ONA Content and History
nocTifer
<snip>
>I read ONA material when it first came out. I don't think they
>borrowed from ANY organizations out there. Their stuff was very very
>different.
agreed and strongly, i've been looking for this stuff and have not
found it outside of SRA hype.
>Their insistance that satanists did human sacrifice got
>everyone's feathers in an uproar since it was rubbish.
it was and still is to a certain extent how much it
overlapped with the subversion ideologies of the
Christians and Muslims. this is in part why people
like Myall have talked about Islam at all (as well
as that the religious complex of Islam has been
demonized by Westerners as 'terrorists' and worse).
satanservice.org@nocTifer (nocTifer)
nocTifer
<snip>
>Well, I wouldn't say 'there was no ONA'. The ONA was off stage, and a
>group of interested students tried to get the ONA's attention by
>pranking Blackwood. Only time will tell if the group that pranked
>Blackwood become more than the ONA's third hand.
who are these mysterious ONA folks and what basis do you have
for supposing them?
Venus Satanas:
>> The thing that bothers me about the ONA, is that there really isnt a
>> super secretive group of satanists culling people in rituals.
early 'culling' essays (as by 'Anton Long', a pseudonym?) are not
by a discernable individual. compare Seabrook, or Margaret Murray
or a variety of orientalists like Grant which you've mentioned.
>> Never
>> was, or will be. To me it all seems like urban legend. Sounds like a
>> movie plot, or a typical 'satanic panic' type of story..
Sean Sellers. Ricky Kasso. a few others.
>My impression was that the culling did not always take place in a
>ritual setting.
based on what?
>It is possible to read the ONA MSS in light of past
>discussions of the so-called 'satanic panic' and see in the text what
>you expect to see.
it's a reflection thereof, to my knowledge. an abstracted scare-tract.
>> Even the name of his org. came from LaVey and the satanic rituals.
the ONA as a name came from LaVey? there was the Council of Nine.
I thought that the ToS had an ONA inside it, but am probably in error.
>> in that book is a ceremony, called "The Ceremony of the Nine
>> Angles" its a precursor to the ritual of the "Calling of Cthulhu".
annunaki anybody? let's bring up the shade of von Daniken.
>...And 'Angles' also refers to a tribe, a people,
>ancestors of contemporary natives of the British Isles.
don't forget the visual pun on 'angels'.
>...Remember the nonsense about how the Church of Satan had
>ceased to exist after 1975 because of the silly 'infernal mandate'?
it might be said that it ceased to exist *as it had* or *as a
church per se*. as a body of people using the term of course
it still exists. is it a church? not by some evaluations. a
church is a Christian body of believers, ain't it?
>Aquino tried to make sure that everyone interested heard the
>punchline, so that few would bother asking 'what is the joke'.
dogma wars.
noctifer
satanservice.org@noctifer
http://www.satanservice.org/real-satanists.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/infernal-horde/
nocTifer
VenusSatanas <venus...@yahoo.com>:
>...a lot of the ONA's mtls. were taken from Golden Dawn references,
examples?
> and Crowley,
examples?
> and LaVey,
examples?
> then adapted to appear as 'satanic' ..but I could be mistaken,
> its only a guess based on the brief view of their mtls.
granted. I haven't seen this and have been watching for
the connections i could identify. the closest that i've
come so far is the Satanism/Nazism/Fascism fusion of, say
Guido von List or the media circus of Boyd and comparables.
esotericism crossed with fascism seems represented by
folks like Evola, but never in a strictly LHP mode.
> It would be great to know where the ONA mtls. originated from.
start with from the hand of whoever Long really was.
I am not yet convinced that this was Myatt and do not
know why anyone else is. anybody who converts between
religions is ostensibly loose with ideas and facts.
>i might research it someday just for the fun of it.
where? academics are apparently beginning to investigate.
>I have no doubts
>that most of their mtls. are cribbed from other sources,
>because the writings are highly unoriginal
that's redundant. I don't see the reason you say this.
>and contain absolutely no references..
that's not uncommon. religious books usually don't, at
least until one encounters a 'study version' -- we have
not yet seen a study version of the SB yet that i know
about. it should be on the agendae of clever Satanians.
>also, did you know that at one time a few years ago, Blackwood once
>claimed to be a member of the inner circle? a high ranking member.
I think he has since recanted and said it was a mistake,
apologizing. in some respects it appears that he bought
the notion that the people representing the ONA were
actual. was he gullible, or were they somehow an
extension of the earliest org/text?
> ...blackwood tried to mold his identity from the ONA
>materials, (and using their idea of sacrifice) then when
>it's exposed online that the ONA was likely to be fake
>and the work of just one author,
who exposed this and how did they substantiate it?
is this just layers upon layers of crap some of
which people believe?
>and that author known as anton long converted to islam,
what supports the contention that Myall is Long?
>blackwood changes his story. also, word has it that
>blackwood may have even posed as himself to battle
>with himself online by using a sock account and
>hidden identity at his blog to 'prove' his issues
>with the fake ona ....
dysinformation. a number of people in esoteric
communities (particularly LHP) have at least been
accused of it, and sometimes admitted to engaging it.
I know Tani has been accused of socks many times. I
am still not clear as to her position with respect it.
>heres info on david myatt, aka. anton long,
what convinced you that they are the same person?
>after he converted to islam.
makes for exciting news. imagine Satanists
everywhere converting to Islam terrorists
or neo-nazi fascists.
>to me he seems like an extremist, in whatever
>religion/belief he chooses to clothe himself with ..
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article708687.ece
he strikes me as someone who will use whatever it takes
to get attention. I place this in the context of the
numerous "converts" to Neopaganism and Satanism who
later then "converted back" to Christianity and set
about pinpointing targets of SRA scaremongering amongst
those with whom they previously fraternized, and also
the Joy of Satan's "Satanism" construct which they use
to deceive children into supporting their fascist aims.
you really can't trust much these people say. this
news article spends a great deal of time explaining
what "is said by Myatt" without substantiating any
of it. I'm no Myatt-hater, but i see nothing that
gives me the impression he must be Anton Long.
maybe a comparison in their writings styles?
TJ
On Sep 21, 9:28 pm, satanservice.org@nocTifer (nocTifer) wrote:
> hsssssss
>
>
> what supports the contention that Myall is Long?
Rumor. There is something by someone in the UK up on our "Is Fascism
Satanic" page - one of the essays on there is from a woman that knew
of these people, or that person (I don't remember exactly - go look) -
it's up on www.satanicreds.org - probabaly in Soc Pol section.
As to the other contentions here. I said already, straight up way way
back, I read every single thing ONA wrote in hard copy. I might still
have it, not sure. It was definitely NOT a copy of the usual western
occultism, which I consider bilge. It was very very different and had
mid east influences. I said that up front in hard copy letter back
then (which is all there was to communicate with, other than a
phone).
Sorry, I do not have or remember DETAILS - but someone else posted
some.
>
> dysinformation. a number of people in esoteric
> communities (particularly LHP) have at least been
> accused of it, and sometimes admitted to engaging it.
> I know Tani has been accused of socks many times. I
> am still not clear as to her position with respect it.
Socks do not photograph with me and Phil and others in photographs,
Noc. People used to be over my house in droves - we had parties, set
up street signs "Devil's Lane" and such, "Mephisto's Casino" and
such. Those were the days - economy was quite good back then.
Anyway - people DID post from my home, on my puter. They said as
much. I said as much.
To top that shit, nobody ever accused me of such bullshit until there
was a problem with a certain org which started, let me remind you,
when I chose to take up the banner of "IS FASCISM SATANIC" and say a
whopping NO IT IS NOT to that question. HA! Let's NOT forget that
little factoid. OH, then they and their fans tried to spread this
shit - and to TOP that, the HP of that org TALKED to these people in
the past, he saw fucking VIDEOS of us at parties.
He knew god damned well these people were pals, often at my house
hanging out, even staying here (Dawn was living here for awhile, so
was Andy), and that they were individual people. I call that FUCKING
ASSHOLISM. Tell the fucking lie, repeat it, get a gang to repeat it -
and they think it makes the grass pink.
I do NOT have socks. That is, I do not make a post and pretend to be
someone else. WHY would I bother to do that? WHY? I can't be
bothered. I do NOT make anonymous posts, don't know how, I tried it
once, ages ago and it didn't go thru (it wouldn't have been on this
group anyway, it was political). I'd have no damned reason to do it -
well, unless as in the political thing I never posted - I might get
into real trouble.
Speaking of which, I can post something that sort of sounds like some
of the stuff ONA people or person MIGHT have read and understood. I
just have to remember to do it when I post this.
Quite recently, I was not well, a friend that is computer savvy came
here to help with business I have. And he went and posted something
from here, like he just couldn't wait and go home and do it.
Whatever. SO WHAT? Anywhere else, this wouldn't be some kind of
fucking issue.
He also used my shower, my couch, my kitchen, my bathroom, my washing
machine and dryer, my TV and DVD player, ate my food and LIVED HERE
while I was not well. I don't happen to find any of that strange.
Phil doesn't know how to turn on my computer - nor does he care to
find out how. He's just NOT interested. So it goes.
It's so common that the guy across the street was letting the
neighborhood teens that mow his lawn and such use his computer.
OOops, now he claims he has credit card charges for some iTunes. Oh
well. Now, that NEVER happened to me. But then, people that stayed
over here and used stuff here as if they were family were well known
to me.
If you came here and made a post from my computer, do you think people
would think that was me pretending to be you? Well, anywhere else but
HERE nobody would think that. Fuck here.
>
> >heres info on david myatt, aka. anton long,
>
> what convinced you that they are the same person?
Someone forgot to include Christos Beest. Remember him?
>
> >after he converted to islam.
>
> makes for exciting news. imagine Satanists
> everywhere converting to Islam terrorists
> or neo-nazi fascists.
>
> >to me he seems like an extremist, in whatever
> >religion/belief he chooses to clothe himself with ..
> >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article708687.ece
>
> he strikes me as someone who will use whatever it takes
> to get attention. I place this in the context of the
> numerous "converts" to Neopaganism and Satanism who
> later then "converted back" to Christianity and set
> about pinpointing targets of SRA scaremongering amongst
> those with whom they previously fraternized, and also
> the Joy of Satan's "Satanism" construct which they use
> to deceive children into supporting their fascist aims.
>
> you really can't trust much these people say. this
> news article spends a great deal of time explaining
> what "is said by Myatt" without substantiating any
> of it. I'm no Myatt-hater, but i see nothing that
> gives me the impression he must be Anton Long.
> maybe a comparison in their writings styles?
That wouldn't do it. Compare the Casey style flame to the Brendan
style flame. I know them both and I couldn't tell you who said what,
their styles are very similar, their thinking on certain matters is
identical and neither of them copied that part. They just really
agree on some things. But, Noc, guess what. Their styles are NOTHING
like my style! Their styles are, however, very much like the style
Xloptuny used to use, and Jacqui confirmed it. She loved their
flames!
I tended to copy Wayne with the use of capitals - that predates
computers. Then Casey and Brendan did it on computers, but I don't
know if they did that on their own, or if someone copied someone
else. I have no idea. But I know I copied it from Wayne since it was
just easier to type, faster.
Ah, the post. I'll make it.
>
> noctifer
> satanservice.org@noctiferhttp://www.satanservice.org/real-satanists.htmlhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/infernal-horde/
KoriHoughton
your discussion with Venus. Except that I agree: I'm not convinced
the person now writing as Long/Myatt is the same person as before.
The recent stuff from Long has a distinctive punctuation style. And I
find Beest's stuff different from several other ONA writers as well.
They could be the same, change is possible. But I am not sure.
I think the confusion is fun.
Luv,
Kori
On Sep 21, 9:28 pm, satanservice.org@nocTifer (nocTifer) wrote:
> hsssssss
>
> VenusSatanas <venus_ta...@yahoo.com>:
nocTifer
> Seems like the pattern of ONA (Myatt) is to portray
> satanism in the worst light ....
do you have any reason to think that Myatt was or is Long?
> Myatt, in the 90s sometime, mailed me what I thought
> was a story for the fanzine we had going. ....
was this the first time you heard of Myatt by name?
satanservice.org@noctifer (nocTifer)
nocTifer
> > > ...at early points it appears to be just writings.
do you have any confirmation that early on it was more
than this other than writings, claims, contentions, etc.?
> > > ...nobody ever actually represented the org
> > > to anyone else, just authored some texts and postured as such.
> > > since then people have stepped in to try to *be* the thing,
> > > and some have been more successful at doing this than others.
sugacu...@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (viankavodka):
> ...as Long, Myatt has continuously written manuscripts
> for the ONA since 1972.
how did you first become aware that Myatt was writing and how?
what gave you reason to conclude that it was Myatt behind Long?
> In the early days of the Pre-internet ONA, Anton Long
> used to send out his writings via post {snail mail} to
> those interested who resonated with what the ONA is.
did you receive some or all of these, and is that how you
found out about this, or have you merely been told this?
when were these 'early days'?
> ...directly associated with Anton Long.
where was Anton Long in 'the early days', geographically?
did he have a physical address? if so, what was it? are
there any postmarked envelopes extant from Anton Long
that contain his correspondence?
> ...the thousands of MSS Anton Long wrote are readily
> available at your finger tips.
could you point me to a location for thousands of
Anton Long Mss? I have only seen a handful, and am
curious and would like to get a title list for all
thousands of them. do you HAVE such a title list
that you could post here for us? when did you first
become aware of these thousands of Mss?
> Just because the net is flooded with ONA writings,
where are these floods other than in a few blogs?
I have only seen a handful of ONA documents since
the 1990s and am not sure about their provenance
or origins. I think there is an interest in giving
impressions, as is often the case in New Religious
Movements, of being first and original and old and
offline, but the reality may be different, with a
variety of actors filling in the shoes fashioned
by predecessors (see below 'New AEon Magic').
your rhetoric is quite comparable to numerous of
those whom i have encountered who have attempted
to obscure and cover up the actual far simpler
and less numerous social alternatives. you have
no conventional civil name under which you are
posting, so i have no reason to think you are
more than a sock for someone who wants to pose.
please give me one. for all i know you are
Myatt himself fashioning an underpinning for
yourself which never actually existed.
can you explain how you know about the ONA, what
your relationship with it is and has been, and
how you came to know Long/Myatt as you call him?
> ...if you are not an adept of the ONA, nor know
> anyone personally in the ONA, then how can you
> be the leader of the ONA?
there are several flaws with this. the ONA might
be several orgs and have numerous lists of questions,
and thus one might know different people 'personally'
but not really know the same ONA. any or all of these
might have leaders regardless of what you're saying
here. as long as Long isn't the director, then any
variation of the actuality can come into being, since
he isn't consistently controlling it himself. the
best that can happen at that point is that Long or
someone impersonating (/within the sock of) Long
will come on and say that the person is a fake.
without an actual Long we can confirm, there is
effectively no Long, and we cannot believe anything
attributed to Long other than that it was written.
> I'll end this post with a quote of an article
> written by a member of the ONA entitled
> "ONA: A Briefing:"
<snip>
written by whom? when? how did you come by this?
> Anton Long, Q.F.A., 120 yf
what does "120 yf" mean? is this a dating convention
for all ONA publications of which you are aware?
what do the letters "yf" mean? who initiated this?
> There very well could have been *a dozen* of people
> involved with the ONA during it's first few years.
how is it possible to begin to date those years? when
do you think that those first few years were? why?
> But for many decades, and still currently, the
> ONA came out of Anton Long. Or he wrote it into
> existence.
well that is the problem. things aren't *written*
into existence. that is what subversion ideologies
and fantasist propagandists may promote, but the
reality is that things tend to leave traces in
other than writings and these can be tracked. if
they can't, then they are either forgotten or
become the foundation for legends without reality.
> Aeonic Magic is the scalar (time) process of making
> something real in the future, by manipulating events,
> people, and their perception, in the present moment.
that may work for the general populace, but for those
who are used to tracking the movements of New Religious
Movement fabricationalists, this is not going to fly.
> In a way, Aeonics may be understood as a specialized
> form of demogogy.
it's a kind of lying and fakery, actually. the Satanist
world tends to explain it away as 'Lesser Black Magick'
and hopes to avoid condemnation of the deception by
this (sometimes elitist) shenanigan.
> With Myatt and the ONA the mass or target market was
> enchanted by manuscripts he distributed via post
> for a small fee.
so he says, apparently.
> It is the memetic nature of these early manuscripts
> that reveals the mechanism of causal manifestation
> of the ONA.
or their appearance. the very fact that he or you
mentions this intention to deceive is very good
grounds for disputing the contentions being made.
> These MSS; which eventually became the Black
> Book of Satan; presents to the target market,
> all the information needed for each individual
> to generate the ONA in the real world.
my records has 'Conrad Robury' as the author of
the Black Book of Satan, and "an unknown author"
as the author of the Black Book of Satan III.
without substantiation, the whole morass is
likely to be left to the past as unfounded and,
therefore, forgotten. lots of Neopagan past is
like this and becomes a part of their legends
vouched over for centuries (this is the Way of
Religion manifesting in the modern age).
> In the first era of the ONA,
when was this in conventional time, by your
estimation?
> Myatt introduced some innovative concepts into
> his ONA such as: Acausal, Causal, the word 'Nexion'
> which is the point were acausal and causal meets;
> and his obsessive Faustian vision of colonizing the
> galaxy.
> ...grafting such Myattion concepts as 'Numinous,'
> 'Acausal,' 'Causal,' and his Galactic empire ideas.
those are very helpful pointers so as to identify
his material as compared to someone else's. once
we are informed that "Anton Long" is a simulacrum
which anyone might have inhabited, then it becomes
a crap-shoot and we have to piece it apart, figuring
that nobody is substantiated unless identified. if
it was Myatt from the beginning, he's obscured
himself pretty severely using his methods.
these aspects weren't part of the Anton Long
material that i recall seeing initially from
the ONA. for this reason, and until i review
this more carefully, i will assume that the
early Anton Long was someone else, not Myatt.
> As Anton Long states in a recent interview:
when was the recent interview? who was Anton
Long during this interview?
> ...Anton Long, Q.F.A., 120 yf
this is recent? then 2009 must be 120.
what does QFA stand for?
> ...It can be said that the ONA is a mere internet
> organization.
this is what it starts being in the eyes of observers
as long as there is no substantiation to the various
contentions about who the Anton Longs were. once you
make it a simulacrum and a variable, and nobody steps
up to claim the name, it's just a batch of papers
that anybody could have written.
> These opinions are based on a lack of understanding
> of the essential Methodology of the ONA.
they are also based on responsible sourcing and an
abject refusal to be subsumed by lying fakers. it is
possible that this is why, in fact, GM Blackwood
became involved as he did, and tried to fake his way
as the head of the ONA -- he recognized the Method
of Religion for what it was: a system of falsified
myth-making without foundation, and hoped that he
might insert himself into it for his own purposes.
unfortunately for him, he ran into people who were
able to convince him that he was in error or that
he couldn't get away with it. now, whether he was
convinced by anything substantial remains to be seen.
the modes of convincement have only been described.
> The ONA, as Myatt has made it, is a memetic seed....
when did Myatt start making it? that's the next
question which nobody has substantiated. assumedly
we can look for his telltale marks in the data.
> By 'Caladrius' of ONA
who is Caladrius of ONA? when was this written?
was this given out in some publication? once we
understand that the screed of ONA proceeds from
any and all who want to have a voice, then all
of it must be doubted and little of it will go
on to substantiate any claims made about it by
the batches of scammers who may come along who
will try to breathe life into it. those who
become its dupes will deserve their fate.
this is in fact the same kind of thing which is
used by LHP anti-Christian groups taking up
alternative religious pathways from earliest
times; from "Witches" (a new religious strata)
to "Satanists" (a new religious strata). that
they found the Christian subversion ideologies
sound vessels for their fabrications served
their purposes. that their existence did not
in fact associate with the subversion ideology
or its past is somewhat clear to those of us
trying to piece together the actual history
of the movement(s).
a good example of this same thing is my
construction of the Gospel of Satan. the vessel,
the diatribe antagonistic to it as a kind of
'golem' was raised a while back by Christians.
I shifted my scripture into that vessel when i
realised that it fitted properly as a gospel
and it was of the character of a Satanian poem.
at that point i was able to use the fabricated
subversion ideology as a launching point, not
only in terms of internet searches (which it
has now risen to the top of!), but as for all
time the only real Gospel of Satan yet created.
it is too bad that modern religious feel it is
necessary to fabricate and deceive their own
members into believing in the ancientness or
even recent historical primacy of their docs
and membership orgs, but there it is. it fits
with the notion set out by Christians as
focussed on 'The Father of Lies'. lying isn't
just for your enemies any more -- if it sells
your religion, it is quite fine to dupe your
fellow religious. if it worked for the simple
Christians, why not employ it against your own
modern alternative to Christianity?
ethics? bah! who needs 'em? even the Wiccans
whose 3-Fold Law of Return is legendary in its
own right doesn't stop 'em from promoting the
ancientness of the Witchcraft Religion. once a
dupe has bought the important part, then the
rest of the sheep follow suit and we can forget
the fact that rational analysis isn't being
brought to bear on any of it.
some things never change, just the names and
times shuffle a bit.
Hail Satan!
satanservice.org@noctifer (nocTifer)
nocTifer
> I hear from sources that back in the old days when
> they were a team, Beesty Boy {Richard Moult aka
> Christos Beesty} also use to use the pen name
> "Anton Long["] occasionally.
strange. sociologists of religion have begun to peg
Christos Beest as one 'Stephen Brown'. is this an error?
please explain where you come by your information.
you do realize, of course that, once the "wrong"
information heads toward being solidified without
foundation, that it is less likely to come loose,
and anonymity and obscuration will be the result
of undermining the whole? :)
certain exceptions occur when someone pins it to
an actual human being, like Anton Szandor LaVey
(aka Howard Stanton Levey). such individuals can
be traced, in greater and greater capacity, and
as their family and friends cop to the realities,
what is left is that the individual (n this case
LaVey/Levey -- did he ever legally change his name?
in Calif one can do it by usage) were simply liars,
and nothing they said pertaining to their doings
could be relied upon (which seems the case with
LaVey, although some of it was witnessed/recorded).
that's all very nice, but one cannot really have
it *2* ways: being anonymous and getting credit
where credit was due. eventually there will be
a winnowing out, and either responsibility (which
is being evaded here, probably due to association
with 'culling' and the more heinous aspects of
resembling the subversion ideologies) will be
taken, or completely cut adrift without credit
given to those who might otherwise deserve it.
satanservice.org@noctifer (nocTifer)
KoriHoughton
> sugacubez...@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (viankavodka):
>
> > I hear from sources that back in the old days when
> > they were a team, Beesty Boy {Richard Moult aka
> > Christos Beesty} also use to use the pen name
> > "Anton Long["] occasionally.
>
> strange. sociologists of religion have begun to peg
> Christos Beest as one 'Stephen Brown'. is this an error?
> please explain where you come by your information.
>
> you do realize, of course that, once the "wrong"
> information heads toward being solidified without
> foundation, that it is less likely to come loose,
> and anonymity and obscuration will be the result
> of undermining the whole? :)
Hi nocTifer!
I don't think the Christos Beest = Richard Moult identification is
wrong.
If you compare the art work of Moult to the (partial) version of a
Sinister Tarot designed by Beest, you can clearly see the artist is
the same person.
http://www.gazetree.com/
for Moult.
http://arcanaxv.multiply.com/photos/album/52
for photos of the cards done by Beest.
Whether or not Beest/Moult worked under other names at some point is
an interesting topic for speculation...if that's what you're
interested in?
Luv.
Kori
John Newby
According to Wikipedia's article on the ONA, Myatt converted to Islam.
I'm not really sure how accurate that is, because I just recently
started reading the ONA material myself.
TJ
On Sep 29, 12:25 pm, satanservice.org@noctifer (nocTifer) wrote:
> TJ <t...@post.com>:
>
> > Seems like the pattern of ONA (Myatt) is to portray
> > satanism in the worst light ....
>
> do you have any reason to think that Myatt was or is Long?
I never really gave it much thought. People in the CoS at the time
(90s) said that they were all one person. Since I realize nowadays
that they say that about anyone that criticizes them (which the ONA
did and TBF printed it) - it's just another grain of salt. I have no
idea who these people are other than what others have said. I don't
really care. But I DO consider their stuff NOT a copy of western
occultism, as I said.
>
> > Myatt, in the 90s sometime, mailed me what I thought
> > was a story for the fanzine we had going. ....
>
> was this the first time you heard of Myatt by name?
No. And he obviously heard of me since he sent me the story.
Btw, referring to something else you said somewhere on alt.s, nobody
gets kicked off our egroup for asking questions. In all the years
it's been around, 4 people were encouraged to leave. 1. 2 bossy ex
CoS people that wanted to bully or ban other members and had no power
to do it. 2. a person had a psychotic break (seriously!) - and 3. a
person that tried to get the SR to "go after Egan." That's it.
>
> satanservice.org@noctifer (nocTifer)
TJ
Short note. Nexus (or a variation of it) is not original with ONA.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5754/1634
For an example. Star Trek also used it. Causal and Acausal are
scientific terms, not new.
yf Hitler was born 1889. Go from there. If 2009 is 120, then yf is
year of the fuehrer.
I didn't say anything below.
On Sep 29, 5:40 pm, satanservice.org@noctifer (nocTifer) wrote:
> nocTifer:
>
> > > > ...at early points it appears to be just writings.
>
> do you have any confirmation that early on it was more
> than this other than writings, claims, contentions, etc.?
>
> > > > ...nobody ever actually represented the org
> > > > to anyone else, just authored some texts and postured as such.
> > > > since then people have stepped in to try to *be* the thing,
> > > > and some have been more successful at doing this than others.
>
> sugacubez...@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (viankavodka):
> read more »...
nocTifer
is Beest Brown or Moult? why was there any confusion at all?
sugacu...@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (viankavodka):
> I hear from sources that back in the old days when they were a team,
> Beesty Boy [Richard Moult aka Christos Beesty] also use to use the
> pen name "Anton Long occasionally.
that would fit with the NAOS doc and relation to the Sinister Tarot.
> In regards to the individual up there who asked if Myatt signed any
> ONA documents with his name,
that would be me.
> the answer is No. He never would.
this perhaps false. his name is on versions of the Star Game.
does this mean he "didn't sign them"? perhaps technically, yes.
> For the same reason or similar reason why Howard Stanton
> preferred to use the name Anton LaVey with Satanic writings.
in California, continued usage determines legality. therefore
you will find that "Anton Szandor LaVey" is on the legal
paperwork, which is demonstrated by Aquino's "Church of Satan".
thus your contention here is inaccurate? is it knowingly so?
> So then the question becomes: How do we [as outsiders]
> know that Anton LaVey is a stage name
we know it if we believe attestations such as yours which
are without grounds. that is, we begin to 'know' falsities.
> and that the man behind that name has a real name?
everyone has a legal name, some have more than one because
they are interested in blurring their identity. LaVey had
*one* legal name: Anton Szandor LaVey, to my knowledge.
through time he had 2 of them, and his birth name
seems to have been Howard Stanton Levey. smoke about
'real names' is just that, smoke without fire.
> The answer is, unless we are family and private associates,
> we don't know shit outside of what glamour LaVey sold to
> his public.
false. LaVey was too widely exposed to the public not to
have this disclosed. even his family disclosed his actual
biography, from all appearances, as did his former
associates. he didn't keep his enemies close enough
to prevent that.
> The same also applies to Anton Long.
false. Anton Long is apparently just a name on paper or
electronic files. we have no photographs. we have no
extended contentions and public appearances. the two
are VERY VERY different.
> How does a random outsider, not of the ONA....
first let's determine
-- that there is a consistent ONA
nobody has demonstrated this in relation to a signature,
to a location, to a publication (the Watcher? has anyone
asked Graeme Wilson, P.O. Box 38-262, Petone, Wellington
New Zealand, about this yet?)
-- that there are consistent members of an ONA
Anton Long, Christos Beest, Conrad Robury??
we have records of the CoS back to 1970s easy. this is
in the form of numerous circulated periodicals, newspaper
accounts, and photographs of public appearances. we have
ZILCH about the ONA to my knowledge, except maybe a few
papers or some files with names and dates on them and no
circulation demonstrated. there may be a number of docs
with the same title circulating amongst those who are
interested in disinformation, and so it'll remain obscure.
ignore Myatt until Myatt demonstrates some connection.
Myatt himself apparently already says he has nothing to
do with it. Anton LaVey wasn't so fearful/evanescent.
I don't care what either of them or anyone else "wants
me to know." the limits of knowledge are what they are.
where people don't leave substantial enough a trail, it
ceases to be part of the historical record, and no one
who wants to thereafter "construct themselves as part of
the historical record" will have any substantiation so as
to be believed. if they kept track of things, actually
made expressions that might be detailed as to timing and
content, then they might be believable. otherwise, feh.
> ...Why would ONA Old Guards like Ms. Pointy Hat
who is "Ms. Pointy Hat"? please explain who you mean.
> ...other old guards are saying the opposite? ...
at this point we have only your contentions about who
"old guards" might be, and no identification of them.
if you mean someone specific, please explain who they
are, or explain where you find any of them referenced.
what does an "old guard" mean in terms of the ONA?
without greater specificity as to timing and the
development of the social group which may associate
to the name, this might resolve to 'those who decided
to adopt the Anton Long character last week' and there
would be no way to discern it otherwise. as such,
it ceases to become of any import whatever.
so it goes.
satanservice.org@noctifer (nocTifer)