The Sinister Feminine And Homo Hubris

real 2

Important Notice(s): This article was originally posted by ‘Wyrdsister’ on https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/. It is shared here out of sheer agreement with what is expressed in this article and how even such individuals abounds outside of the occult spheres. It was also shared because of the ensemble of references to the importance of the alchemical aspect of the Order of Nine Angles.

Masculous And Muliebral

The Sinister Feminine And Homo Hubris

As apprehended by those who have ventured along the Seven Fold Way of the Order of Nine Angles (O9A, ONA) to at least the stage of Internal Adept, and by those who because of their physis feel the ‘sinisterly-numinous’ aesthetic, one of the fundamental problems of the modern Western Left Hand Path in general and of modern ‘Satanism’ in particular is that of Homo Hubris. As noted in one text which is recommended reading for aspirant Adepts, the species Homo Hubris is

             “distinguished by their profane lack of numinous balance, by a lack of knowing of and feeling for the numinous; by a personal arrogance, by a lack of manners, and by that lack of respect for anything other than strength/power and/or their own gratification.” {1}

This profane lack of numinous balance is most manifest in the principles – adopted by modern Levey-inspired self-described ‘satanists’ – of “might is right” and of “total satisfaction of the ego”.

In contrast, one of the aims of the Occult anados that is the O9A Seven Fold Way is for the initiate to personally experience – through exoteric and esoteric deeds – both what has been described as ‘the sinister’ and what has been described as ‘the numinous’ and, because of such experience, to meld them together in order to transcend beyond them. The experiences required in order to do this include the Rite of Internal Adept where the candidate lives alone – for three or six months – in primitive conditions in the wilderness. Which Rite has as its aim the development in the individual of empathy {2} and which empathy is a manifestation of the muliebral and thus in direct contrast to the masculous principles adopted by modern Levey-inspired self-described ‘satanists’. {3}

For the O9A has

             “an initiated – esoteric – apprehension of the raison d’etre of alchemy: of ourselves as having, in essence, both a masculous and a muliebral physis, and which initially undivided physis (sans denotatum, and thus the artificial, hubriatic, division between masculous and muliebral) is now, as in the past it was for the majority, lost; with alchemy anciently understood and practised by many alchemists as a means whereby we might re-discover our natural, and balanced, human physis.” {4}

This esoteric apprehension is evident in some ancient texts, such as the ‘Pymander’ text from the Corpus Hermeticum:

             “Now listen to the rest of the explanation you asked to hear. When the cycle was fulfilled, the connexions between all things were, by the deliberations of theos, unfastened. Living beings – all male-and-female then – were, including humans, rent asunder thus bringing into being portions that were masculous with the others muliebral.” {5}

Which is why – in contrast to the patriarchal, masculous, ethos which has dominated the world, East and West, for millennia, of which Levey-type ‘satanism’ is but one recent manifestation – the esoteric tradition of the O9A is of ἀρρενόθηλυς: of balancing the masculous with the muliebral through pathei-mathos both esoteric and exoteric.

Misunderstanding The Sinister Feminine

Given the foregoing overview of O9A esoteric theory and praxis it is hardly surprising that modern Levey-inspired self-described ‘satanists’ are and have been upset by and annoyed with – and keep trying to discredit – the O9A especially given the O9A claim that the O9A is Satanist and that Howard Stanton Levey was a plagiarist, a charlatan, and an example of Homo Hubris: that is, in common parlance, he was plebeian.

It is also hardly surprising that modern Levey-inspired self-described ‘satanists’ and other modern Occultists – weaned on Magian, kabbalistic inspired, ‘sorcery’ – have misunderstood what the O9A mean by ‘the sinister feminine’, emanation as that archetype {6} is of the three lower spheres (nexions) on the O9A’s seven-fold Tree of Wyrd, and thus redolent as it is of the esoteric and exoteric pathei-mathos of those three lower spheres. That is, redolent of and expressing what, for the individual initiate, is some years before The Rite of Internal Adept and long before (usually at least a decade before) The Rite Of The Abyss with its lunar month of solitary chthonic living. {7}

Thus, in the O9A system ‘the sinister feminine’ is an archetype to be lived, experientially by a woman, or experienced experientially by a man, as a noviciate pathei-mathos; just as O9A Satanism (as manifest in texts such as The Black Book of Satan and in the O9A archetypes of Satan and Baphomet) is a necessary noviciate pathei-mathos, to be lived, experienced, learned from: a beginning of the decades-long anados that is the O9A Seven Fold Way.

Which is why archetypal representations of the sinister feminine – be they fictional, or artistic (as in Tarot images) or presenced through rites and ceremonies of sorcery, or lived or experienced through ‘insight roles’ – are just archetypal representations germane to those three lower spheres and thus to individual pathei-mathos. They are not, and never have been, the raison d’être of the ONA itself, for that raison d’être is the Seven Fold Way and thus the individuals who, through undertaking that anados, meld the sinister with the numinous (the masculous with the muliebral) and thus develop their own unique weltanschauung.

        Of course, we do not expect most Levey-inspired self-described ‘satanists’ – weaned on gratifying their ego – nor most modern Occultists – weaned on Magian ‘sorcery’ – to apprehend either (a) the Aeonic intent behind such O9A archetypes, or (b) the difference, esoterically and exoterically, between (i) the archetypal presencing – the nexion – that is the O9A with its Seven Fold Way, and (ii) the archetypal presencings – the nexions – that form the particular spheres which are encompassed by the nexion that is the Seven Fold Way. But, as we know from our own experience, one or two might over the years so apprehend to perchance begin their own quest along the Seven Fold Way.

Rachael Stirling
2017 ev

Notes

{1} The Mythos of Vindex.
{2} This aim was spelled out in early – 1970s to 1980s – ONA texts, one of which was published in the 1980s Occult zine Nox and subsequently included in the book The Infernal Texts: Nox & Liber Koth (Falcon Publications, 1997).
{3} The differences are outlined in the book The Joy Of The Sinister. In particular in the three chapters titled (i) The De-Evolutionary Nature of Might is Right, and (ii) The Gentleman’s – and Noble Ladies – Brief Guide to The Dark Arts, and (iii) Concerning Culling as Art.
{4} See the O9A text Alchemy And The Sinisterly-Numinous Tradition.
{5} Poemandres, as translated by DW Myatt. Masculous has been described as referring to:
“the abilities and qualities that are conventionally and historically associated with men, such as competitiveness, aggression, a certain harshness, the desire to organize/control, and a desire for adventure and/or for conflict/war/violence/competition over and above personal love and culture.”

Muliebral has been described as referring to:
“those positive traits, abilities, and qualities that are conventionally and historically associated with women, such as empathy, sensitivity, gentleness, compassion, and a desire to love and be loved over and above a desire for conflict/adventure/war.”

{6} In O9A esotericism, an archetype is defined as “a particular causal presencing of a certain acausal energy and is thus akin to a type of acausal living being in the causal, and thus in the psyche; it is born (or can be created, by magickal means), its lives, and then it ‘dies’ (ceases to be present, presenced) in the causal (i.e. its energy in the causal ceases).”

{7} The text The Seven Fold Way Of The Order Of Nine Angles: A Modern Practical Guide provides a summary of both those rites.

-Beldam, 128 yf

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “The Sinister Feminine And Homo Hubris

  1. This article is about me and is a response to my recent Youtube video regarding the Order of the Nine Angles’s misrepresentation of the Divine Feminine. I will debunk it point by point in the comment. I would also like to refer Beldam to Wyrdsister’s prior article “Who Are We?” where the three weird “sisters” fess up to being actual propagandists, as I have been claiming all along, and admit to the disingenuous-ness of their promulgations.

    So t3WS [the 3 Wyrd Sisters] describe me as a Homo Hubris, which they define as follows: “[persons] distinguished by their profane lack of numinous balance, by a lack of knowing of and feeling for the numinous; by a personal arrogance, by a lack of manners, and by that lack of respect for anything other than strength/power and/or their own gratification.”

    The claim that I have no feeling for the Numinous is debunked by the existence of articles I have written about several of the divinities of the 7FW, the quality of which articles is as of yet unmatched in insight by any Niners. As I have said, I have not proved my ability to do this to prove that I am “better than {insert Niner here},” but to prove that Demonolatry is a more efficacious avenue of spirituality than Hebdomadry.

    The claim that I am arrogant bears a certain amount of truth, but is still rendered invalid by the inherent arrogance of the O9A. The O9A professes to pursue the annihilation of all Western religions except their own, professes to be the ones insightful enough to determine the optimal developmental trajectory of both Western culture and the white race, and professes to be worthy of selecting persons eligible for human sacrifice. Ergo, almost no one* involved with the O9A in any peripheral capacity will ever have the right to refer to a non-O9A-affiliated person as “arrogant” other than those in pursuit of the Anti-Cosmic agenda.

    In the article reproduced, t3WS adduce the Rite of the Internal Adept as evidence of the superiority and efficacy of the 7FW. This argument is invalid due to the reality that little to no one involved with the O9A has performed or even attempted the Rite of the Internal Adept, most likely including t3WS.

    In the article, t3WS refers to adherents to non-O9A Satanism as “self-described ‘satanists'”, further illustrating the impropriety of any Niner referring to non-Niners as “arrogant.”

    As it turns out, I do not have the patience to peruse the remainder of t3WS’s effusions, but as every single point I have encountered in the article has been easily demonstrated to be patently false, it is likely needless for me to do so.

    *Excluding Beldam, Satanara, and other Niners I have referenced as laudable previously

    Liked by 2 people

    1. As the authoress of said article I can assure you it was not directed at you. That you assume it was is interesting, and perhaps indicative.

      It was written to highlight – as the title intimates – the difference between the O9A and those who represent the unbalanced, profane, patriarchal ethos exemplified in modern occultism by Homo Hubris and thus by the likes of Howard Stanton Levey and his ‘satanism’, with the O9A’s ‘sinister feminine’ archetype(s) being a good example of such difference.

      The only person named in the article as an example of Homo Hubris is Howard Stanton Levey, so how you assumed it was about you and in response to some comments you made somewhere is something some readers may regard as something of a mystery, especially given such references in my article to such general occult matters as ἀρρενόθηλυς and the principle of “might is right”.

      RS.

      BTW. The article has been updated to include mention of the Rounwytha.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I could perhaps be drawing (and holding) that conclusion because of the astounding number of articles which have already been published about me on your account, the existence of which articles anyone can testify to.

        Like

  2. Other points worth mentioning, now that I have finished reading the article:
    -t3WS’s conflation of LaVeyan Satanism with Qliphothic sorcery is astounding fallacious
    -Demon magick facilitates the gnosis of the feminine through a little more than three spheres, which is why Niners such as Von Sangettal and Ulfgangr Satanara have performed sphereworkings via demon magick following their completion of the ToW. Demon magick allows the experience of the Sinister Feminine through the spheres of the Moon, Earth, Black Moon, Black Earth, and to a certain extent, Neptune-Pluto and the Black Sun. It should be noted that the working with the sphere of Saturn entails an encounter with the Sinister Feminine (Babalon/Mactoron as Eisheth Zennunim), regardless of t3WS’s multifarious fuckeries.
    -The Numinous is defined as comprised of dark and light qualities alike, ergo their is no legitimate dichotomy between the Sinister and the Numinous, because the Numinous encompasses all.
    -t3WS’s constant critcism of Anton Szandor LaVey despite his irrelevance to the topic at hand suggests that she/they are not capable of producing criticisms of the modern leading voices of Sinsitral magick (e.g. Asenath Mason, Jack Sarin, S. ben Qayin, and the 218 Current). The incessant post-mortem critcism of LaVey proves the talking points of t3WS to be the relics they are.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You wrote: {quote} I could perhaps be drawing (and holding) that conclusion because of the astounding number of articles which have already been published about me {/quote}

      Hardly an “astounding number”. We merely replied to a few of your many previous assumptions and posts about the ONA and disproved your assumptions, qv the “Some Questions About The Order of Nine Angles, 2017”, text on the o9a dot org website. Your articles – and videos – about “us” and the ONA vastly outnumber our meagre offerings.

      As for your recent assumptions about and criticism of the O9A, may we suggest you read the recent interview with Finnish musician NorthWind who talks about the Order of Nine Angles?

      You wrote: {quote} This argument is invalid due to the reality that little to no one involved with the O9A has performed or even attempted the Rite of the Internal Adept {/quote}

      You are obviously unfamiliar with Mr Moult’s published journal about his Internal Adept rite, which journal is an honest account and a primary source regarding both the ONA and that Rite. Other unpublished accounts exist, some of which have been entrusted to various academics who may at some future time reference them in their on-going research into the ONA.

      Since you continue to make assumptions about the ONA – and provide no actual evidence from primary sources to support your latest assumptions, and have had all your prior assumptions refuted – we are entitled to assume that you have never summoned and interacted with the multitude of demons/entities you continually write about on your blog. But if you have interacted with the multitude of demons/entities you write about, then where – a la John Dee – are the published records of your interactions? If there are no published records, then aren’t you just cutting and pasting and embellishing what you have garnished from various grimoires and from your imagination? In other words, your arguments are “invalid due to the reality of you never having summoned and interacted with the multitude of demons/entities you so profusely write about.”

      If you continue to write about demons and entities you have no practical, personal, experience of, then it seems apposite and only fair that we point out that, according to demonic tradition, many such demons and entities excel in tormenting – and sometimes driving to madness – those who have the temerity to “take their names in vain.” Nightmares and nocturnal hyperhidrosis are often just the beginning. Or so wrote Joseph de Tonquedec (Les Maladies Nerveuses ou Mentales et les Manifestations Diaboliques) and Anton Long, et al.

      KS

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Apologies for stepping in but I have been curious for a very long time now. Is there a way to contact/correspond with you(s) in a private fashion? I have questions concerning certain aspects of the O9A and certain ancient texts which I believe, you would be able to help me clarify. I understand perfectly if that is not possible.

        Best regards to both of you.

        Like

      2. “Hardly an “astounding number”. We merely replied to a few of your many previous assumptions and posts about the ONA and disproved your assumptions, qv the “Some Questions About The Order of Nine Angles, 2017”, text on the o9a dot org website. Your articles – and videos – about “us” and the ONA vastly outnumber our meagre offerings.”

        This is clearly false, regardless of whether or not you are aware of it. It may be relevant to mention that you actually strive to keep up with my Youtube and WordPress, and I respond to you when someone finds the time to send me a link to whichever autistic scribbles you have uploaded about me most recently.

        “As for your recent assumptions about and criticism of the O9A, may we suggest you read the recent interview with Finnish musician NorthWind who talks about the Order of Nine Angles?”

        No.

        “You are obviously unfamiliar with Mr Moult’s published journal about his Internal Adept rite, which journal is an honest account and a primary source regarding both the ONA and that Rite. Other unpublished accounts exist, some of which have been entrusted to various academics who may at some future time reference them in their on-going research into the ONA.”

        You are mistaken. The existence of a small, small handful of published journals by Moult, Hagur, etc. does not in any way refute my claim that precious few people have completed the internal adept rite. As for the dubious existence of ‘unpublished accounts’, you and I both know that you are the last person who should be taken at their word for such a claim.

        “Since you continue to make assumptions about the ONA – and provide no actual evidence from primary sources to support your latest assumptions, and have had all your prior assumptions refuted – we are entitled to assume that you have never summoned and interacted with the multitude of demons/entities you continually write about on your blog.”

        You have refuted few if any of my claims, however often you repeat your claims to the contrary. My writings about demonology have been commended by many leading figures within the modern Black Lodge of the West, who are my actual peers in the field of demon magick, which magickal school you most likely have little to no familiarity with.

        “But if you have interacted with the multitude of demons/entities you write about, then where – a la John Dee – are the published records of your interactions?”

        Bahahaha as if the public gets to know that type of shit.

        “If there are no published records, then aren’t you just cutting and pasting and embellishing what you have garnished from various grimoires and from your imagination?”

        This makes no logical sense whatsoever.

        “In other words, your arguments are “invalid due to the reality of you never having summoned and interacted with the multitude of demons/entities you so profusely write about.””

        As above.

        “If you continue to write about demons and entities you have no practical, personal, experience of, then it seems apposite and only fair that we point out that, according to demonic tradition, many such demons and entities excel in tormenting – and sometimes driving to madness – those who have the temerity to “take their names in vain.” Nightmares and nocturnal hyperhidrosis are often just the beginning. Or so wrote Joseph de Tonquedec (Les Maladies Nerveuses ou Mentales et les Manifestations Diaboliques) and Anton Long, et al.”

        I’m well aware of this. There’s a reason I’m still here.

        Like

      3. The only black magickians who doubt the veracity of my delineations of the demons are Niners– astoundingly self-absorbed lunatics who, in general, express profound disrespect for external magickal systems. No one but Niners does this. Demonolaters, Luciferians, Draconians, Theistic Satanists, Anti-Cosmic Satanists, and even many more open-minded Niners than yourself all find my essays on demon magick to be highly insightful and helpful.

        That is to say, legitimate sorcerers know I’m on point, and fraud-ass propagandists project their own spiritual incompetence onto me.

        Good talk.

        Like

    2. Rather than clutter up this blog with verbose comments in reply to some other of your assumptions, we have published a rebuttal of some of those other assumptions in an article on our own blog. The article is, unsurprisingly, titled “Rebutting An Assumptionist”.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Good day V.K & thank you for your forthright response.

    Apologies for my late response. To be honest, I had no knowledge that the article was directed toward you or anyone else. I am not online/writing as much as before and I have not watched your videos recently. I shared this article because it reminded me, amongst other things, about the contamination of University life and how most individuals were extremely arrogant in that ‘milieu’.

    As for the rest of the article, I am extremely attracted to what is said about the melding of the sinister-numinous and how such a melding can produce a new wordless weltanschauung.

    I am also, as usual, very attracted to the hints in the Coprus Hermeticum and such ancient texts.

    As for the harsh critiques of what is described as ‘Self-described Satanists’, I am not especially interested. There Is indeed some truth in certain statements made about Aquino and Lavey and years ago, I did go through their books (Not Aquino but Ford, Gilmore …) I also still enjoy some mystical authors such as Allan Kardec which, in many regards, could be considered some sort of diluted ‘RHP’ but I do not care for ‘What’s & Whos’. From a personal point of view, I simply agree that the O9A feels less artificial than the CoS and it echoes more with what I feel inside.

    In conclusion, simply know that I am not and never have supported a side or another in the virtual land (apart from a very specific exception which you are aware of). I am still interested and inspired by the plurality of ‘Weltanschauung’ that arise or drift away from the O9A. That includes your articles at times but also the articles of Wyrdsister. What is of interest to me is not so much the ‘propaganda’ or the sempiternal skirmishes that arise between you, Wyrdsister and Anna Czereda. What is of interest to me, is what interests any student(s) of a specific way. Simply being ‘there’ and learn and expand consciousness.

    Be well and thank you again for your detailed response.

    Like

  4. You wrote: {quote} Is there a way to contact/correspond with you(s) in a private fashion? {/quote}

    Yes. We would suggest you publish (in .asc format) your gnupg public key here or somewhere on your blog, or give details if it is already on a keyserver. We will then publish an encrypted message on our blog (or can post it here) also in .asc which you can decode with your key and which message will contain an e-mail address. If you do not have a gnupg key you can download the software required from gnupg dot org. Alternatively, you could simply post your e-mail address on your blog and, after we reply, dispose of that then public e-mail address.

    Like

  5. VKJ wrote: {quote} You have refuted few if any of my claims {/quote}

    All your claims about the O9A have been debunked by reference to primary O9A sources and primary occult sources such as alchemical texts, as sagacious readers of our “debunking VJK” articles will apprehend.

    Merely repeating and repeating that your claims have not been debunked will suggest something to the sagacious and the empathic ones among us – something quite apart from your use of argumentum ad nauseam – especially if you really do believe they have not been debunked.

    You wrote: {quote} My writings about demonology have been commended by many leading figures within the modern Black Lodge of the West, who are my actual peers … {/quote}

    Classic argumentum ad verecundiam.

    VJK wrote: {quote} Demonolaters, Luciferians, Draconians, Theistic Satanists, Anti-Cosmic Satanists […] all find my essays on demon magick to be highly insightful and helpful […] legitimate sorcerers know I’m on point. {/quote}

    Classic argumentum ad antiquitatem, where in this case ‘the tradition’ is that of Magian occultism and Magian occultists.

    VJK wrote: {quote} Bahahaha as if the public gets to know that type of shit.”

    Since you have written a plethora of public posts about such stuff, and since you moan on and on about the O9A and its propagandists, and since you boast that your writings about such stuff are “highly regarded”, it seems apposite to ask for actual evidence of your practical experience of such stuff. Without such evidence aren’t you just a “fraud-ass propagandist” projecting your own lack of practical occult experience onto others?

    So we ask again: where – a la John Dee – are the published records of your interactions with demons and other supernatural entities? Lacking such published accounts readers are surely entitled to assume you have no practical experience at all and are just a self-promoter propagandistically promoting some version of the Magian occult status quo.

    At least “we” have the honesty to admit that we are O9A propagandists.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Anna C wrote: {quote} I wonder why you recently tend to bury your new polemical essays under a pile of the old ones. {/quote}

    It seems that once again you try to find motives consistent with your existing presumptions about “us” but propaganda is just propaganda whether it be new or whether it be old, and – given the eclectic nature of our audience and thus their diverse interests and questions – we aim to please.

    For ourselves, we wonder why you reuse the cliches – and the argumentum ad hominem – you’ve been using for over four years in your internet campaign against those associating themselves with the O9A. As has been mentioned previously by “us” and by our predecessors, you’ve posted far more polemical items about and made far more polemical comments concerning the O9A in the past four years than “us” and our predecessors combined. Why is that?

    Like

      1. Anna, if you read our carefully worded reply you should comprehend that our reference to you committing the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem refers to the four and more years of your “internet campaign against those associating themselves with the O9A” while our comment on the previous post you made here (to wit, your quip that “we recently tend to bury our new polemical essays under a pile of the old ones) was that “it seems that once again you try to find motives consistent with your existing presumptions about us.”

        Yet again it seems that you try to attack “us” instead of answering the questions asked, thus trying to deflect attention away from you and from our questions. So we ask again: why have you posted far more polemical items about and made far more polemical comments concerning the O9A in the past four years than “us” and our predecessors combined?

        Like

      2. Because I absolutely LOVE all those cat fights with you!!!

        But seriously, you probably noticed that I don’t criticize all your articles about the ONA but only those which I consider incorrect or a piece of propaganda. You post something in public, why so surprised it gets feedback?

        Like

  7. Anna C wrote: {quote} I don’t criticize all your articles…You post something in public, why so surprised it gets feedback? {quote}

    Which is yet another evasive reply since it does not answer the questions repeatedly asked: (1) why have you posted far more polemical items about and made far more polemical comments concerning the O9A in the past four years than “us” and our predecessors combined, and (2) why have you as a self-confessed Christian made thousands of posts over some four years on satanist and occult forums, on FB, on blogs, and on your own blog, without once ever criticizing satanism and satanists from a Christian perspective?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s