seen for there have been many writers, artists and musicians who, having forsworn their craft, nevertheless return to it at some stage.

A Western Heritage

In his latest effusion Myatt acknowledges his Western heritage, writing that as a schoolboy he read in Greek the likes of Thucydides, Homer, Plato, Aristotle, and Herodotus, and in a rather remarkable admission that what he

       “imbibed in those early years from such books of Ancient Hellas was nothing particularly philosophical but instead martial, and I could not but help admire those ‘thinking warriors’, those ‘perspicacious inventive gentlemen’ (περιφραδὴς ἀνήρ as Sophocles described them, cunning in inventive arts who arrive now with dishonour and then with honour, τι τὸ μηχανόεν τέχνας ὑπὲρ ἐλπίδ ̓ἔχων τοτὲ μὲν κακόν, ἄλλοτ ̓ ἐπ ̓ ἐσθλὸν ἕρπει) nurtured as I was then and had been for years by and in various colonies and outposts of what was still the British Empire. Thus it was natural that when, a short time later, I first learned about the Third Reich and about the loyalty of a soldier such as Otto Ernst Remer and the heroic actions of warriors such as Leon Degrelle I admired such men and intuited that something of the warrior ethos of ancient Hellas and Sparta may have manifested itself in our modern world.”

He also admits that

       “some aspects of some of the tractates of the Corpus Hermeticum have influenced my thinking, just as Aristotle, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Marcus Aurelius, and other classical and Hellenistic Greek and Latin writers have.”

That he does not mention any non-Western literature I find indicative.

Thus it is my view that Myatt – despite some of his past peregrinations or perhaps because of some of those peregrinations – is still rooted in and still contributing to the ethos of the West, a fact evident in his philosophy of pathei-mathos and also in his on-going translations of texts from the Corpus Hermeticum and his on-going translation of the Gospel of John, both of which are important for understanding the past and the current ethos of the West itself particularly as Myatt notes, in one of his replies, that his presumption is “of early Christianity probably being influenced by the diverse hermetic traditions which existed and flourished during the Hellenistic period.”

This rootedness in the culture of the West is also evident in another of his replies, with Myatt lamenting that

       “for so many in the modern West there is no longer an ancestral culture of which one is a living, dwelling, part – a connexion between the past and the future and a connexion with a rural place of dwelling – and which culture preserves the slowly learned wisdom of the past.”

Like a few others, my view is that his philosophy of pathei-mathos as well as his translations provide some of the links we need to reconnect ourselves with our Western ancestral culture.

Rachael Stirling
August 2017

{1} See https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/2016/01/14/a-modern-pagan-philosophy/
{2} In one of his replies Myatt writes that in his philosophy “the apparent parts of the unity are expressed by descriptors such as masculous and muliebral, with that unity – The One, μονάς – not designated by terms such as theos (God, god) or theoi (gods) but rather metaphysically, as Being and the emanations/effluvia of Being such as ourselves, Nature, and the Cosmos itself.”
{3} A detailed analysis of Myatt’s philosophy is given in the 2016 book The Mystic Philosophy Of David Myatt, which is available as a free download – https://wyrdsister.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/mystic-philosophy-myatt-v1a.pdf – and as a printed book, ISBN 978-1523930135
{4} The Way Of Pathei-Mathos – A Précis. The essay is in the 2014 compilation titled One Vagabond In Exile From The Gods: Some Personal and Metaphysical Musings.


Hermetica: A Review Of The Myatt Translations

Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

ΔΔΔΔΔΔΔ
Hermetica: A Review Of The Myatt Translations

 

In the Spring of this year (2017) David Myatt released his versions – translations and commentaries – of several more Corpus Hermeticum texts to complement his existing, published, versions of tracts I, III, IV, VIII, XI {1}. The new additions were tracts VI, XII, and the Cantio Arcana part (sections 17 and 18) of tract XIII. {2}

The latest additions – bringing his translations of Hermetica texts to seven – follow the same methodology as previous versions. That is, his penchant for transliterating certain Greek words, his use of often unusual English words in place of the standard translations and meanings given in Greek-English lexicons such as LSJ {3}, and the terms and expressions he invents or digs up from usually very old books of English literature. All of which combine to make his translations idiosyncratic and remarkably different from all previous translations into English, antique and modern. To his credit, he explains in his commentary – sometimes in pedantic detail – his choices, citing his reasons and often providing some quotation in Greek, Latin, or English.

In regard to his translations of hermetic texts, this results in two things. In translations with a technical vocabulary relating to hermeticism, and in translations which transports the reader to an ancient world. Both of these combine to breathe new life into the texts and thence into hermeticism itself. Thus, far from, as Myatt writes in his introduction to tract VI, giving the impression “of reading somewhat declamatory sermons about god/God and ‘the good’ familiar from over a thousand years of persons preaching about Christianity,” the hermetic texts he has translated give the impression of reading about a pagan mysticism that most readers will probably be unfamiliar with.

Thus while other translators write moralistically about god, righteousness, truth, and ‘the good’, Myatt previews a world of divinities, of respecting the customs of the gods, of honesty, and nobility. A good example of the difference is in Myatt’s rendering of part of the Cantio Arcana. Copenhaver – who follows the proto-Christian interpretation of earlier translators and whose recent translations of the Corpus Hermeticum are regarded as “the definitive versions”, has:

      “Holy knowledge, you enlightened me; through you, hymning the intellectual light, I take joy in the joy of Mind. Join me, all you powers, and sing me the hymn. You also, continence, sing me the hymn. My justice, through me hymn the just. My liberality, through me hymn the Universe. Truth, hymn the truth. Good, hymn the good.” (4}

Myatt has:

Numinous knowledge, from you a numinal understanding:
Through you, a song of apprehended phaos,
Delighted with delightful perceiverance.
Join me, all you Arts, in song.
You, mastery, sing; and you, respectful of custom,
Through me sing of such respect.
Sing, my companions, for All That Exists:
Honesty, through me, sing of being honest,
The noble, sing of nobility.

In Myatt’s version there are the two previously mentioned things. A technical vocabulary – such as numinal, phaos, perceiverance, Arts – requiring interpretation, and nothing reminiscent of Christianity, such as ‘hymn’ and ‘holy’ and being ‘good’. As Myatt writes in his commentary on the Cantio Arcana in respect of his use of the terms song, honesty and Arts:

   Song. ὕμνος. Not a ‘hymn’ in the Christian sense (which the word hymn now so often imputes) but rather celebrating the numinous, and theos, in song, verse (ode), and chant.

   Honesty. ἀλήθεια. Given that those who are urged to sing are personifications, this is not some abstract, disputable, ‘truth’ but as often elsewhere in classical literature, a revealing, a dis-covering, of what is real as opposed to what is apparent or outer appearance. In personal terms, being honest and truthful.

   Arts. As at Poemandres 31 – which is also a traditional doxology (δοξολογία) to theos – the sense of δυνάμεων [here] is not ‘powers’, forces (or something similar and equally at variance with such a laudation) but ‘arts’; that is, particular abilities, qualities, and skills. Here, these abilities and skills – the craft – relate to esoteric song; to be able to be an effective laudator in respect of theos and “every Physis of Kosmos.”

His reference to ‘every Physis of Kosmos’ is to the beginning of the ode:

Let every Physis of Kosmos favourably listen to this song
πᾶσα φύσις κόσμου προσδεχέσθω τοῦ ὕμνου τὴν ἀκοήν

which Copenhaver translates as “let every nature in the cosmos attend to the hearing of this hymn.”

The commentaries which accompany the translations deserve a mention. Each of them not only occupies far more pages than the actual translation but they reveal the author as erudite with pages of quotations from ancient Greek and Latin works – for most of which Myatt provides his own translation – and the occasional quotation from English literature. In the case of English literature usually to explain the meaning of the unusual English words of phrases he uses, quoting the likes of Chaucer, Coleridge, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Chapman, and others.

       In effect what Myatt does in his translations is paint of picture of classical – and of Hellenic – culture and especially of Hellenic mysticism; a culture and a mysticism which is pagan and based on individuals, on tangible things such as honesty, and not on moralistic and religious and impersonal abstractions. That is, he reveals the Greco-Roman ethos – the pagan ethos – underlying the hermetic texts and which is in contrast to that of Christianity with its later, medieval and Puritanical, impersonal moralizing. He incidently leaves us with an interesting question. Which is whether such pagan Hellenic mysticism influenced Christianity in a positive way. In academia the assumption has always been that Christianity and earlier Judaic monotheism influenced hermeticism despite the fact of evidence from papyrus fragments indicating the opposite and despite the fact that the earliest texts of the Old Testament were written in Greek and not in Hebrew. {5}

Myatt himself is of the opinion that parts of ancient Greek mysticism and cosmogony – as described for instance in tract III of the Corpus Hermeticum – have influenced both Judaism and Christianity. {6}

Such controversial matters aside, his translations of tracts from the Corpus Hermeticism are decidedly iconoclastic and – when compared to those of other translators such as Copenhaver – idiosyncratic and as such are not and probably never will be mainstream at least in academia. They may therefore never gain widespread acceptance among established academics. Does that matter? Probably not because his actual and potential audience is much greater. Which audience is of those interested in Western mysticism, in Western paganism, and in Greco-Roman culture in general, and for such interested parties Myatt has done a great service since he places the hermetic texts firmly into those milieux.

One other thing about the translations and commentaries deserves a mention. As well a being available in printed form he has not only made all of them available as free downloads from the internet {7} but also issued them under a liberal Creative Commons license which allows others to freely copy and distribute them.

Rachael Stirling
Shropshire
May 2017

{1} D. Myatt. Corpus Hermeticum I, III, IV, VIII, XI. 2017. ISBN 978-1545020142.
{2} Tracts VI, XII, and the Cantio Arcana, are available at https://davidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/tractates-vi-xii-v3.pdf [Accessed May 2017].
{3} H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford University Press, 1996.
{4} B. Copenhaver. Hermetica. Cambridge University Press. 1992.
{5} The earliest written texts of the Old Testament – papyrus fragments found in Egypt – are in Hellenistic Greek and date from around 250 BCE and precede by over a century the earliest fragments written in Hebrew (some of the Dead Sea Scrolls) which date from 150 BCE to around 50 BCE.
{6} See Myatt’s introduction to his translation of tract III.
{7} https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/corpus-hermeticum/


The Almighty Sol

Order Of Nine Angles
ΔΔΔΔΔ

Editorial Note: We reproduce here an interesting article which is not only inspired by the Western, pagan, occult tradition of the O9A but also mentions David Myatt in relation to such modern mystics as Julius Evola.

Brutalism I: The Almighty Sol
(pdf)

Rebutting An Assumptionist

Order Of Nine Angles
ΔΔΔΔΔ

Let us analyse just three recent assumptions made by an assumptionist whose previous assumptions about the Order of Nine Angles were all revealed to also be erroneous {1}.

§ Assumption 1. {quote} The Numinous is defined as comprised of dark and light qualities alike, ergo their is no legitimate dichotomy between the Sinister and the Numinous, because the Numinous encompasses all. {/quote}

Nowhere in O9A literature – as far as we are aware – do the O9A define the numinous as “comprised of dark and light qualities alike.”

O9A literature writes – in the text The Adeptus Way and the Sinisterly-Numinous – that the “muliebral qualities are one presencing of the numinous within a human man,” and – in the text Questions From A Modern Rounwytha Initiate – of

           “a man and of a woman [as] having both a sinister and a numinous character within them, and sinister and numinous abilities. For, in a simplified – very inexact way – and to an extent in an unconscious archetypal way, we might speak of these particular female qualities as natural expressions or intimations of the ur-numinous, and manly blood lust, rage, and competitiveness, as natural expressions or intimations of the ur-sinister,”

with a helpful footnote explaining that the prefix ur is “from the German usage, as in ursprache, implying the or a primitive/early form of some-thing.”

This duality of character was mentioned in the text Masculous And Muliebral: The Sinister Feminine And Homo Hubris {2} which drew attention to three salient facts: (i) that Homo Hubris and the masculous ‘satanism’ of Levey, et al, are examples of unbalanced, profane, physis; (ii) that such a duality of physis is evident in some ancient texts, such as the ‘Pymander’ text from the Corpus Hermeticum; and (iii) that “one of the aims of the Occult anados that is the O9A Seven Fold Way is for the initiate to personally experience – through exoteric and esoteric deeds – both what has been described as ‘the sinister’ and what has been described as ‘the numinous’ and, because of such experience, to meld them together in order to transcend beyond them.”

          In respect of the numinous, it seems to us that the assumptionist may well have confused something Mr Myatt wrote – in the commentary to his translation of the Pymander hermetic text – with O9A belief or policy.

Myatt wrote,

          “correctly understood, numinous is the unity beyond our perception of its two apparent aspects; aspects expressed by the Greek usage of ἅγιος which could be understood in a good (light) way as ‘sacred’, revered, of astonishing beauty; and in a bad (dark) way as redolent of the gods/wyrd/the fates/morai in the sense of their retributive or (more often) their balancing power/powers and thus giving rise to mortal ‘awe’ since such a restoration of the natural balance often involved or required the death (and sometimes the ‘sacrifice’) of mortals.”

Myatt goes on to mention Rilke, quoting – in German – from the Duino Elegies and provides his own translation.

Notice that Myatt writes that the “numinous is the unity beyond our perception of its two apparent aspects.” That is, the numinous in his view has of itself two apparent aspects. He does not write that one of these is ‘dark’ in the sense of being identical to ‘the sinister’.

§ Assumption 2. {quote} conflation of LaVeyan Satanism with Qliphothic sorcery is astounding fallacious {/quote}

Nowhere – as far as we are aware – have the O9A used the term “Qliphothic sorcery” in relation to Levey or indeed in relation to anyone else. What has been used in relation to Howard Stanton Levey – whose alias you et al insist on using rather than his real name – are the terms Magian occultism and qabalistic tradition, with Magian occultism related to the Magian ethos, qv. the O9A text The Error of Egoism: Magian Occultism, Satanic Subversion, and The O9A. A recent O9A text referred to the Magian medieval “qabalistic tradition form[ing] the basis for the sorcery of the so-called Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, for the sorcery of Mr Crowley, for the sorcery of Howard Levey, for the sorcery of Mr Aquino, and for the sorcery of all other modern, non-O9A, occult groups.”

The qabalistic influence is evident in Levey’s book the ‘Satanic Bible’ and in the later ‘Satanic Rituals,’ replete as both are with ‘demons’ and ‘deities’ with Hebrew names, with the former book heavily indebted to the qabalistic Golden Dawn derived sorcery of Crowley. Levey even plagiarized Crowley’s definition of ‘magick’.

Thus the link between (a) the ‘magic’ defined and employed by Levey and (b) the Magian qabalistic tradition as used by the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and Crowley and as described in many medieval grimoires, is indisputable.

§ Assumption 3. {quote} constant critcism of Anton Szandor LaVey despite his irrelevance to the topic at hand {/quote}

Criticism of Howard Stanton Levey – to use his real name – is indeed relevant to the topics in the article and which offending article brought forth more assumptions about the O9A from the assumptionist. Relevant because (i) the topics were – as the title of the article revealed – masculous and muliebral, the sinister feminine, and Homo Hubris, and (ii) given that the O9A classify Levey as an example of Homo Hubris (a plebeian) and his ‘satanism’ as masculous and thus as unbalanced.

O9A criticism of Howard Stanton Levey is also relevant in general since he is also an example of not only the Magian distortion affecting Western culture (and that culture includes pagan occultism) but also of how influential such Magian examples have become, with nearly all academic books written about Satanism and Western occultism in the past fifty years replete with or entirely devoted to the Magian occultism of the likes of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Crowley, Howard Levey, and Michael Aquino. Thus, to criticise such examples and such Magian occultism is to criticise what has become – what still is – the status quo. Some people might thus consider that such criticism, and propagating a Western alternative, might be a rather antinomian thing to do, just as – these days – criticism of the Magian story about ‘the Shoah’ is considered by some people as an antinomian thing to do.

To provide a flavour of the Western, pagan, historical tradition of sorcery – free from later Magian (Judaic) interpolations and distortions – “we” recently published a few examples of that sorcery {3}, with the O9A Seven Fold Way itself being a modern manifestation of a non-Magian, Western, occult tradition. {4}

T.W.S.
2017

{1} https://omega9alpha.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/o9a-questions-2017-v5b.pdf.
{2} https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2017/07/22/the-sinister-feminine-and-homo-hubris/
{3} qv. https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/2017/06/30/western-pagan-curses/
{4} qv. the 2015 book The Pagan Order Of Nine Angles (ISBN 978-1518885143) and the O9A compilation The Esoteric Hermeticism Of The Order Of Nine Angles available at https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/the-esoteric-hermeticism-of-the-order-of-nine-angles/


A Letter From The O9A To Michael Aquino

O9A Insight Role
O9A Insight Role
ΔΔΔΔΔ

Editorial Note: We republish here a facsimile of a letter, dated October 1990, from ‘Stephen Brown’ – aka Anton Long – sent in reply to a letter from Michael Aquino of the Temple of Set.

This early letter (in the history of the ONA) is noteworthy as it explains in a clear non-polemical, courteous, way the policy, philosophy, and goals of the Order of Nine Angles and contrasts them with those of the Temple of Set. The letter was first published – along with similar letters and replies from Aquino and others in facsimile – in 1992 in the two volumes titled The Satanic Letters of Stephen Brown and which letters are a primary sources in regard to the history and the occult philosophy of the Order of Nine Angles.

Letter From S Brown to M Aquino
(pdf)

ΔΔΔΔΔ

Related:

The Satanic Letters, Volume I
(pdf)

The Satanic Letters, Volume II

(pdf)


Unable To See The Nexion For The Nexions

Order Of Nine Angles
ΔΔΔΔΔ
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.


The Sinister Feminine And Homo Hubris

O9A Insight Role
O9A Insight Role

°°°°°

Masculous And Muliebral

The Sinister Feminine And Homo Hubris

As apprehended by those who have ventured along the Seven Fold Way of the Order of Nine Angles (O9A, ONA) to at least the stage of Internal Adept, and by those who because of their physis feel the ‘sinisterly-numinous’ aesthetic, one of the fundamental problems of the modern Western Left Hand Path in general and of modern ‘Satanism’ in particular is that of Homo Hubris. As noted in one text which is recommended reading for aspirant Adepts, the species Homo Hubris is

             “distinguished by their profane lack of numinous balance, by a lack of knowing of and feeling for the numinous; by a personal arrogance, by a lack of manners, and by that lack of respect for anything other than strength/power and/or their own gratification.” {1}

This profane lack of numinous balance is most manifest in the principles – adopted by modern Levey-inspired self-described ‘satanists’ – of “might is right” and of “total satisfaction of the ego”.

In contrast, one of the aims of the Occult anados that is the O9A Seven Fold Way is for the initiate to personally experience – through exoteric and esoteric deeds – both what has been described as ‘the sinister’ and what has been described as ‘the numinous’ and, because of such experience, to meld them together in order to transcend beyond them. The experiences required in order to do this include the Rite of Internal Adept where the candidate lives alone – for three or six months – in primitive conditions in the wilderness. Which Rite has as its aim the development in the individual of empathy {2} and which empathy is a manifestation of the muliebral and thus in direct contrast to the masculous principles adopted by modern Levey-inspired self-described ‘satanists’. {3}

For the O9A has

             “an initiated – esoteric – apprehension of the raison d’etre of alchemy: of ourselves as having, in essence, both a masculous and a muliebral physis, and which initially undivided physis (sans denotatum, and thus the artificial, hubriatic, division between masculous and muliebral) is now, as in the past it was for the majority, lost; with alchemy anciently understood and practised by many alchemists as a means whereby we might re-discover our natural, and balanced, human physis.” {4}

This esoteric apprehension is evident in some ancient texts, such as the ‘Pymander’ text from the Corpus Hermeticum:

             “Now listen to the rest of the explanation you asked to hear. When the cycle was fulfilled, the connexions between all things were, by the deliberations of theos, unfastened. Living beings – all male-and-female then – were, including humans, rent asunder thus bringing into being portions that were masculous with the others muliebral.” {5}

Which is why – in contrast to the patriarchal, masculous, ethos which has dominated the world, East and West, for millennia, of which Levey-type ‘satanism’ is but one recent manifestation – the esoteric tradition of the O9A is of ἀρρενόθηλυς: of balancing the masculous with the muliebral through pathei-mathos both esoteric and exoteric.

Misunderstanding The Sinister Feminine

Given the foregoing overview of O9A esoteric theory and praxis it is hardly surprising that modern Levey-inspired self-described ‘satanists’ are and have been upset by and annoyed with – and keep trying to discredit – the O9A especially given the O9A claim that the O9A is Satanist and that Howard Stanton Levey was a plagiarist, a charlatan, and an example of Homo Hubris: that is, in common parlance, he was plebeian.

It is also hardly surprising that modern Levey-inspired self-described ‘satanists’ and other modern Occultists – weaned on Magian, kabbalistic inspired, ‘sorcery’ – have misunderstood what the O9A mean by ‘the sinister feminine’, one emanation of which is that archetype {6} associated with the three lower spheres (nexions) on the O9A’s seven-fold Tree of Wyrd, and thus redolent as it is of the esoteric and exoteric pathei-mathos of those three lower spheres. That is, redolent of and expressing what, for the individual initiate, is some years before The Rite of Internal Adept and long before (usually at least a decade before) The Rite Of The Abyss with its lunar month of solitary chthonic living. {7}

For, in the O9A system ‘the sinister feminine’ is jumelle, and thus can be presenced (manifest in the causal) in two ways: (i) in and through the Seven Fold Way, and (ii) in the esoteric way of life of the rural Rounwytha.

(i) In The Seven Fold Way.

An archetype to be lived, experientially by a woman, or experienced experientially by a man, as a noviciate pathei-mathos; just as O9A Satanism (as manifest in texts such as The Black Book of Satan and in the O9A archetypes of Satan and Baphomet) is a necessary noviciate pathei-mathos, to be lived, experienced, learned from: a beginning of the decades-long anados that is the O9A Seven Fold Way.

Which is why archetypal representations of this aspect of the sinister feminine – be they fictional, or artistic (as in Tarot images) or presenced through rites and ceremonies of sorcery, or lived or experienced through ‘insight roles’ – are just archetypal representations germane to those three lower spheres and thus to individual pathei-mathos. They are not, and never have been, the raison d’être of the ONA itself, for that raison d’être is the Seven Fold Way and thus the individuals who, through undertaking that anados, meld the sinister with the numinous (the masculous with the muliebral) and thus develop their own unique weltanschauung.

(ii) The Way Of The Rounwytha.

A rare and rural way of life devoid of rites, ceremonies, and writings, and historically the purview of women. A Rounwytha has a particular and a natural sensitivity to human beings, to Nature (and especially the land, the weather), to living-beings (especially animals) and to the heaven/Cosmos. A wordless, conceptless, feeling of connexions, of the natural balance, and of the wisdom of a natural propitiation to aid or to restore that balance and thus (a) aid the good fortune, the good health, and the good crops and healthy livestock of some, or (b) to, for others, bring misfortune, bad health (to individuals and to livestock), and bad crops. {8}

             Of course, we do not expect – in respect of the Seven Fold Way – most Levey-inspired self-described ‘satanists’ – weaned on gratifying their ego – nor most modern Occultists – weaned on Magian ‘sorcery’ – to apprehend either (a) the Aeonic intent behind such O9A archetypes, or (b) the difference, esoterically and exoterically, between (i) the archetypal presencing – the nexion – that is the O9A with its Seven Fold Way, and (ii) the archetypal presencings – the nexions – that form the particular spheres which are encompassed by the nexion that is the Seven Fold Way.

Neither do we expect – in respect of the Way of the Rounwytha – those self-same ‘satanists’ or ‘occultists’ to apprehend how and why such a rural way of living is germane to the nexion that is the O9A.

But, as we know from our own experience, one or two might over the years so apprehend to perchance begin their own quest along the Seven Fold Way or perhaps betake themselves to live that now endangered Rouwythian way of life.

Rachael Stirling
2017 ev
v.1.03

Notes

{1} The Mythos of Vindex.
{2} This aim was spelled out in early – 1970s to 1980s – ONA texts, one of which was published in the 1980s Occult zine Nox and subsequently included in the book The Infernal Texts: Nox & Liber Koth (Falcon Publications, 1997).
{3} The differences are outlined in the book The Joy Of The Sinister. In particular in the three chapters titled (i) The De-Evolutionary Nature of Might is Right, and (ii) The Gentleman’s – and Noble Ladies – Brief Guide to The Dark Arts, and (iii) Concerning Culling as Art.
{4} See the O9A text Alchemy And The Sinisterly-Numinous Tradition.
{5} Poemandres, as translated by DW Myatt. Masculous has been described as referring to:
“the abilities and qualities that are conventionally and historically associated with men, such as competitiveness, aggression, a certain harshness, the desire to organize/control, and a desire for adventure and/or for conflict/war/violence/competition over and above personal love and culture.”

Muliebral has been described as referring to:
“those positive traits, abilities, and qualities that are conventionally and historically associated with women, such as empathy, sensitivity, gentleness, compassion, and a desire to love and be loved over and above a desire for conflict/adventure/war.”

{6} In O9A esotericism, an archetype is defined as “a particular causal presencing of a certain acausal energy and is thus akin to a type of acausal living being in the causal, and thus in the psyche; it is born (or can be created, by magickal means), its lives, and then it ‘dies’ (ceases to be present, presenced) in the causal (i.e. its energy in the causal ceases).”

{7} The 2017 text The Seven Fold Way Of The Order Of Nine Angles: A Modern Practical Guide provides a summary of both those rites.

{8} The way of the Rounwytha is described in several O9A texts, including (a) The Rounwytha Way In History and Modern Context, authored by ‘A Camlad Rounerer’ and published in 2011, and (b) Some Notes On The Rounwytha Way published in 2014.

A useful summary of the Rounwytha way is given in chapter VI (The Rounwytha Option) of the text The Seven Fold Way Of The Order Of Nine Angles: A Modern Practical Guide.

There is as yet no fictional work wholly concerned with and describing in detail the way of life of the Rounwytha, although two novels of the Deofel Quartet describe some traditional aspects of it: (a) the sapphic relationship between Rachael and Diane, and Diane’s intuition about the Long Mynd and other rural places, in Breaking The Silence Down , and (b) village life in Stredbow, and the sacrificial tradition, described in The Giving.