• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Australian Satanism and the Temple of THEM

Dear readers, please notice how David Myatt continually evades and dodges subject matters. Such as the subject matter of how his actions and behaviour shows that he is dishonourable.

Notice that I provided real evidence to prove that Dave is dishonourable. I brought up the fact that Dave took the Islamic Shahada in 1998 when he became a Muslim and he abandoned his Islamic oath. Dave lacks the honourable character to stay true to his oaths made to Allah.

Notice that Dave also admits to having an affair with a married woman. This is also indicative of a man who is neither a gentlemen or an honourable person.

Notice reader that when I pointed these facts out aboot his dishonourable character that he threatened to physically assault me in the Middle East and threatens to call the police.

Notice how he uses ad hominems with me. He verbally abuses me by calling me derogatory words and phrases such as "Moac" and insinuates that I am "jealous," "crazy," et cetera, and therefore; fallaciously; everything I say is untrue.

I'm not the jealous one. I'm not the one chasing Ryan off and discrediting Ryan for six months online everywhere. It is clear that David Myatt here is jealous of Ryan. He considers Ryan to be competition because Ryan can write more books than he. Ryan can distribute more books than he.

Please also notice dear readers that despite Dave's verbal attacks and abuse against Ryan and on Ryan's name, people in ONA still have high regards for Ryan.

It has been shown that Richard Moult and Ryan are far more popular, liked, and influential in the ONA than he is. Dave can't take this. He is jealous of Richard and Ryan. It is obvious.

Notice readers that this has nothing to do with ONA and Dave's arbitrary "Code of Honour." To Dave this is personal. It is quite clear that it is personal. Just look at all the time (six months), emotion, hate, and vitriol Dave and his sockpuppet inquisition has invested into Ryan.

Readers, please pay no attention to what Dave may say or write. Pay attention to his acts and behaviour, because these things don't lie.

I suspect, based on his past history, ethos, and tradition, that Dave and his sockpuppet tribune will run aroond the internet to verbally abuse all ONA stooges he thinks is behind this account. This is just his character, or as he likes to call it, "physis". Nobody is safe in ONA with an abusive passive aggressive man like this.

Also notice that Dave places a comma before the word 'and' when one is not grammatically required. This is an obvious sign that it's Dave behind the sockpuppets.

And Dave, I'd kick your feeble auld erse with one arm tied behind my back. Everyone in Shrewsbury knows you are a tiny, diminutive, man. What are you these days, given your age, 5 feet tall with shoes on? LOL.
 
Last edited:

kerriscott

Member
took the Islamic Shahada in 1998 when he became a Muslim and he abandoned his Islamic oath...lacks the honourable character to stay true to his oaths made to Allah
Laughable. And again laughable. Laughable because you have no understanding of honor whatsoever. Or perhaps you have your own definition of honor?

Honor has nothing to do with oaths, it's "a nobility of mind or spirit; honourableness, uprightness; a fine sense of, and adherence to, what is considered to be morally right or just. Quality of character entitling a person to great respect."

Laughable also because as your rants show you firmly believe David Myatt is AL, and AL is a satanist and 'evil'. Therefore you wouldn't expect AL to "adhere to what is morally right and just" would you?

So, you believe two contradictory things at the same time. Which says something about you and your rants.

Which is it? (i) DM isn't AL and therefore might be expected to act honorably according to what honor actually is? Or (ii) DM is AL and therefore wouldn't be expected to act according to what honor actually is?

Furthermore, when David Myatt left Islam and developed his philosophy of pathei-mathos he was following his own conscience and learning from his experiences - from his own pathei-mathos. There's nothing dishonorable in that.

an affair with a married woman. This is also indicative of a man who is neither a gentlemen or an honourable person
Yet again laughable, not to mention misogynist. Here's a plausible scenario: a woman is married to a man who has had multiple affairs and the woman falls in love with someone else and has an affair and is planning to leave her husband.

Laughable because the term consenting adults comes to mind and because honor - as correctly defined - has nothing to do with such a personal relationship between consenting adults unless of course you accept fundamentalist Christian morality. Do you?

Also laughable because again you're confused about DM. Is he or is he not, according to you, Anton Long? If so, then you'd expect him to behave in an 'evil', un-Christian way wouldn't you.

So, to summarize, you're clutching at straws, are very confused, and don't know what you're talking about.

I'd kick your erse with one arm tied behind my back.
The vain boast of a coward. Of some anonymous person who's afraid of revealing his true identity and who's afraid of meeting DM in person in the mid-East.

So why don't you prove your boast. What's that? You don't want to because you're afraid...

Everyone in Shrewsbury knows you are a tiny, diminutive, man... 5 feet tall
DM is 5 feet 9 inches - average height for his post WWII generation, and you are some coward hiding behind anonymity and afraid to show your face. Your lie is so stupid because all anyone has do is look at the video of Myatt's 2000 interview by the BBC to know he's of average height - unless of course the interviewer, the cameraman, and the minder are also "tiny, diminutive, men." Perhaps, after all, you're the tiny, diminutive, man , which is another reason you hide behind anonymity and are afraid to actually meet Myatt.

So we can only conclude that it's you who is being dishonorable - for where's the honor in anonymously making accusations, in boasting about yourself while hiding behind a nym, and being afraid to meet the person you've been lying about and whom you accuse of doing all sorts of horrid things?
 
Last edited:
Your sock takes all this rather seriously and personally Dave. One can only wonder what that indicates mate.

You won't be anywhere near the Mid-East any time soon Dave. For two reasons. First, everyone in Shrewbury knows you go nowhere. Second, according to your fibs you tell these kids online, you're on some terrorist watch list and can't ride airplanes mate.

How are you going to get to the Middle East, ride your bicycle there? Take the bus? LOL

"Honor has nothing to do with oaths, it's "a nobility of mind or spirit; honourableness, uprightness; a fine sense of, and adherence to, what is considered to be morally right or just. Quality of character entitling a person to great respect." Laughable also because as your rants show you firmly believe DM is AL, and AL is a satanist and 'evil'. Therefore you wouldn't expect AL to "adhere to what is morally right and just" would you?"

There you have it kids. The words of your leader. All this talk aboot "honour" in ONA is meaningless, right mate? You kids really should know Dave before you follow him and believe his fibs.

The ONA is all talk. The talk of a puffer. Who puffs himself up with stories and fibs. "Mythos" as he likes to call it. When he gets called out, he flip flops between words and meanings; dodging and evading, like you always do Dave.

What I feel sorry for are the kids you are misleading just to make your fantasies of being influential and a respected scholar have some semblance of reality.
 
Last edited:

jeff77

Member
He verbally abuses me by calling me derogatory words and phrases such as "Moac" and insinuates that I am "jealous," "crazy," et cetera
Pot. Kettle. Black. You're only receiving what you've been dishing out with your accusations and insinuations about Myatt so why are you complaining?

Regarding using the term Moac, it means "Myatt Obsessed Anonymous Coward." The term describes you because it's clear you're obsessed with Myatt and you're anonymous, and you're a coward because you post unsubstantiated accusations about Myatt and indulge in boasting about your prowess while being anonymous and unwilling to make your accusations using your real name. That you as well don't want to face the person you libel adds to the coward tag.

Your attempts to malign Myatt by giving supposed examples do the exact opposite of what you'd hoped because if he's Anton Long as I think most here believe then such examples don't affect AL's reputation at all. On the contrary they possibly add to it. I mean "knocking down disabled women in his Morgan; having affairs with married women; and leaving Islam" when we all know don't we that "both his Nazism and Islamism are merely instruments for the ONA's underlying sinister esoteric plots."

What exactly therefore are you doing other than anonymously venting spleen?
 

jeff77

Member
How are you going to get to the Middle East, ride your bicycle there? Take the bus? LOL
It must have escaped your notice that KS said something about DM traveling under some assumed Muslim name. Alternative identities are easy to obtain if have the contacts and since Myatt is an ex-con and according to someone he has "academic stooges" at his beck and call and used to be part of a clandestine NATO armed group - and so on - then there's an obvious deduction isn't there?

Your excuse for not going therefore won't wash.
 
It must have escaped your notice that KS said something about DM traveling under some assumed Muslim name. Alternative identities are easy to obtain if have the contacts and since Myatt is an ex-con and according to someone he has "academic stooges" at his beck and call and used to be part of a clandestine NATO armed group - and so on...

Och, for God's sake Dave. You're a compulsive fibber, living in your own fantasy world.

Now, are you going to put me through the absurdity of having to speak with all three of your socks, or can we do this the sane way?
 

kerriscott

Member
All this talk aboot "honour" in ONA is meaningless.
Now hear this, direct from my 'inner pedant'.

1. You, anonymous you, introduced the subject of honor in relation to DM in some attempt to show he was 'dishonorable'.
2. I presented the definition of honor according to the complete OED (my 'inner librarian' venturing forth, again).
3. This definition meant your claims regarding DM being dishonorable' were invalid.
4. I asked if you had your own definition of honor, but you didn't reply, so one can assume you accept the definition given in the OED.
5. The O9A use a specific definition of honor evident in their code (or logos).
6. This means that when they talk and write about 'honor' they refer to that definition, which defines 'kindred honor'.
7. Therefore you are wrong because when they talk and write about honor it is not 'meaningless'.

Furthermore, this re-definition by the O9A of the term honor is certainly a diabolical, pernicious, mischievous, misleading, 'evil', thing to do, and possibly also amoral as well given that it defines what it is considered lawful for O9A people to do in relation to mundanes.

For according to this definition what is considered to be morally right or just is to treat mundanes in a particular manner and treat one's O9A "brothers and sisters" in a very different way.

Thus, O9A folk are expected to be loyal and just with their O9A "brothers and sisters" but not with mundanes.

a compulsive fibber
So the extent of your argument, and the final - the ultimate - excuse of an anonymous person, is that everyone who replies to you is DM and that they are all "compulsive fibbers".
 

kerriscott

Member
"spoil the jape"
I had assumed you would have understood - that it's not only a jape, but also (i) a means to (occasionally) free one's inner librarian/pedant, and (ii) a kind of intellectual game, as a good crossword can (sometimes) be an intellectual game and thus a means of exercising certain faculties.

Sometimes, of course, these internet games are not that much of an intellectual challenge. Which I guess is where 'the fun element' may (sometimes) come in.
 
Naw, the 'jape' I refer to is the identity of some of the players here. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain right?

Anyway, I do get the whole 'all press is good press' premise I just don't necessarily agree. However, on the other hand, I'm not going to tell you how to handle your business.
 

AnnaCzereda

Active Member
kerriscott said:
I had assumed you would have understood - that it's not only a jape, but also (i) a means to (occasionally) free one's inner librarian/pedant, and (ii) a kind of intellectual game, as a good crossword can (sometimes) be an intellectual game and thus a means of exercising certain faculties.

An intellectual game? Get real. That **** was simply retarded. If some troll jumped in and claimed a giraffe had two heads, would you find that topic worthy of a debate too? What's that? A kindergarten for children with special needs?

Next time people, try to cough up something more "intellectually challenging". Or ask Mr Autodiabolic to show you how a good joke should look like. I'm sure he has it somewhere.
 
Or ask Mr Autodiabolic to show you how a good joke should look like.

Did I already tell you the one about the one armed Pollock? Probably...

Anyway, sometimes even the most intellectually bankrupt of posts can act as a springboard to present a salient point. (See what I did there? :) )
 

kerriscott

Member
An intellectual game?
Yet again, Anna, I think we'll have to agree to disagree because it's an intellectual game, of sorts, for me at least. Not necessarily - sometimes - a very stimulating one, but as I mentioned similar to doing a good crossword.

Consider, for example, how often I have, pedantically, provided definitions of some words. Which of necessity requires actually getting the relevant printed volume of the complete OED down from the selves and then, given the quotations relevant to a certain word, finding and reading the books from whence the quotations came. Now that, in my minuscule professional world at least, is 'real' and often rather stimulating (intellectually) although naturally my 'real' working world may well, and most probably does, differ from your 'real' working world and that of others.
 
Last edited:

AnnaCzereda

Active Member
Did I already tell you the one about the one armed Pollock? Probably...

Anyway, sometimes even the most intellectually bankrupt of posts can act as a springboard to present a salient point. (See what I did there? :) )

Yawn. That compliment wasn't for you. But you can have the cookie if it makes you feel better.

“May you never grow too old to believe in magic and fairy tales.”
 
Thank you for the admission Dave & Friends. I was beginning to wonder what I'd have to do to get you guys to admit that it's all an intellectual game these days. An intellectual internet crossword game as Dave calls it.

"Satanism does not involve discussions, meeting, talks. Rather, it involves action, deeds. Words - written or spoken - sometimes follows, but not necessarily. The ideal candidate for Satanism is the individual of action rather than the 'intellectual.'" - What Satanism Is & Isn't
It's what you've become isn't it Dave, an intellectual, playing intellectual games. You have become the very weakling and wimp you once wrote about in "Hell."

“Not for the Order of the Nine Angles – or anyone connected with it – cosy intellectual discussions about obscure esoteric matters. Not for the ONA – or anyone connected with it – the scribblings of Occult internet forums where those who-do-not-know converse with those who-do-not-do. Not for the ONA – or anyone connected with it – any sincere affirmation of or any sincere identification with the ways, the politics, the religions, the world, of the mundanes. Not for the ONA – or anyone connected with it – some urban or suburban “Temple”. Not for the ONA – or anyone connected with it – ONA meetings, conferences and dialogues.” – Hardcore ONA, Sortiarius, Order of Nine Angles
What's that old saying, "Birds of a feather..." Have a look at your current notable names in ONA and realize they too; just like you; are all intellectual no-doers. Chloe. That hillbilly intellectual (an oxymoron) Interrogist. Ryan Flemming.

Intellectuals and pedants doing intellectual things, having intellectual pedantic discussions on the internet. Having librarian fights LOL.

Readers, this is what the ONA has become under these intellectual revisionists. They even have their agendas of making the ONA into a religion, or an "esoteric philosophy" as Dave here loves to call ONA these days. A mere philosophy for intellectuals to talk about online. This is what the new ONA is, a cesspool of girls, weaklings, wimps, pendants, and intellectual no-doers. The very types of individuals the old ONA would have instantly rejected.

Dave doesn't realize that his continued presence in ONA is a detriment to the ONA. He has become soft. He admittedly rejects all that the old ONA stands for and represents. But he doesn't care these days. His recreated new ONA today is his personal legacy. A means for him to derive a little cult following, a little name for himself.

You are nothing more now than a shadow of yourself Dave. Which is all that Anton Long is, isn't it Dave? Just your shadow self you wish you were. A fantasy "evil" persona you wish you were.

This is what the ONA has become under these intellectual revisionists. And amazingly they openly admit it and admit that they are working to make ONA into a religion, a mere philosophy, with Dave of course as the intellectual messiah.
 

kerriscott

Member
Dave doesn't realize that his continued presence in ONA is a detriment to the ONA
FYI, David Myatt is not now and never was - except perchance briefly in the early 1970s and at the behest (possibly, and according to rumor) of MI5 - involved with the O9A.

Also, FYI, Anton Long retired in 2011.

Anyway, welcome back Chris McD. [Aside: Since you keep assuming I am DM, I shall keep assuming you're Chris McD aka Ryan aka Avatar of The Messiah.]

It's indicative that you (i) never answer questions nor provide the evidence asked of you, and (ii) never admit you were wrong or that you lied, and (iii) whine about people making accusations and insinuations about you despite the fact that you have continually indulged in making accusations and insinuations about someone else, and (iv) just like a coward make your accusations and insinuations about a public figure from the relative safety of internet anonymity, and (v) believe in your paranoia that we're all DM.

Here are just some of the indicative things about you:

1. You were asked several times about your claim that David Myatt is posting here. You were asked to provide evidence to substantiate your claim. You provided no such evidence. Instead, as is your wont, your merely repeated the very silly accusation.

Even Anna C - with whom I have regularly sparred in the past - thought this claim of yours about DM was silly:
" [Myatt's] online communications are controlled by various security agencies, Myatt doesn't participate in the forums or social networks." Source - http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3848084-post212.html

2. You were asked several times to provide evidence of your libellous accusations about DM. You provided no such evidence. Instead, you linked to some anonymous blog and made noises about 'DM and dishonor' - claiming you had "provided real evidence to prove that Dave is dishonourable" whereas all you 'proved' [ qv. my replies here http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3850533-post239.html and here http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3850636-post244.html ] was that you are very confused and don't know what you're talking about, especially in regard to honor.

3. You claimed that DM was "a tiny, diminutive, man... 5 feet tall" - and yet when presented with evidence to the contrary, in the form of a video, you didn't (couldn't) admit your lie but changed the subject.

4. You boasted that you could "kick DM's erse with one arm tied behind my back" and yet when a meeting between you and DM was suggested, you bottled out, making the pathetic excuse about everyone being "a compulsive fibber".

5. You boasted about being in contact with Moult et al, yet when asked for evidence, you didn't provide any evidence whatsoever of any such contact.

6. You claimed DM's Greek translations were bogus, but when asked to provide evidence of your claim - for example, your translation of and commentary on the Pymander tractate, and your scholarly critique of Myatt's translation and commentary - you didn't provide any such evidence, but instead - and yet again (as is your wont) - dropped the matter and moved on to making other accusations.

7. You claimed DM is afraid of Ryan and yet Ryan - aka Chris McD - was afraid of even meeting me, a mere woman, in the mid-East, and when Ryan was privately offered (via a PM) the opportunity of meeting DM himself, Ryan refused.

8. You claimed DM stole stole "many ideas and concepts from Ryan" and yet when asked to detail what exactly these were you remained silent, and yet again (as is your wont) dropped the matter and moved on to making other accusations.

Finally, and like someone here said, your persistent campaign to smear Myatt is doomed to failure since you (and so many others here and elsewhere) believe DM is Anton Long. And doomed to failure because how can you smear someone - AL - who is amoral, 'evil', and the founder of a group that "represents a dangerous and extreme form of Satanism"? You can't, for anything and everything you claim - or could claim - that DM has done would merely add to AL's 'evil' reputation.

So, we're back to the fundamental question. Which is - do you still claim that DM is AL? If you do, then as I said above, your campaign to smear him is pointless. If you don't, then your campaign is also pointless because (i) most people (here and elsewhere) do believe DM is AL, and (ii) the reclusive DM doesn't care anyway as is proven by missives of his such as Standard Reply To Requests | David Myatt

That you don't realize that you've lost - either way - is most amusing. But - please - do carry on, about DM and about the O9A (all press is good press re the O9A, as someone mentioned here).
 
What is laughable Dave is your calling Ryan an anonymous coward hiding behind anonymous internet pseudonyms.

I'll give you real proof of what the opposite of that looks like. Go to the 600 Club. Look for Michael Aquino. You will find him posting there under his own name and persona.

Whereas, on the other hand, here you are Dave, hiding behind three anonymous socks (Kerri, Jeff, & Kelsey). Oh the irony Dave. The irony.

That you willingly chose to evade and ignore the entirety of the subject matter of my previous post (#252) is actually indicative and says it all readers. QED.
 
Readers, please notice that rather than address the subject matter I raised in my previous post (#252), Davy here evades and dodges it as usually and produces a long ad hominem. One that is irrelevant and barely coherent.

That Dave here willingly chose to ignore the subject matter of my previous post is indicative and says it all really about the current ONA and its intellectual revisionists. QED.

Notice also that Dave here has the nerve to call other people "anonymous cowards," when he himself is one because he hides behind three socks. Whereas Michael Aquino is himself over at the 600 Club. This is ironic.
 
Last edited:

jeff77

Member
Readers...please notice that rather than address the subject matter I raised in my previous post
No one addressed it because your understanding of the O9A is fundamentally flawed.

Its axiom of individual authority and its esoteric philosophy of individuals developing their own world-view and methodology through practical esoteric and exoteric experience means the O9A is what people make of it and develop it to be and what they do or don't do doesn't affect the O9A because it's a magickal current. A logos.

AL may have founded - "presenced" this current - but like he's stated over and over again he doesn't and never did "own it" nor could he and neither did he want to restrict it or determine its development. With the axiom of individual authority and the "watchword" pathei mathos AL made it non-dogmatic. Which means there isn't and can't be any "AL cult".

This magickal current is "the sinister tradition" or the "sinisterly-numinous tradition" or "the law of the new aeon" or "the O9A" or "some spell" or "a mythos" or whatever someone decides they want to call it.

A "revisionist group" within the "sinisterly-numinous tradition" or an intellectual group within the "sinisterly-numinous tradition" or a "no-mythos" group within the "sinisterly-numinous tradition" or a "philosophical club" within the "sinisterly-numinous tradition"- etc - are natural possibly necessary developments or "presencings". Because no one "owns" or can "own" the O9A.

Like the ABG Lodge said about the O9A - "it is a platform for all kinds of these movements to arise from...it needs no orchestration or authoritative guidance to unfold and progress; it needs no directives... You cannot bound what is sinisterly-numinous with anything."

There's also in reality no "old" O9A and no "new" O9A - no ONA 1.0, no ONA 2.0, no ONA 3.0. They're abstractions - labels - which people foist on what is "the unity" beyond all abstractions and labels - i.e. they're just the "sinisterly-numinous tradition" developing as it develops and is developed by individuals, nexions, groups, lodges, covens.

Sure there is and will continue to some dissent but that's natural as well and possibly a necessary development.

Davy here...Dave here...Dave here...
Keep eating those space cakes and chanting that mantra of yours. You never know, Davy himself might materialize before your very eyes!
 
Top