The Dishonesty and Double-talk of WyrdSister (1)

Context

The following conversation took place between April 30th and May 3rd, on a post titled Hypocrisy In The Order Of Nine Angles, however the reply offered by those calling themselves “WyrdSister” pertaind to the subject matter of a post which I titled Nescience, Deception, and The Higher Will: Differentiating Magicians and Sorcerers. The deception which I sought to reveal in the original post is only made more evident by the fact that those I accused abstained from even commenting on the post in question, yet were happy to continue attempting to spread their propaganda on other pages of my WordPress. Isn’t that interesting?. I had initially intended to copy this conversation and relocate it to the proper original post to which it pertained, though considering its length and nature, I decided to let this conversation stand as a post of its own, in order to put a finer point on the issue, and of course, invite others to contribute their own opinions. I can do so because I do not fear the opinions, and because I have no underhanded motives for which those opinions (and facts) may be a hindrance.

If in fact you read the complete conversation, tally up my questions, and then tally up the number of times “wyrdSister” demonstrates an utter unwillingness, or inability to answer even one of them, the back peddling and changing tone of their response. If you possess the nerve, I suggest that everyone ask them these questions, and better yet, ask these questions of one another, and indeed ones self…

The Dialog

WyrdSister – April 30, 2017 at 10:57 AM

Methinks you have may have misunderstood the purpose of the document titled “Primary O9A Sources”. It is aimed at non-O9A folk who might be interested – academically or otherwise – in or curious about the O9A and in contemporary Western esotericism (as esotericism has been defined by academics).

It is not aimed at those who are already O9A, has no authority whatsoever, does not claim to be authoritative, and simply amounts to one person’s “recommended reading list” of primary O9A source material. Those reading such recommended O9A material will find all of your points – such as about O9A individual judgment and individual pathei mathos being the essence of the O9A – in the texts mentioned.

For example, the 1460 page “Complete Guide” contains texts such as “Notes On The Esoteric Learning Presenced Through Pathei-Mathos” – where it is mentioned that “The term pathei-mathos expresses the essence of the esoteric ethos of the Order of Nine Angles: the personal learning, by individuals, that often results from consciously undertaking practical exeatic experiences conventionally described as both ‘numinous’ and ‘sinister’.” It also contains the texts “Authority, Learning, and Culture, In The Sinister Tradition Of The Order of Nine Angles” and “The Authority Of Individual Judgement – Interpretation And Meaning”.

The recommended text “The Joy of the Sinister” quotes from the Satanic Letters of Stephen Brown (also on recommended reading list) which states “Each individual must learn for themselves – this is the crux. No one can do it for them. The essence, born via experiences, cannot even be taught – it must be experienced.”

D. M. Hutchins – April 30, 2017 at 4:49 PM

I will begin by thanking you for your time and comment, however, I do believe that your statements here have only strengthened my original position, and with all due respect, I would ask you to take note that the tactic of posting this reply on the wrong thread (whereby observers of my views will not witness our dialog), has not escaped my notice. I will be keeping detailed text and photo records of this conversation such that I can relocate it to the proper article when we have concluded our discussion.

(1) I fully understand the ‘purpose’ of the article “Primary O9A Sources”, and frankly I interpret your statement that ‘I have misunderstood the article’ as a deflection of my pointed questions as to the legitimacy and authority of said articles claims. I can, if I must, reproduce the questions here as well, making a second deflection most obvious. (a) In what manner has anyone the authority to determine what is primary for another, (b) in what manner could anyone make a logical case for gaining insight into ancient gnosis by way of adhering to modern paradigms which contradict it, (c) and if you are so determined to cause mundanes to believe that ONA is an academic field, or that academics can or have in some way validated ONA, might you explain the contradiction expressed when you rebuking many for lacking academic achievements, while on the other hand rebuking others for being mindless slaves to the outcome based indoctrination programs of the Nation State?

I would kindly ask that you make up your mind exactly which lie you are attempting to sell by answering questions 1a, 1b, and 1c, though I do believe that I have already refuted them all.

(2) (a) Your second paragraph begs several more questions than it pretends to answer. You cannot state that the reading list in question is “only for those who are not ‘already ONA’” unless you can produce and justify a universal standard by which one either is, or is not, ONA. Your article offers nothing in regard to how you are conducting that assessment, and (b) when you announce to the public that something, that anything, is primary for them, you are indeed assuming authority (as of yet unexplained or substantiated) and to know what the your audiences agendas are, and because you claim that your target audience are those unfamiliar with ONA, you have inadvertently admitted that you couldn’t possibly possess that information, and (c) I am ONA and yet your list of primaries and underhanded suggestions do not representing my agenda, neither my primaries, whatsoever. (d) The tone of the article in question is strict and matter-of-fact and in rather striking juxtapose to your now very much softer claim that article was merely a kindhearted suggestion or recommendation for anyone interested, and I firmly believe that the matter-of-fact attitude would have been maintained if not for my calling attention to the verisimilitude of said articles claims. (e) And finally, suggesting that adhering to your reading list would answer all of my questions, has in no way answered even one of my questions. I doubt that you would recommend a book you hadn’t read, and so assuming that you possess all of the knowledge contained in said reading list, I see no reason that you couldn’t simply answer my questions publicly on this medium in real time, which oddly you, and all the others, seem unwilling, or unable, to do.

(3) Again, with all due respect and attempted civility, your third paragraph is absolute nonsense. (a) The number of pages in a book in no way testify to that books contents or the merits of those contents, which makes your statement in that regard an utter non sequitur. (b) Pathei-Mathos is Greek in concept and language, and predates ONA by more than 1,000 years. If I pick a large Latin word from 1500 years ago and claim it as my own, will I win this debate by default? (c) Pathei-Mathos itself dose not “often” result from consciously undertaking practical exeatic experiences, it ONLY results from consciously undertaking practical exeatic experiences, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the ONA other than modern ONA having adopted that particular preexisting concept, and underhandedly claiming that it represent the “ONA Ethos”, which as I said but a moment ago, didn’t even exist until much, much later. This retcon is most obvious. (d) Exeatic experience is not described (conventionally or otherwise) as both numinous and sinister. Exeatic experience and Pathei-Mathos lead to self actualization and the elevating ones consciousness unto the point of Higher Will, but the Will of the individuals intentions mark them as EITHER Numinous or Sinister, as Magicians or Sorcerers, not both. (e) The last sentence of your third paragraph is nonsensical, as ‘personal judgement’ and ‘external authority’ are absolutely incompatible. One cannot exist in both states of dominion and adherence simultaneously. Render unto Cesar…

(4) Your entire forth paragraph renders this whole discussion in my favor, and explains the inappropriate and unsubstantiated nature of the original article “Primary O9A Sources”.

I look forward to your reply (and placing it upon the proper thread).

WyrdSister – April 30, 2017 at 9:35 PM

The simple fact is that the “reading list” was directed at those who write about or who might be interested in studying the O9A, especially academics, and was published following some correspondence with a particular academic and discussions elsewhere regarding the need for researchers to use primary not secondary sources.

A suggested reading list is just a suggested reading list compiled by one person in response to questions about “primary sources”. It has no “authority” and neither suggests nor implies anything about the nature of the O9A, merely allowing others to find and read material where O9A theory and practice is written about.

D. M. Hutchins – May 1, 2017 at 12:33 AM

No, there is nothing simple about this whatsoever. If this were simple you may have attempted to answer at least one of the thirteen very specific questions I presented you with, or the several more I’ll be presenting in this post, but as always you are either unwilling or unable to do so, lest your true agenda be revealed. Fortunately, our exchange has not been completely fruitless, due to the fact that your consistent avoidance of my questions has inadvertently answered them, and serves as evidence of my initial position pertaining to your motives.

“I’m in correspondence with an academic”

Ok, so? You say that as though such were meaningful in any regard. Tell me, if suddenly all notable universities were to begin offering a class on ONA, and simultaneously the top fifty scholars of our age were all to write a book about ONA, so what? Who or what would that validate? Who exactly would be impressed and why?

As I see it, you could take all the Homo Hubris on Earth and have their outcome based indoctrination systems program them with every ONAism platitude ever written, and they’d all remain equally as mundane, inexperienced, dwelling in base consciousness, utterly absent alchemical insight, devoid of Numinous understanding, and graduating with goofy smiles as they tote meaningless scrolls across a stage, pronouncing all the abstractions having replaced their common sense and potential for intellectual independence.

Of course I recognize the rhetorical nature of this question, as you will undoubtedly ignore it… though I ask anyway, on behalf of others who now see it, and who will continue to see it, and when they forget, I will remind them again, and so, while we are at this game where I ask simple questions and you hide from them, let us add;

(1) How is it that you suppose there is a “need” for academics to research ONA?
(2) By what standard are you judging ONA sources to be either “Primary” or “Secondary”?
(3) Who, if anyone, agrees with you?
(4) Are you able to produce a list of all the Primary ONA Sources and all Secondary ONA Sources?

I can’t think of a single ONA author who’d bow down to you and accept the status of being a “Secondary ONA Source”, and even in the event that you have convinced one or more academics that this hallucination of yours in any way reflects how ONA actually functions, it only further demonstrates the gullibility of those Nation State indoctrinated stooges you are attempting to manipulate, not to mention the fact that convincing mundanes of your lies, in no way alters the FACT that ONA is primarily comprised of free alchemist who are immune to your dogma and propaganda. I mean sure, you have the kids that cut themselves, those obsessed with pornography, and a few even think they are vampires, but if you wade through all the nonsense and pay attention to the undeniable fact that ONA includes some rather mature and evolutionary content such as that produced by L316, Temple of THEM, ADM, Fleming, and Nexion Nine Thirteen, well, this image you are attempting to sell these academics, which just so happens to omit all of our names and productions from your personal self centered version of ONA history… is frankly laughable.

I write about ONA. I have lived an extremely exeatic life, abandoning society proper at the age of fourteen. I held such a standard for well over a decade before I ever heard of ONA. At this point in time I have been involved with ONA for nearly eight years. Oddly though, you aren’t bringing your academic friends to discus ONA with me. Now why is that? I’ll tell you why, because I have no interest in supporting this illusion you are selling, and I’d do this pesky thing called telling the truth instead.

Prove me wrong and invite me to participate in the next “scholarly” publication of your alleged academics. I bet you won’t.

WyrdSister – May 1, 2017 at 6:07 AM

You wrote: {quote} If this were simple you may have attempted to answer at least one of the thirteen very specific questions I presented {/quote}

Such questions and your subsequent questions – and your ad hominems – are irrelevant because it’s just “a personal recommended reading list”. One compiled by an actual person who lives in Shropshire, England and one that grew out of some personal correspondence. A personal reading list is just a personal reading list. No more, no less.

Anyone – be they internet anonymous, academic, or otherwise – is free to compile their own “personal recommended reading list” of O9A material. Some already have, for example Professor Monette, in his chapter on the ONA, provides his own reading list of ONA material; as did Senholt in presenting his paper at the 2009 academic conference on modern satanism. No list has precedence over any other, none are or can be “authoritative” because they’re all just “personal recommended reading lists.”

Why are you trying to make such a big thing out of a personal reading list?

D. M. Hutchins – May 1, 2017 at 12:48 PM

Good Lady, an ad hominem attack occurs when someone ignores your statements and rather than addressing them insults your personal character. That isn’t what happened between us. I refuted your statements, and then I insulted your character, thus no ad hominem occurred. I would thank you to refrain from lecturing me pertaining to academics until such time as you able to demonstrate at minimum a high school debate team requisite logical fallacy recognition.

If your ‘personal suggestions’ pertaining to reading list are indeed just that, you’d have no right by which to proclaim any given text primary or secondary, especially while consistently refusing to announce the standard or methods by which these valuations were determined, or by whom. Let us end this childish game of semantics. State clearly your standard and the authority by which it is enforced, or withdraw your distorted and whitewashed version of what the Order of Nine Angles is, has been, and is going to be.

If, as you say, anyones opinion is as authoritative as any others pertaining to what is primary and/or secondary pertaining to ONA MSS, you would then agree that my own personal list, which elects as primary all of that content which your list omits, is equally as valid as your own? Such would be outrageously illogical as the two list so drastically conflict, but then, thats the corner your attitude has painted you in to…

For the record, I’m not trying to do anything. I’ve done it. Thank you for your time.

WyrdSister – May 1, 2017 at 5:23 PM

I am rather reminded of a recent conversation with a dear friend of mine who works as an ER doctor. She confided that when she gets home all she wants to do is be silent, alone, and thus able to recall in peace the events of her day. To thus place into perspective the trauma, the injuries, the patient or patients who died while in her care even though she had done all she could do, and sometimes more. But all her then partner wanted to do on her return to their condo was talk and complain about her own office day, admitting as that doctor did that such complaints – though so very human, so natural – seemed, at least to her, so very trivial.

Thus do we – exchanging messages here – seem to belong to different worlds. Is there therefore anything meaningful for us to say here? Perhaps not.

D. M. Hutchins – May 2, 2017 at 2:05 AM

Oh but perhaps there most certainly is something for us to talk about, you just aren’t willing to publicly address my concerns, because in so doing your true agenda would be made know to those you are attempting to manipulate. It is therefore that you have instead back peddled, avoided questions, and told stories about your friends relationship issues… It is cute though, that even when attempting to manipulate me (which you have not), you continue to demonstrate that you are yet the one trick pony, as I have questioned your right to conduct valuations on behalf others, and you can only return by forcing your valuations upon my question, in the guise of questioning the meaning of of a conversation which pertains to the meaning of such questions. You aren’t nearly as clever as you seem to believe. I see you.

Annaczereda – May 2, 2017 at 1:15 PM

@ Wyrdsister Your reply shows that you have a very faint idea about the work of a doctor or a nurse. It often revolves around trivial problems (like some patient not being able to poop) and dealing with other people’s bullshit.

I work in the nursing home for the elderly. You have to be pretty thick skinned because you not only have to observe the people you cared for dying but you often have to wash the corpse and change the dead person’s diaper. Then you have to pass the corpse over to the funeral home or service (dunno how you call that in English). There are even more formalities to deal with if the family doesn’t give a fuck, which is often the case. There is no time for “wordless knowing” maybe apart from realization that there will come the time when you will be a total idiot in spite of all your education and you will piss or shit in your bed. That is on condition you live long enough. We even have one mountain climber there. Now she can’t even climb the toilet without help. C’est la vie.

D. M. Hutchins – May 2, 2017 at 5:43 PM

Well said, Anna. Many members of my family and associates are also nurse and/or Doctors. You hit the nail on the head. The line between the profound and the mundane is clearly draw for those who actually interact with death and dying rather than sitting around promoting PDFs about culling. I’ve lost count of the dead I have known, or even the manners in which they have died.

This is why upon incorporation of elements of ToTBL into my overall N913 philosophy, I readily adopted that valuation of dignified self termination between the ages fifty and sixty six. I’ll not willfully die shitting my bed while the flesh withers from my bones and my mind fades away. I’ll take up a sword and honor my ancestery. I’ll take hold of my honor, and when this carnations spark flickers out, it will damn sure set the Magian afire.

Annaczereda – May 2, 2017 at 6:38 PM

Sigh. You say this because the virtue of misericordia is alien to you. My grandmother cared for me when I was young. She wiped my ass, washed me and changed my diapers. When she got old, I did the same for her. I quite enjoy nursing. You are born feeble and you die feeble. Your life comes full circle. There are no mundanes, we will all turn to dust. You are as much detached from reality as those Inner ONA peeps.

WyrdSister – May 2, 2017 at 6:46 PM

Anna, as usual you interject polemically. I recalled a part of one conversation with a friend. Working in ER as a doctor is very different from working in some “care home” or on an ordinary hospital ward. Had you experience of working for at least a year in ER as a doctor or even as a nurse your comments might have some relevance. Have you such experience? If not, then you’re just making assumptions. Perhaps you might ask a Doctor with at least a year of ER experience whether or not the feeling of an ER doctor such as I recounted are familiar to them?

Annaczereda – May 2, 2017 at 6:55 PM

My colleague who works with me is an ER nurse.

Annaczered – April 30, 2017 at 9:29 PM

“I make people think and come to conclusions of their own…”

Let’s say a few students during a biology class examine a fine piece of cow shit in order to determine the cow’s eating habits. Just when they are done writing their reports and drawing diagrams and just when they’ve packed their bags and are ready to go home, there arrives one students who’s late for the class. Hey buddies, what’s that? But this shit is fascinating. Let’s look into it. I’ll help you.

Seriously, yet another PhD dissertation about the sinister bullshit? What you’re “explaining” everybody already knows except for maybe some idiots. It’s for you, not for others. You’re teaching no one, you’re making no revolution. Individual judgement, wisdom born from pathei mathos etc is the basic shit everyone already knows. You can write about it and debate it for ages and pages but you’re basically doing your homework now.

D. M. Hutchins – May 1, 2017 at 12:42 AM

I understand the point that you think you are making here, Anna… but it doesn’t pertain to the conversation between Miss Fake Account and I. Read between the lines. Thats not the nature of the debate we are having. However, because you have demonstrated interest, perhaps you will answer the questions I have asked?

Annaczereda – May 1, 2017 at 4:37 AM

Your questions have already been answered. The stuff you’re debating now has already been discussed. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t disagree with you. I just think you’re deluding yourself when you think you’re teaching and explaining the truth to others. As I wrote it’s a basic stuff everyone knows. Papa Myatt dropped out of university too.

WyrdSister – May 1, 2017 at 6:11 AM

Yes “Papa Myatt” did drop out – seemed he preferred violence, crime, and activism to study – and a few years later (after being released from jail) he spent two years in a monastery studying theology as well as Greek and Latin. He then left the monastery to continue his life of activism, violence, and – presumably – crime.

D. M. Hutchins – May 1, 2017 at 12:22 PM

Because you so enjoy discussing Myatt, perhaps you’d offer us your thoughts pertaining to Liber Dabih X?

WyrdSister – May 1, 2017 at 5:31 PM

Re Liber Dabih. A now – IMO – outdated and incomplete compilation, albeit a useful one in its day. But kudos to he who compiled it, and kudos to him also for digitizing O9A works such as Naos, for without his efforts in that respect such works might have been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Perhaps a new “Liber Dabih” is needed? Including as it should Myatt’s post-2011 letters and essays, his translations of the Corpus Hermetica, and especially his writings about his “philosophy of pathei mathos”.

D. M. Hutchins – May 2, 2017 at 12:31 AM Edit

Your reply is, as with everything you say, underhandedly dishonest.

(1) Liber Dabih is not “incomplete” because there were never any intentions to present the collection as such, and to that degree the very title of the work is “Liber Dabih – SELECTED WORKS of David W. Myatt”… And I’m not placing SELECTED WORKS in all caps on my own behalf, that its who the title is presented in the book.

(2) “he who completed it”… I’m sure you meant to say “THE TEMPLE OF THEM – Published by the Black Glyph Society – ONA Nexion (Australia), but you don’t much care to mention aloud the names of individuals or Nexion who challenge your views of the ONA, or challenge your alleged history of ONA, do you?

(3) You have some nerve to even mention that “dustbin of history”. How much of ONAs development and evolution are you more than happy to see thus swept, and is their not a broom in thine own hand? Certainly you are not serious?

(4) I would agree those other text merit inclusion, however, the goal is not, in my case, to collect and memorize the works of Myatt, but to be inspired toward new experience and perspective by those I have studied, yet as for those letters and essays there is that issue of the “Anton Long Effect” whereby countless individuals have used said name to have their ideals validated, and I see equal potential for anyone with the skill to emulate Myatts writing style to do the same with these supposed letters. I’m not claiming they are all fakes, I’m simply acknowledging the potential for forgery… What say you?

WyrdSister – May 2, 2017 at 7:00 PM

Yawn. Liber Dabih is outdated, and thus now incomplete. Years have passed. A person has changed, evolved. Plus, Liber Dabih – selected writings or otherwise – is all about Myatt. It may be a useful resource for those interested in Myatt’s past. That’s all. Yet again you make a fuss about nothing. You asked for my opinion about that work, and I gave it. Who cares who compiled it and why? Only those obsessed with a particular – often personal – agenda. Aeonically, Liber Dabih and its compiler, are irrelevant, just like you, me, Anna, et al.

That you et al apparently failed to understand my ER metaphor was perhaps only to be expected. So by all means continue as you are and believe. The ER world is real; we, here, are not.

Annaczereda – May 2, 2017 at 7:28 PM

Whoever can be trusted with very little, can also be trusted with much. Whoever is dishonest with very little is also dishonest with much. Every detail counts and, no matter our motivations, we are all real here.

D. M. Hutchins – May 2, 2017 at 9:46 PM

Once again, you ignore every question I present you, and you wage further lies and deceptions. That Liber Dadih is all about Myatt disturbs you, and thus you deflect and pretend that I am making a big deal, while in reality the deal is that you have no use for Myatt’s Numinous Way as it contradicts that agenda of yours to sell these illusions of a certain ONA which never happened (equally hiding much of ONA that did happen).

Who cares who composed that Liber Dabih, or why? Well, obviously you do, as you refuse to even state their names, “The Temple of THEM”, and you’re damn right I have an agenda of my own. It is to expose your deception. And no, I am not aeonically irrelevant, nor Anna. Thats just another story you cant back up, and so you sell it to mundanes in order to justify yourself.

And can you get over this “If you are online you have no real world experience” bullshit? I had been in three covens and two street gangs before the internet ever became popular. How old are you, seriously? Late teens? Early twenties? lol. You have no idea what real experience Anna or I have. As always you are talking out of your ass…

WyrdSister – May 3, 2017 at 5:11 AM

Apparently you et al are still making the same two mistakes. Firstly, the fallacy of illicit transference. A few individuals who associate themselves with the ONA write polemics or (on purpose or otherwise) otherwise annoy some self-described ‘satanists’ or some ONA critic, or some Nazarene on a crusade, or someone claiming association with the ONA, and those persons then proceed to lambaste the ONA in general on the basis of those few individuals.

Secondly, forgetting about or – for whatever reason, disputatious or otherwise – ignoring the ONA principle of the authority of individual judgment: that no one ONA or claiming to be ONA can speak or write “on behalf of the Order of Nine Angles” so that their opinion about or their interpretation of matters ONA or about satanism or about whatever is just their personal opinion or interpretation and has no authority whatsoever. But instead of applying that ONA principle, there are “walls of text” from those aforementioned types of persons plus argumentum ad hominem and argumentum ad nauseam.

Thus does a particular scenario regarding the ONA repeat itself, via the internet, again as it has done for nigh on nine years.

The point of this

my own “wall of text” is that your view, your opinion, your interpretation about and of matters ONA is just as valid as mine or those of the others who contribute to blogs such as the ‘wyrdsister’ one. None of us are “special” or have received some “revelation” or have more “insight” into ONA matters than others. Neither do we have some sort of “mission”. We all have our own reasons, rational or irrational, or our own agenda, for finding the ONA interesting and for writing about it. We all have our own, our individual, experiences – occult and/or otherwise – which make us who were are and which color our interpretation and perception of matters ONA and of the ONA itself.

All of which applies to everyone past and present, from “Anton Long” (be he one person or many) to Mr McD to that perennial interloper Anna C.

That’s all I have to say, here.

Annaczereda – May 3, 2017 at 5:47 AM

Perennial interloper. I’m afraid WeirdSister dear, that if you don’t cull me, you will have to put up with my presence till the end of your days. 🙂

I’ve never been attacking the ONA in general or Myatt. Certainly, you would wish that were the case but it isn’t and has never been. Your antics are so transparent you must work on them a little bit.

D. M. Hutchins – May 1, 2017 at 8:53 AM

I would be all too pleased if you were correct, Anna, however, I do not see that my questions have been answered at all, and in fact it would seem that they been avoided, and thereby inadvertently answering to my charges in the affirmative. What were those answers again? Also I would disagree that I am deluding myself.

I know well what I am doing, as well ask they know their attempted deception, and for every paragraph of lies and false history they write, and every academic they deceive, which cast the ONA in a false light (a light in favor of themselves alone), I will write a page of truths, countering them.

As for university, I believe anyone with any sense would drop out. There is hardly anything to be learned there, other than more completely contrived and fabricated histories, and the realization that the mediums upon which the artist would express themselves are hijacked and owned by those in political power such that (much like the ONA individuals in question) the truth is ignored in order to sell the lie they believe justifies their violations of Natural Law, such that they pursue academics to record such in the indoctrination books of those mundane universities… I am not fooled, I am not wasting my time, and I am not going away.

Annaczereda – May 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM

The answers are in the MSS. You can search for them and use them in your debates, basically for your own sake so that you aren’t fooled. The priority of experience before education, wordless wisdom etc, it’s all there. Do you really think you’re enlightening anyone?

D. M. Hutchins – May 1, 2017 at 12:18 PM

I really think you continue to miss the point that I am making here. I’m not “offering enlightenment”, you are assuming that I am “offering enlightenment”, while in reality what I am doing is exposing a deception by which some would alter ONA history so as to omit elements which they dislike, and embellish their own contributions by orders of magnitude, via manipulation of mundane academics… which I have attempted to explain to you twice now. Its not my problem if you cannot see what I am addressing, and I reject your silly caricature of my person or my agenda.

Annaczereda – May 2, 2017 at 10:33 AM

Actually, on their previous blog Sinister Polemics, they put Liber Dabih directly giving credit to RA and the Temple of Them. You know these are the same people, right?

D. M. Hutchins – May 2, 2017 at 10:50 AM

Yes I know RA and THEM are the same people, Anna, and that he/they used many other names as well. I spent quite a bit of time with THEM several years back, they edited my first book, and taught me many lessons, and I maintain unto this day the opinion that THEM had more of an impact upon ONA 2.0 than WSA352 ever could. THEM were hated very much, and still invoke heated debate as to the interpretation of ONA MSS and the proper application of ones self in practical deed.

As for ‘Sinister Polemics’ I am not only familiar with that old blog, I have been the focus of many post therein, and you hit the nail on the head in further exposing that I have held their attention for some years, and that they have consistently attempted to cast my work and opinions in a negative and non-ONA light. There are many PDFs still around with articles originating from that blog, and one focused entirely upon myself and Ryan Fleming, whereas they basically begged the ONA in general to completely disregard us… and yet here I am, and Fleming as well. They were not at all successful, and neither will they be successful in this campaign.

Thank you for the further evidence that for some time now these individuals with whom I debate are indeed guilty of selling a false representation of ONA history.

Annaczereda – May 2, 2017 at 10:40 AM

Sorry my comment was for your reply to WyrdSister. The Temple of Them has its own place in the ONA history, which nobody will manage to erase.

D. M. Hutchins – May 2, 2017 at 10:58 AM

I understood your context and replied in kind. Yes THEM left permanent scars upon the arrogance and self righteousness of the ONA elders, as do I. And you are correct that they will not be forgotten. I will remind everyone of L316 and THEM for as long as I draw breath. For all the pomp and materials on the net, and all the individuals claiming meaningless titles, it was the humble yet stern lectures of members of L316, THEM, and ToTBL, from whom I took the greatest information, and the most practical application of it, and further assisted me in properly understanding my exeatic life prior to ONA/ToTBL, and the contextualizing of exeatic experiences thereafter.

Annaczereda – May 2, 2017 at 11:32 AM

I meant that the WyrdSister and Sinister Polemics were run by the same people.

I understand your passion. I really do. I only think you’re too late for the biology cow shit class. It’s over now, only not for you. Dunno how to break it down to you.

D. M. Hutchins – May 2, 2017 at 9:26 PM

[Anna] Sigh. You say this because the virtue of misericordia is alien to you. My grandmother cared for me when I was young. She wiped my ass, washed me and changed my diapers. When she got old, I did the same for her. I quite enjoy nursing. You are born feeble and you die feeble. Your life comes full circle.

You always default to the “you don’t understand” position if ever anyone disagrees with you on something. I can see you point and yet disagree. I had a grandmother too for a time, and she cared for me as much, and I too returned the favor in my own way, though she was mundane, and she suffered needlessly for many years, only to die a mundane death. If thats what people want, fuck’em, let them have it, but I seek to die as passionately as I have lived. There will be witnesses, and the recounting of my deeds will conclude my contribution to Mortiklavis.

[Anna] There are no mundanes, we will all turn to dust. You are as much detached from reality as those Inner ONA peeps.

Now there you have revealed a genuine misunderstanding of mundanity, magery, and sorcery. All flesh are clay vessels and return to the dust, but it is that divine spark within that separates the mundane from the Numinous and the numinous from the sinister. The flesh and dust are not so important. In this regard I am more connected to reality than yourself.

Annaczereda – May 2, 2017 at 10:13 PM

Of course Darryl lol. I’m having a night shift while I’m typing this. I’ve just changed Eulalia’s diaper. Not kidding now. That’s her name. So people will recount your deeds. Okey Dokey, keep dreaming.

D. M. Hutchins – May 3, 2017 at 10:21 AM

Those stranded upon the plane of effects need dreams and wishes. Those dwelling upon the plane of causation manifest the realities they desire. https://youtu.be/ienPq8iRKmk

Advertisements

27 thoughts on “The Dishonesty and Double-talk of WyrdSister (1)

  1. Good point. No matter how much you try to reason with these people, explain yourself, your thoughts and motivations, it all falls on deaf ears. It’s like talking to the wall. A debate in itself is an intellectual exercise but there is no communication with them, no understanding between you and them, only the wall. It’s as if you tried to explain yourself to the person who hates you or at least dislikes you to a considerable extent. He or she will never understand you because he or she doesn’t want to even listen to you because he/she already knows he/she abhors you.

    Like

    • With all due respect, Anna, you have this one wrong. This is not a debate, but a planting of flags, the context of which most will not understand. Their ears only pretend to be deaf, though they hear me quite well. The illusion of the wall is just that, an illusion, though the understanding between they and I is crystal clear, and it is for that reason which they hate and dislike me, because it is that I possess that understanding.

      Why would the alleged keepers of a supposedly secret society, publicly seek out academics whom they personally believe to be mundane, and cause them to record false ONA histories in academic books which ONA hold in contempt as mundane, and which histories conveniently omit all mention of Nexion or individuals who challenge their version of said events, or the status of ONA in general? This should be painfully obvious to everyone, and if it isn’t, you simply aren’t paying attention.

      Liked by 1 person

      • My bad. Perhaps, I should make myself more clear. I wasn’t talking about you specifically. I use “you” in general sense. My observation is based on my own interaction with them.

        And with all due respect, you show some degree of naivety when you talk about the “mundane.” As if you childishly believed that somewhere, beyond the seven seas and seven forests, there live the people who are less disappointing than all the rest.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Well, when you post on my blog, and you offer the context “You”… then yes, I admit I thought you were addressing me.

          As with all things, your assumption that I am some dullard believing such nonsense pertaining to the mundane, is frankly absurd. If you’d care to have a discussion pertaining to the mundane, and what they are and/or are not, please compose an essay containing your thoughts and bring it to my attention. I will comment my views upon your medium, and share as much on my own. Let us not judge one another based upon assumption, when simply asking leads to much more fruitful dialog.

          Like

          • I was talking about the general you, yourself included. You aren’t the only one who has to read crap about yourself on ONA websites.

            You were talking about the mundane in the context of academics. The ONA is not so well known as the Church of Satan or even the Temple of Set. That disturbs those who weave the ONA mythos. Like every human being they desire recognition. Call it mundane but isn’t it all too human?

            Liked by 1 person

            • (1) I realize that I am not the only one whom certain of the ONA seek to slander. My point is that if you observe those thus slandered, you will notice a certain theme whereas we who tell the truth of ONA development and evolution are rejected by those who hold themselves in such regard as to supposedly represent ALL of the ONA by way of some authoritative ranking system whereas they have located themselves at the top looking down. In reality those individuals represent only a small fraction of the ONA, those individuals possess no authority whatsoever (I’ve invited them to cull me for eight years now), and said ranking system is a nonexistent myth which only the most dullardly of dullards would obey.

              (2) The Church of Satan and the Temple of Set are mundane organizations, and if some in ONA are seeking to align the name of the ONA with the names of CoS and ToS, such only further validates my position. The ambition of those few seeking out academics so as to create an ONA name for the mundane, have equally demonstrated themselves to be mundane, and to possess mundane goals. It is necessary to rebuke those individuals, and a just defense of the genuine introspective, personal, alchemical ONA agenda, to reform ones own self. What others think is nonsense, others limitations are of no consequence, others ideals are not relevant…

              (3) To desire recognition is not a human trait, it is a mundane trait, an egotistic trait, which not all humans possess to that order of magnitude nor allow to rule over their psyche. As such this trait is not indicative of simply ‘being human’, rather it is indicative of a particular ‘type of human’, which type opposes the supposed goal of the Order of Nine Angles which is to manifest a New Breed of Man, which man would in fact detest this sham of a false ONA being sold to these academics, and as I myself detest it.

              (4) Imagine if these fools were successful in aligning the names of ONA with CoS and ToS. In what way does it benefit anyone to cast ONA in the light of Peter Gilmore’s stupidity? These ONA frauds are already emulating Micheal Aquino’s “scholarly reading list” nonsense. Are you all so historically illiterate as to not recognize this hubristic repetition? I most certainly do. What you are now witnessing is the decomposition of ONA in to a putrid husk of mundanity, a shell, and when that husk is cast off, the wings which spread and take flight decades from now will not represent the academic or cultural ONA offered by these liars, but rather the names ‘Chris’, ‘Darryl’, Ryan, “Span”, and others who took to heart the actual Hermetic and Alchemical work, The Great Work, and thus developed their own systems in opposition to the mundane, which happens to be the point… Adherence, dogma, tradition, propaganda, reading list, and recognition of external authorities, are NOT the point… Anyone with aeonic vision should recognize the utter fraud of these ‘modern’ ONA agendas, and should they do memetic battle with me, they seriously need to step up their game.

              Liked by 1 person

  2. You constantly emphasize your supposed achievements, as if you wanted validation. You are just one writer among many writers presenting your own opinion about the ONA. This is the truth. All the rest is in your head.

    Calling out obviously obvious nonsense is fun but watch out. Even the borderline retard can hold up a mirror to you.

    Like

    • I have no supposed achievements. I am what I am and I claim no more and no less. And yes I am but one writer presenting my opinion pertaining to the Order Of Nine Angles, but the rest is not in my head, the rest is in those many other writers and their many other opinions. We all of us are one, and so it is that I would address the nonsensical notion that any one of use could properly proclaim authority or rank over another. ONA is composed of resonance and conflict, though such a polarity is identical in nature and different only in degree. Our collective evolution is now well beyond the control of any one individual or nexion, despite those like WyrdSister who would speak as though they were in some manner representative of that which I and others do claim equal possession. This, yes, is the truth.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Thank you for your article about us. We seem to have been useful to you given more “walls of text” by you apparently seeking to justifying your interpretation of matters ONA and denounce the interpretation, the way, the methodology, of others. As we mentioned, in respect of the ONA “your” interpretation, “your” way is just that, yours. Our is just ours. From the perspective of the ONA principles of pathei mathos and individual judgment both interpretations – and every other interpretation by whomsoever – are equally valid.

    So “we” – and some others past and present – sometimes engage in dialectical disputation. So what? So we – and some others past and present – sometimes write propaganda and may be disruptive? So what? Whoever said all ONA people should be “moral” or always tell the truth? Some ONA people identify with Satanism; some don’t. Of those who do identify with Satanism some can be mischievous, disruptive, untruthful, deceptive, and desire to be anonymous – but so what? For they understand such things – rightly or wrongly – as part of ONA-type Satanism, and they have an inalienable ONA right to do so, at least according to “our” interpretation.

    Here are just some of the other individual ONA and different interpretations “out there” at the moment: the Yorkshire Rounwytha; Von Sanngetall; Secuntra; and Beldam (wyrdful witchcraft). They are just as valid as “ours” and yours.

    Bottom line: have you defined yourself and your way by opposition to others, including “us”? If so, do you still really need to?

    Liked by 1 person

    • So we have democracy again? Oh wait, it’s not democracy, it’s happy anarchy.

      What many ONA kiddies conveniently ignore is that there was a time, quite a long time, when Anton Long was a grand pooh-bah. He was a damned grand master of the ONA, later dethroned so that ONA cyber fans could fancy themselves “initiates.”

      You can protest as much as you want and you can try to convince people that your antics were just a dialectic. But the bones are flying out from beneath the carpet. What you are doing here is covering up your dirty laundry because your “politics” were met with opposition, and not from Darryl or other bloggers you mentioned, but from your “kindred.”

      Like

      • What Ho! Anna.

        “Kiddies”, “protest as much as you want” , “dirty laundry” and “just a dialectic” – is that all you’ve got? So stale… So last decade.

        Shame on you, anonymous master Nazarene propagandistic as you are. And we use the term “master” appropriately.

        Did you not write and argue some years ago on some internet forum or other about the ONA principle of the authority of individual judgment? How that trumped whatever personal interpretation some person had of matters ONA?

        Mr Hutchins here has asked multiple irrelevant questions reading “us” and what we sent forth into cyberspace as well as committed the fallacy of illicit transference in respect of the O9A and ignored the ONA code of kindred honor, That you – anonymous you – seem to defend him and accuse “us” is par for the course.

        Does he accuse you of hiding behind some false internet account? Of course not, at least while you seem to agree with him in respect of “us”. Hypocrisy? Go figure.

        Like

        • I’m not hiding behind false internet account and I’m no longer anonymous. Mr Hutchins knows what I look like.

          Yeah I was talking about the authority of individual judgement but I didn’t say that all interpretations of ONA are equally valid. People grow up and evolve so their views also change in the course of time. I was talking about Myatt and asking who led him by the hand and who reprimanded him for his “hubris” when he was an extremist or when he neglected and then lost his loved one. Still his past deeds and also his past opinions contributed to his pathei mathos and his later numinous philosophy. So even if someone expresses views that aren’t fully mature or makes mistakes, it doesn’t mean he’s not ONA or that he’s dishonorable because achieving wisdom takes decades.

          That’s what I wrote. You are always trying to put in my mouth something I didn’t say.

          Like

          • Anna wrote: {quote} I’m not hiding behind false internet account{/quote}

            That you’re now using the same weasel-term as Mr H is interesting and indicative. So we’re anonymous here, so what? Just because someone may use their real name doesn’t make their opinions or interpretations more worthy, more interesting, or better.

            Anonymity is only an issue if some anonymous person starts boasting about the “real life” experiences, sinister or otherwise.

            You wrote: {quote} I didn’t say that all interpretations of ONA are equally valid.{/quote}

            We never said you did so why the rant? All we did was ask if you’d once written “about the ONA principle of the authority of individual judgment.”

            Neither you nor Mr H have addressed the key issue regarding differing interpretations of the ONA. Ours is that all interpretations are equally valid because of the ONA principle of the authority of individual judgment and because of pathei mathos (individual learning from experience) being central to ONA theory and praxis.

            Thus the interpretation of Mr H – or that of whomsoever – is just as valid as ours. That’s it. So where’s the beef?

            Like

              • Saying that all interpretations of the ONA are equally valid is incorrect. You implied I wrote something like that but it’s not true. Also, the authority of individual judgement applies only to the ONA initiates, not outsiders.

                Like

                • You wrote: {quote} Saying that all interpretations of the ONA are equally valid is incorrect {/quote}

                  If that’s your outsider, Nazarene, view, then that’s your outsider, Nazarene, view. Our view of the matter is different.

                  You wrote: {quote} You implied I wrote something like that {/quote}

                  We implied nothing of the sort. We merely asked if you’d once written “about the ONA principle of the authority of individual judgment.” That you now state that this implies we stated something else really is most amusing.

                  We notice that neither you nor Mr H have made any mention of the fact that the use of the weasel term “hiding behind fake accounts” by you and him is indicative given (i) that the original article by Mr H – about someone’s personal O9A reading list and in which article he committed the fallacy of illicit transference – did not mention that the author of that list gave his name, with his location well-known among the Occult cognoscenti, and (ii) that we wyrdsisters have all affixed our names to various articles on various blogs, with our location well-known among the Occult cognoscenti. Thus both we and a certain Mr Parker are in actuality not anonymous people “hiding behind fake accounts” and are certainly as public and known (among the Occult cognoscenti) as you yourself are.

                  But this has all gotten rather boring. As we noted on a recent post on “our” blog, we and our kind ,and you and you kind and perhaps the likes of Mr H, really do seem to belong to different worlds. What needed to be written or said has been written or said, many times over the past decade.

                  Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s