Talk:Order of Nine Angles

Initial posts

This article was deleted on 2007 January 5, after a process begun by known sockpuppet Tunnels Of Set, where the vote yielded 2 deletes (one from sockpuppet), 1 comment, and 4 keeps.

I would like to ask a Wikipedia admin to reinstate this page, please. I'm also going to try to ask for reinstatement *properly* just as soon as I figure out how. :-) 72.12.133.163 23:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I also think its important that it remains. It needs more research. Who founded it? When was it founded? How does its philosophy differ from other so-called Satanic groups? Keep it and build upon it.

Practices human sacrifice huh? So those are more than urban legend? I'm calling BS on this article. --Wolfrider 01:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the founder David Myatt has been associated with the UK security services through the Combat 18 disinformation campaign, it could be assumed that Myatt is merely a spook who is carrying out policy for MI5. Considering that MI5 used Combat 18 to monitor extermists it wouldnt be far fetched to say that Myatt is a spook(security operative) who is a agent provocatuer. And the fact of him "becoming" a muslim" and encouraging violence seems to suggest either a very confused person or someone who is merely carrying out orders for MI5. The Order of the 9 Angles is merely a PSYOP of the UK securty services to attract and monitor nutters and malcontents under their criteria. Whats disconcerning is that the UK secret service is starting to perceive occult magickal groups/orders has a security threat....86.139.222.15 20:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's a few things to think about. (1) If ONA was a psyop, I think that the writings would be better advertised. (2) If Myatt was an agent for a proper spy agency, a civilian wouldn't be able to connect the dots between the ONA, the neo-Nazis, and his new little Muslim thing. (3) Such a kind of involvement in neo-Nazism and Islam are entirely in line with the ONA writings: read them and see. (4) Technically, if you're the type of person who agrees with the ONA writings, you should be considered a security threat, since the point seems to be to slaughter the inferior and enslave the world. So in summary, as Napoleon once said: "it's needless to assume the existence of a conspiracy when something can be just as easily explained by normal human stupidity". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• • This allegation (and rumor) has been made against Myatt a few times, always without any supporting evidence, like the much touted allegation (and rumor) that Charlie Sargent, who founded Combat 18, was a Police or MI5 agent or informant. It's the kind of disinformation that seems to fuel some people's belief in various conspiracy theories - or the kind of disinformation spread by people who have an axe to grind (political or otherwise) or who want to discredit someone they don't like (for whatever reason). For those who can apply a little rational thought to the known facts, "the truth" is really out there and is often quite simple (Occam's razor, anyone?). But it takes a certain effort to find, in many cases. In Myatt's case, people who make such allegations, or repeat such rumors, don't bother to read his poetry, his personal letters, or what he's written about his own life in diverse autobiographical writings. That should allow them to get a complete picture of the man. Now, while I'm on the subject of Myatt - another unproven assumption about Myatt is that he is connected with, or led, or created (or whatever) this ONA. Myatt has consistently denied this assumption, and no one's ever offered any evidence in support of this assumption. Coolmoon 12:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, since it has been stated in a whole raft of secondary sources, we can still put it in this article. Feel free, though, to add as much as you want to the Myatt article from his own writings, if you've got them and the material can be added without violating the "original research" principle. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is stated by them, but it is an assumption that those writers have made, without presenting any evidence to substantiate such a claim. Therefore, it is only fair to make it clear that it is their assumption, not a "fact" - certainly, not something Myatt himself agrees with. It might be fairer to mention in the article that Myatt disputes their claims. BTW, great work on restoring the article. Coolmoon 18:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I think it's better to mention that Myatt denies it. My rationale is, multiple independent sources corroborate something that he denies, and if you sit down and read the ONA writings you'll know one thing the author will do is deny he wrote any of it, especially if he's in a leadership position of some organization. As it is, though, it can be reported here following the manual of journalism - i.e., "Person asserts that Myatt wrote the ONA tracts, a charge which Myatt denies", and add footnotes. That keeps Wikipedia safe, while leaving it to the external source to deal with arguments. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, how could they provide any evidence to prove that he wrote the ONA writings? I mean, I guess they could prove authorship by using Bayesian analysis (ooh, that gives me an idea for a project...), or by getting him to admit it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Or, you can go to Google Books, and see there how David Myatt is listed as the author of one ONA book at Thormynd: [1]. He also published other books with Thormynd: [2] [3] [4] [5]. Unfortunately, all that counts as original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. That's the funny thing - according to Wikipedia rules, the ONA is an organization because it's asserted so by authors, when really the only proof I've ever seen of its existence is a Christos Beest recording and the tripod site. So it's a hoax that attained reality. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK - if you (or anyone) assume(s) it's (the ONA) a hoax/myth/creation of one person/does not really exist as an organization /[fill in the blanks...] then it sure as anything is a clever hoax, that's interested quite a lot of people, and also possibly then a genuine work of magic(k), as in, for example, manipulating people to react in certain ways or do one's bidding (and so on blah blah blah). But AFAIK many people have been involved over the years, from "Thornian" in the States, who ran his own public branch of the ONA and who published ONA material from an address in Texas (I think it was Texas anyway), to people in Sweden, Brazil, Russia and elsewhere. Some of these "others" have even written some ONA material. But then again, isn't it, as often, just a question of one's personal opinion about something, and of a "secret" (or purportedly secret) group being somewhat illusive by nature [and illusive, maybe, in the sense of being magic(k)al]? Personally, I like the comment that Anton Long (whoever he is) was, and maybe still is, having a good laugh at our expense - i.e. was/is a Trickster, in the Jungian sense of course! Coolmoon 11:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It'd be great if you could track down some of those other guys' writings, or otherwise figure out some way to add that information to this article. Cos right now, I think it reads too much like an article about a one-man hoax (or 2, if you include Christos Beest). And as far as being a trickster - that's actually rather Satanic of him, isn't it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Some examples of writings by people other than CB or Mr Long are (1)camlad9.tripod.com/ea_1.html (2) Several stories about Sapphic relaitonships in early issues of the magazines Fenrir and "Exeat" (some signed Sister Bronwyn and one was called Dark Daughters of Chaos) (3) Articles - and some fiction - by Brenna, some published in later editions of Fenrir and elsewhere (there is one at ona.satanicwebsites.com/septenary/moon/griggins_nap.htm). The style of writing points to authors other than CB or Mr Trickster. Thornian had his own website, now long gone, but mainly sent printed material by mail from an address in Texas. Yes - it may be satanic (adversarial, surely is better) of Mr Long to do such trickster things, but as to who this person is, all we can do lacking proof or some "confession" or admission is make an assumption as to identity. Coolmoon 20:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Its good to see David and his security service handler adding to the already made up mythos behind the spook "David Myatt". 81.156.236.173 16:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing more depressing than when a person holds to a conspiracy theory that's not even rational or interesting. ONA as part of an MI5 sting operation? MI5 is actually cheap enough to re-use the same operative to infiltrate 3 different movements, after his connections to the first 2 were already exposed in published books? They're running short on agents? They let their operative publish books that all other Satanists disavow for being too hardcore? And there's no brown people in England who could be recruited to be agent provocateur muslim extremists? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wolfrider

Please check the third party sources at the bottom of the article, e.g. by going to Google Books. The concern you have was dealt with in a previous AfD and Deletion Review - the group itself is notable because it is actually mentioned in third-party sources (some excerpts at google books were brought into the discussion at the drv), which then allows the first-party sources to be bootstrapped in when discussing what they "condone". Though you could just write that off as ONA being "merry pranksters" (um... or, as documented in third-party sources, white supremacist merry pranksters).

"Practice", however, was certainly an inappropriate word without third party sources, and I have deleted it.

This article used to be quite long before Tunnels of Set took the delete button to it before he AfDed the article, but to tell you the truth I've not felt like fixing the article up since it came back. Using their own social darwinist logic, if nobody sympathetic to ONA is interested in this article's continued existence, it may as well be deleted, so I won't contest your prod (though you can feel free to remove it yourself if you want). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: OK, I'm presently trying to add information to the article, and seem to have done a decent job so far. If anyone is reading this and wants to improve my formatting, fine, cos I have no clue how to format a proper complex Wikipedia article; but let it be known, this article is on my watchlist. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Appreciation of the work done

I would simply like to express my appreciation of the work done on this article. I was one of the contributors to the original Order of Nine Angles article that was available on Wikipedia before it was deleted. Many excellent references. Good job contributors! :-) User:DYBoulet 7:47 9 June 2007 (AST)

Agreed. This is a MUCH better article than it was a few months ago. :) --Wolfrider 19:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Did it actually exist?

Did the "order" actually exist? We only have Myatts word ,and one or two other people willing to play along with the story. Although there were books published these were limited print runs and never got a wide audience. And the so called membership is also suspect. If the order existed why have there only been representations by psuedonyms? It just raises more questions. And how would a potential member apply for entry to the order? None of this is elaborated. which leads to the idea that there were no members.

Oh dear, here we go, again! If you had done some elementary research you would have found several ONA articles, and published letters, about using pseudonyms, and why they are used; and would have found some members who have gone public in the past - Vilnius Thornian in the States comes to mind (he even used his real name sometimes) plus some others. You would also have found *how to apply* even though the group was semi-secret in the 80's and 90's - for example, for years, there were contact details, via a series of PO Boxes, then an e-mail address, and so on blah blah blah. So, it is elaborated, in at least a dozen or so ONA essays and articles, some of which have even made it onto the Internet! Furthermore, *secret societies* by their nature are *secret* and the *secret* of joining is often knowing someone who's already a member, or a member sponsoring someone. This is how many Occult groups operated for centuries; and how some still do. There is life beyond the Internet, after all ;) Coolmoon 08:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out that there is still a link to SoDL. That website has been gone for months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.236.52.242 (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Vilnius Thornian" reference doesnt prove that the ONA actually existed as a group. It just proves that one other person as a vested interest in perpetuating the lie that the ONA actually existed. All the references to the ONA on the interent come from websites that copy Myatts original material and nothing else. So again this article is closer to propaganda for Myatt than anything approaching actual verifiable fact.

You forget WSA352 - which has several ONA groups in various parts of the USA, numbering dozens of members. You forget the Australian ONA group, the Temple of Them. There are other such ONA groups, worldwide. Like someone mentioned - there is life, existence, beyond the Internet. Suffice to say that verifiable, credible sources - the criteria used by Wikipedia - write of the ONA as an Occult group that actually exists. Some of these sources (often in book form, so not just of the Internet) are given in the ONA article. There are others. Therefore, given such sources, Wikipedia has an entry for this ONA Occult group. 86.149.14.119 (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

>> May I? IMO it's not a question of whether the ONA was real or not. Perhaps there is a middle perspective. The question should be: Does what was written by Myatt/Long [Black Book of Satan; Naos; Hostia; et al]have a value in the eyes of some individuals who resonate with what was written? The Order of Nine Angles was real enough for real Satanic Organizations such as the CoS & ToS to forbid it's members from joining the ONA with threats of "excommunication."

If you read Myatt/Long's various ONA writings carefully, you will see that Myatt/Long had written these MSS and books in such a way so that IF an individual did resonate with what was written, such individual would have all the knowledge, resource, and instructions on generating/creating the ONA "from scratch."

The Order of Nine Angles may very well have been just a garage invention of a very creative Mind, which may not have "existed" at all in the causal world in the beginning. But these seed ideas Myatt/Long disseminated through his writings were meant to take root in fertile minds - thus germinating the ONA via those "nexions" or fertile minds.

IF the ONA didn't exist before, it does now through those widely dispersed individual who saw something meaningful and insightful in these writings and in those groups of people who germinated their own ONA groups, as many of the writings themselves instructs "initiates" to do.

Perhaps in the past there were those people who perpetuated the "idea" of the "ONA" to take advantage of its copyleft material and sell books. But there are modern ONA groups such as WSA352 which do not "perpetuate" this myth for profit or adherents. Perhaps in the past a few people posted or sold the same old ONA writings, but there are now modern ONA groups, such as WSA352 again; that are progressing the ONA by breathing new life into it with new insights and material.

If the ONA did not exist before, it exists now thru its many groups which have form. There are quite a few ONA groups "on line" which are now well known; but due to the nature of the ONA, most ONA groups and members that do exist tent to stay off line, and work in the real world.

But isn't this the original intent of Myatt? He gives a clue to his intent in what he (as Long) calls Aeonics. Things are written as seed thoughts at a certain point in time, and these seeds germinate into actuality at a future point in time. Perhaps it has taken Myatt/Long's ONA seed ideas to fully germinate into a real world functioning organization 20-30 years to materialize?

Whatever it was back then, today the Order of Nine Angles is as real or unreal as any existing Satanic institution like the CoS for example. Both the ONA today like the CoS lack a physical church or building; both have their own adherents/members; both have an internet presence and utilizes the internet as an important means of propagating their respective organizations; both have their own unique set of beliefs/philosophy; Both came into being out of the insightful minds of a creative -Satanic- mind; and both now lacks their "Originator." Anton LaVey of the CoS has past away, and Anton Long of the ONA may now be a Muslim. What then is the difference? Besides the fact that the CoS is structured as a "church" with a "priesthood," and hierarchy; whereas the ONA as it's Originator had specified, eschews such concepts and was created to be a private path to personal progression made up of independent members and groups? Alphaomikron (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphaomikron (talk • contribs) 02:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to get your responses and evaluations of the following academic quotes:

James R. Lewis: "Whether anyone in [the ONA] has ever actually taken a life is unknown, but most outsiders reject ONA's discourse about culling as either macho posturing or a strategy for attracting attention by creating controversy." -- "Satanism Today: an Encyclopedia of Religion, Folklore, and Popular Culture", 2001 ABC-CLIO; p. 196, entry on "Order of Nine Angles".

Jeffrey Kaplan: "...[the ONA appears] to have been founded by Anton Long. Stephen Brown (a.k.a. Christos Beest) appears to have joined some time later, and David Myatt is a National Socialist who, while close to the ONA, is a distinctly different individual and the head of Reichfolk. ... Written interviews with both Myatt and Beest make clear that they are not the same person. ... Little information on the Order of Nine Angles is available. ... The ONA has few actual adherents. ..." and "The ONA claims ancient roots. In a history that is remarkably similar to that of Gardnarian [sic] Wicca, the ONA path is held by its adherents to be some 7,000 years old and to have passed down through a line of female initiates, or Mistresses of the Earth, until, in the 1960s, it was decided to expand the organization and Anton Long was initiated. The name 'Order of the Nine Angles' was adopted at about that time. Letter from Christos Beest, 18 August 1996." and "Myatt frankly states that his own long history of interaction with England's occult underground was undertaken in a clandestine effort to influence some of these adherents to adopt National Socialist beliefs. Letter from David Myatt to a Mr. Williams dated July 1994." - "Nation and Race: the Developing Euro-American Racist Subculture", ed. by Jeffrey Kaplan and Tore Bjorgo, within chapter 5 by Kaplan entitled 'Religiosity and the Radical Right: Toward the Creation of a New Ethnic Identity', 1998 Northeastern University Press; pgs. 115, 124-125.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Re the Lewis quote. He's simply quoting the opinions of un-named others about the topic. These opinions have repeatedly been expressed on the internet, for instance on Occult the600club forum recently at http://www.the600club.com/topic40911-1.html which became one of the most popular threads there, with some replies from some ONA people placing such opinions in context. The opinions of others are not the same as evidence or conclusions derived from detailed research. Coolmoon (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Re the Kaplan quote. Although this is dated now, no one has followed up Kaplan's claim that Myatt is not Long by looking for another suspect. Also, Kaplan confuses Stephen Brown (an Anton Long pseudonym) with Christos Beest. Facsimiles of correspondence between Brown and Aquino are in the British Library, and it's clear from them that Brown is Long, as Aquino himself maintained. Coolmoon (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Neat. So you're suggesting that when I listen to my copy of "The Self-Immolation Rite", I'm listening to the voice of Anton Long himself? Or was there really a Christos Beest who wasn't Anton Long? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it means you're listening to Mr R. Moult, aka C. Beest, who isn't Myatt, Long, or Stephen Brown. Pointyhat9 (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In reply to the question did/does the ONA exist - and in particular in response to User:Self-ref who deleted the ONA section from the main Satanism wiki page - I refer those interested to the academic Conference on Satanism in the Modern World held in November 2009 at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology where the ONA was the subject of two academic papers. I also refer them to the upcoming academic paper by Dr James Lewis to be presented at an academic conference on Satanism that will be held at the University of Stockholm in September 2011 which will detail his research which will include results of the questionnaire he compiled especially for members of the Order of Nine Angles. Given such recent academic research into the ONA and its members, it seems to me that the question did/does the ONA exist has been quite clearly answered in the affirmative by reputable academic sources, and that those who claim otherwise are therefore most assuredly incorrect. Pointyhat9 (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Blackwood and ONA

Someone has been inserting a link to a personal website by one "Blackwood" which makes unverified claims regarding the association of this Blackwood with ONA. According to the official ONA blog, this Blackwood and his groups have nothing to do with the ONA: http://nineangles.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/the-fantasy-of-blackwood/. Therefore, I've deleted the external link. Coolmoon (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Ryan" :
  • Ryan, Nick. ''Into a World of Hate.'' Routledge, 1994, p. 53.
  • Ryan, Nick. ''Into a World of Hate''. Routledge, 1994, p. 53.

DumZiBoT (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dumzy, those are two different facts supported on the same page of the original source. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Dawn Perlmutter - thinking of stripping her out

It seems I only used Dawn Perlmutter once as a reference in this article. I'm tempted to strip her out of the article, sine I've come across a few other things she's written that make her look a bit nutty, or at least not a very good reference. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

External ONA Links

Have added two new links - one to the semi-official ONA site which gives their recent (as in the last ten years) works, and one to the US based WSA352 group, which currently is the most public face of the ONA. Also, removed link to Yahoo group, although if any object, please put the link back. 80.193.69.13 (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

holy geez - new huge source for you

[6] - has anyone checked this out? It's recently been added as a source. It's a 58-page conference paper, 100% on our favourite subject. We should synthesize all of this into our article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a good idea, although caution may be prudent in quoting it, as there are some pure suppositions in that Senholt document, and what appear to be some incorrect facts both about the ONA and Myatt. There is another new document which mentions this Senholt thesis a few times, located at http://www.scribd.com/doc/22888277/ONA-in-Historical-and-Esoteric-Context and which gives some further details about the ONA and some references to other documents about both the ONA and Myatt/Long. Coolmoon (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Anton Long

I have reverted the edits (? vandalism) by anon user 108.0.25.213 as Anton Long is the subject of an academic paper by Senholt presented at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology Conference on Satanism in the Modern World in November 2009 and has been referenced in academic articles by Professor Kaplan and Dr James Lewis, et al. Dr Lewis will also mention Anton Long at the upcoming conference on Satanism to be held at the University of Stockholm in September 2011. Therefore, the assertions made by this anon user are IMO untenable and require correction. Pointyhat9 (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

PS is there any information in this Senholt paper, and the other paper linked by Coolmoon directly above here, that can be included in this article? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Allegations About Myatt and NPOV

I've removed a paragraph about Myatt which quotes more allegations Ryan makes about Myatt, this time to do with Moult, an allegation Myatt emphatically denies (see his autobiography Myngath). Given that Ryan presents no evidence in his book, given that some other allegations Ryan makes are included in the preceding paragraph, and given that the next paragraph is given over to quoting someone else's opinion about Myatt, to include all these allegations and opinions about Myatt seems to me at least to tip the balance of the article away from NPOV. Pointyhat9 (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Allegations can be presented as allegations, on Wikipedia, as long as they don't violate WP:BLP. They are also pretty much the only information we have. Their refutation in a self-published internet autobiography shouldn't mean they get removed. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to give more detail. The section before my edit had the following - (1) Ryan has asserted; (2) This assertion is repeated by; (3) who claims; (4) Ryan states; (5) Gerry Gable said. That IMO is too many claims and opinions about Myatt in one section, and doesn't amount to a neutral point of view (NPOV). I've simply removed one of Ryan's claims about Myatt, for which claim he gives no evidence in his book. Pointyhat9 (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I probably wrote most of that, and I tend to present that sort of information using standard journalistic prose. I.e.., if Ryan is asserting or claiming something, I say "Ryan asserts/claims that". It's the proper way to present this information, and as this information is about all we have on membership of the ONA, then it should go in. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

PS - please read the above discussions on this talk page. Turns out I'd addressed this concern above.AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest pulling most of the David Myatt content out of this article, and put it in the David Myatt article. E.g. "The Numinous Way" has nothing to do with ONA. But at the same time, I've half a mind to put back the part about Christos Beest that was pulled out - as after all, he was a member of ONA. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

PS - did so. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OK let's retain it - but two points here IMO. (1) If the claim is retained then Myatt's denial (perhaps a quote from his autobiography) should be added for balance and NPOV. (2) I did read the previous discussion about this - but my point was about way too many claims and opinions about Myatt in the article making it unbalanced, especially as no one provided any evidence at all for their claims and especially as those making the claims - like Ryan, Lowles and Gable - were all connected to the Searchlight organization and so had a political agenda to discredit Myatt. So, I'll add Myatt's denial about this and other claims to the ONA article. As for adding even more unproven claims about Myatt - from these people - to the Myatt wikipedia article, I think that would unbalance that article and give the views and opinions of the Searchlight crowd far too much prominence and far to much weight. Pointyhat9 (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)