Australian Satanism and the Temple of THEM

[Nitwit]

Proof is seen in the countless videos from nexions (Tempel ov Blood being a recent noteworthy example) of Sinister practise.
The idea that works and people behind them suddenly lose credibility once they are placed on the internet stems no doubt from the romantic notion of what an occult Order should be. It is prudent to adapt to the times. My own collective of peers all met via social media despite their living in reasonable geographic proximity and we meet often.
That some of us are public means little. There are far worse things public about me on the internet than the fact I am hoping to create a scientific model based on the ontology of the O9A.

May I also ask; how do you expect to find proof the O9A exists outside of the internet if the only place you have looked is the internet?

 

[Satan's Right Hand Man]

Doors, who cares about you and your Luciferianism. This is an O.N.A. thread. Can we get back on topic?

 

[AnnaCzereda]

Why does anyone owe it to anyone else to release their identity?

It always gives me a chuckle when I see some anonymous folks complaining about others being... anonymous. Does anyone else find it amusing?

So suddenly it's very bad to anonymously pontificate about the ONA, though those who usually complain about it do pontificate about the ONA anonymously.

But yeah I understand they are the true ONA while their opponents are the fake ONA, but the problem is you just have to take their word for it, because they are anonymous.

In most cases, it's difficult, if not impossible to say whether some person is telling the truth or lying about their real life, unless you know someone personally. If you don't know someone, you can only speculate about what they are doing offline.

Usually, the less you reveal about yourself online, the better. The more people know about you, the more harm they can do to you. I mean here your personal info, not your views.

 

[Nitwit]

3.0 Shock Offfensive Executed. All Cyber troops regroup and report to Facebook HQ

 

[1137]

If at any time you have altered your desired use of these symbols, philosophies, or intentions of communication, in favor of maintaining your subjectivity to the monetary system, yes, you have clearly defined your priority. Good day.

I'm not sure what you mean. I'd never prostitute myself if that's your meaning. How you can get that from choosing to remain anonymous is questionable. I would never alter my symbols, philosophies, etc unless I felt they were incorrect / not working. You can live a perfectly Luciferian or Satanic life without anyone ever knowing you hold such labels. Spouting it about shows reliance on others to thrive. Further, being able to blend in with everyday western society is a vast achievement in certain cases. My priority is to need only to rely on myself and my closest circle when necessary, and to help others learn to do the same.

 

[1137]

This sudden uprising of new members is beyond suspicious.

 

[Nitwit]

Hehe this guy ^
Sorry Darryl, only on my phone atm.
Baelwa I am and?

 

[Nitwit]

Doors, please indulge me with internet forum conspiracies :3

 

[Nitwit]

Further, being able to blend in with everyday western society is a vast achievement in certain cases.

Yeah, if you're ******* autistic

 

[1137]

A simple introvert can be picked out of a crowd by the average citizen. Being essentially an entirely different breed of intellectual is vastly easier to spot than introversion. Either way it shouldn't matter, I'm tired of religions and orders that rely on others to fuel themselves. Even here we have a group mobbing an essentially dead forum to spread your word and ideas, why should it matter if we know?

Likewise with other members always quoting religious texts from the CoS or O9A or ToS - why not just take what you need and forge your own path. Even the banal LaVey saw that one. I just don't understand, there's a split between new agey fluff and sinister fluff with no apparent room for down to the point, modern occultism. perhaps the minority should simply find a better label.

 

[Nitwit]

I imagine whilst you're 'forging your own path', you are obeying mundane law, working a mundane job and paying mundane taxes. So this whole doing one's own thing means nothing when expressed ad nauseam

 

[kerriscott]

I disagree. The origin of an assertion is not important whatsoever.

If some anonymous person (whom you obviously do not know, in person) makes some claim about themselves then surely a rational person would be skeptical about such a claim unless and until evidence was provided to substantiate that claim?

Who makes the claim is indeed irrelevant.

So, the bottom line in my opinion, the only relevant question here, is whether you are skeptical about or whether you accept without question what some anonymous person says about themselves via the internet.

You are very near to stating that everything we see today, is an original creation of someone within our own generation

It seems you forgot the context - which is a rhetorical question concerning someone who might claim to have created some new religion or philosophy.

This rhetorical question is therefore quite specific, and related to some specific claim. It was not a statement about "original creation" in general, now or in the past.

You assume two things here that you need to substantiate. 1. "They are Proud.

OK, let's be pedantic, and quibble. Note that I wrote "If they're really proud..." I did not write "they are proud."
Note also that it was phrased as a question, not a statement.

Therefore, I was not assuming what you assumed I was.

2. They outght to want to be "known".

There was no statement by me regarding someone "ought to want to be known."

As I mentioned above, I posed a rhetorical question, not made a statement. And a question that was qualified by "ifs".

So not only do you have a desire to control how people express themselves, you also want to control how others view their expressions. I feel as though that reflects more upon you, than THEM. Who is obligated to answer you, and why?

Apparently, you ignore what I wrote, and instead make some irrelevant assumptions about my motives.

I wrote about the unsubstantiated claims of some anonymous person and their reluctance to answer questions about the claims they have made.

So, I again ask the relevant questions.
1. Are you skeptical about what some anonymous person says about themselves via the internet or do you accept without question what they say about themselves?
2. Do you or do you not find it odd/suspicious/interesting that, instead of answering my questions, the person who started this thread wrote that he'd like the mods here to delete kerriscott who is debating what THEM is?

Why post about 'them' and then ask for someone who wants to debate about 'them' to be deleted?

 

[kerriscott]

how do you expect to find proof the O9A exists outside of the internet if the only place you have looked is the internet?

A most excellent question! I wish I had thought of it!

 

[Satan's Right Hand Man]

Where else are people supposed to look for things if not on the internet? Everybody here should get with the 22nd century. Everything is online. Even proof of things like the big bang. Many people have searched the internet for proof of the ONA. All we ever find are blogs, websites, FB pages... so there can only be one obvious logical conclusion = that the ONA is an internet femonena. That you try to say other wise is indicative. Again we real satanists ask: where's the proof?

And this influx of new members suddenly interested in ONA threads is indeed suspicious. Logically, if we apply occum's razer blaid, all of these ONA profiles are the same person. Most likely it's David Myatt, just like Dr. Aquino proved years ago.

 

[kerriscott]

that I must pick one of your two options is quite amusing.

It was a simple question that IMO expresses the essence of what I asked a certain person. That you didn't answer the questions posed, in whatever manner you deemed most fitting, inclines me to assume that either you don't understand the essence of what I was asking a certain person, or that if you do then for some reason or reasons you prefer not to commit yourself - regarding anonymous claims made - one way or the other.

The bottom line is - I'm skeptical of claims made by some anonymous individual about themselves, and consider it reasonable to ask them for evidence (such as documentation in mainstream sources) to substantiate those claims. Until such evidence is forthcoming, then I'll remain suspicious of the person and will not take their claims seriously.

A person here made some claims about himself and his 'temple'. I asked for details, clarification, evidence. He didn't supply any. The onus was, and is, on him - at least according to my weltanschauung. If others choose to accept what this anonymous person writes about himself and his temple, then they do.

End of story.

Why don't you tell me what THEM is, I have no interest in hearsay.

Apparently, you've missed the point - which is about some anonymous person making claims about themselves via the medium of the internet.

How do I know this even happened?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3830959-post45.html

That you even asked the question - and so obviously didn't bother to check yourself - is interesting.

Do let me know when you are ready to have an actual conversation

Conversation - a noun of action. "An exchange of words; a discussion; debate; to discourse upon a subject; to converse about a subject."

Since it is now obvious that we are not exchanging words about - or discoursing about - the same subject, then indeed we're not engaged in a conversation.

Given this disparity, further 'talking at each other' does seem rather pointless.

 

[kerriscott]

the ONA is an internet femonena

How can an esoteric philosophy be just an internet phenomena? It can't, but the assumption is often made nevertheless, even though the assumption been disproved many times, including here in another thread.

Here's a summary.

As defined in the complete (printed) Oxford English Dictionary (second edition, 1989, 20 vols) the word 'exist' means "to have place in the domain of reality, have objective being," and the word real means "having an objective existence", with (iii) the word 'being' defined as "livelihood, living, substance".

Given the definition of the O9A, which is:

{quote} The term or name Order of Nine Angles (O9A/ONA) is defined as, and can be used to describe, (i) the occult (the esoteric) philosophy of Anton Long, and (ii) the occult praxises of, or derived from, that philosophy or sinister tradition; and (iii) the individuals who put one or more of those praxises into practice in their own life and who live according to the code of kindred honour {/quote}

then clearly the Order of Nine Angles exists, is real, as it has a place in the domain of reality (external to the internet) as a distinct esoteric philosophy which has substance – that is, a distinct ontology, a distinct epistemology, a distinct ethics, and a distinct praxis or praxises – and which esoteric philosophy has been described in some detail by means of the written word circulated, and read by others, in various formats, including printed format from the 1970s onward.

Given that this particular esoteric philosophy and the particular occult praxises associated with it have been so described via the medium of printed literature, including books, the Order of Nine Angles has not "ceased to exist", and cannot "cease to exist" (or be disbanded) so long as such literature – and other mediums whereby that philosophy and those praxises are described – exist and so long as some individuals read about, follow, or are inspired by that philosophy and those praxises.​

But if you and some others want to - or need to - continue to believe that the O9A is purely an internet phenomena, then you and others do.

all of these ONA profiles are the same person. Most likely it's David Myatt, just like Dr. Aquino proved years ago

Aquino didn't prove anything - he just made an assumption about only one person being involved. He provided no evidence for his assumption. I also seem to recall that he later retracted this silly assumption.

David Myatt posting on occult/satanist forum about the O9A? That's an even more silly assumption that many have made over the years. Silly because since at least 1997 Myatt has been under regular surveillance by the security services with all his communications - telephone calls and internet - monitored by GCHQ (and probably also by the NSA). He's also still on the 'no-fly' list given his previous association with Islamic terrorist groups. As Myatt wrote a while ago:

" [Given such surveillance] I have restricted my internet and telephonic communications to friends, family, and to people I personally know or who are personally known to someone I trust. This means two things. That all I communicate is personal, open, transparent, and honest; and that if someone not belonging to this small circle of contacts claims to have had some communication from me – either sent with my name or sent using some pseudonym – then it is bogus."​

But again, if you and some others want to - or need to - continue to believe that Myatt spends his time posting on the internet about the O9A using various pseudonyms, and that most people who post positive stuff about the O9A are Myatt in disguise, then you and others do.


Really, this, as so many discussions about the O9A over the years, has become quite boring, suffused as it is with the same discredited and/or silly assumptions/beliefs about the O9A. So repetitive, and mundane, that I personally can't be bothered anymore.

Those who are seriously interested in the O9A can find all the info they need in texts such as The Definitive Guide To The Order of Nine Angles

Meanwhile, no doubt the same assumptions/beliefs about the O9A (mostly made or held by the latter-day satanist crowd) will continue to be made. So be it.

As the interest shown in the O9A have proven and continues to prove, such silly assumptions/beliefs about the O9A (and whatever the latter-day satanists say about the O9A) don't do any harm to the O9A at all. Perhaps quite the reverse, given the nature of latter-day satanism!

 

[hollow]

I wouldn't expect too much from kerriscot - poor dullard, he hasn't yet figured out that integers go forward.

"Also, isn't there a contradiction in stating you have 30 years of existence which began in 2006? No one had heard of you before 2003. Or are you claiming to be the same age as or older than Aquino and Anton Long, or claiming to have 'hidden old masters' who have gifted you with secret occult knowledge?"

His or her (they're anonymous dontcha know) unbelievable stupidity is why I often refuse to dignify their "questions". Here's a hint, *retard* I hope s/he is capable of counting along with me. On their hand-fingers.
Let's begin in 2006 when THEM claims foundation; seems logical doesn't it? The anonymous kerriscot even says it hirself in paraphrasing us, which is probably where the poor dullard got lost. It is quite intellectual. THEM began in 2006. And cites a thirty year charter - THEM's 30 year charter, began in 2006, and goes; 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027 - still with me or is this radical **** called counting forward blowing your mind - 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2035, 2036! look at that, my dog could count that. He's gifted, probably with at least an I.q. of 6.

I mean, that person's level of reading comprehension often leaves me wondering whether they have serious mental deficiencies; haha what an elite! But reading difficulties aside, I thought they could at least count, forward even. Somehow, without fail, they read what is written and, even when its a simple concept in basic English, a simple concept, still manage to fvck it up and come out with a comment as retarded as this... I think they must chew on doorknobs at night.

So, Kerri, when you can count to 30, forward, and your questions don't read like they were put together by a potato - you can get out of your high-chair and ask some. And you might even get answers.

 

[kerriscott]

THEM began in 2006. And cites a thirty year charter - THEM's 30 year charter, began in 2006, and goes; 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027 - still with me or is this radical **** called counting forward blowing your mind - 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2035, 2036!
[...] you can count to 30, forward!

Quod erat demonstrandum re the 'temple of them' and its founder, I believe.

It is quite intellectual

It most certainly is, to declaim such a future existence/continuation. {/irony}

Especially given there is no documentation - there are no credible sources - to verify that this 'temple' and its 'members' exist outside of some anonymous person's imagination.

But no doubt 'history' will prove me wrong, for in the year 2036 (if not in 2027) the fabulous 'temple of them' will be the most pre-eminent LHP organization in the world, with its intellectual founder recognized as the new messiah, and which founder will by then of course have revealed his true identity to an astonished world.

 

[Satan's Right Hand Man]

All anyone will ever find of the ONA online will be websites and blogs...

EXACTLY. Case closed. Everybody, even these fake ONA sockpuppets admits in public that the ONA is just an internet fenomena. We were all right all along. We can rest at easy knowing they are fake.

LMMFAO, Many people?

If everybody said the sky was blue, then the sky must be blue because everybody is looking at the same thing and came up with the same conclusion.

If everybody keeps coming up with the same conclusions about ONA, that it is just one person behind it and its just an internet fad, then it must be true. How else is everybody getting the same conclusions. This is called science.

 

[Satan's Right Hand Man]

Oh this is not the end, we've only began.

[youtube]8JgEptmz_eE[/youtube]