As someone recently wrote
“What would be the reaction if some now counting themselves as O9A supported the Islamic State as David Myatt supported Al-Qaeda prior, during and after the World Trade Center Attacks in New York City? What would be the reaction if the Order itself called for persons to now, as it did in the 2003 MS Aeonic Insight Roles, to “convert to Islam and aid, through words, or deeds, or both, those undertaking Jihad against Zionism and the NWO”? Source: https://h3llon3arthn3xion.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/tomorrows-dream/
Which question leads on to another question: Would any self-described (non-O9A) modern satanists publicly support the Islamic State?
1. In respect of whether someone Order of Nine Angles should support ad-Dawlah al-Islamiyah fil ‘Iraq wa ash-Sham (Isil, ‘Islamic State’, Daesh) – and similar future groups – the answer is obvious. Yes, those describing themselves as O9A would and should show such support; for, as Anton Long wrote some years ago:
We of the Order of Nine Angles do not, never have, and never will condemn acts of so-called terrorism (individual or undertaken by some State), nor do we condemn and avoid what mundanes regard as evil or as criminal deeds. For us, all such things are or could be just causal forms or causal means, and thus are regarded by us as falling into three categories, which categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive: (1) things which might or which can be the genesis of our individual pathei-mathos and which thus are the genesis of our own sinister weltanschauung; (2) things which aid our sinister dialectic or which are or might be a Presencing of The Dark; or (3) things that can or could be a test, a challenge, a sinister experience, too far for someone who aspires to be one of our sinister kind, someone who thus fails the test, balks at the challenge, or is destroyed or overcome by the experience.
For our criteria are not those of morality; are not bounded by some abstract good and evil; are not those defined by the laws manufactured by mundanes. Our criteria is the amorality of personal judgement and personal responsibility, whereby we as individuals decide what may be right or wrong for us based on our own pathei-mathos, and act and take responsibility for our acts, knowing such acts for the exeatic living they are or might be, and knowing ourselves as nexions possessed of the ability, the potential, to consciously – via pathei-mathos and practical sinister experience – change ourselves into a new, a more evolved, species of life. Herein is the essence of Satanism, for us.” Source: A Satanism Too Far
2. As for the reaction to such support – by both mundanes and self-described modern satanists – the answer is obvious: condemnation, if not horror.
In respect of self-described modern satanists, they would not dare to actually be satanic – heretical – in the real world and thus openly support something so obviously diabolical and satanic (as Daesh) because their so-called ‘satanism’ is the safe, tame, egoistic satanism of the likes of Howard Stanton Levey. So much, therefore, for such so-called modern satanists who lack the personal character to actually be heretical, antinomian, in real life, and take (and possibly learn from) the consequences of such a practical defiance. Cue, therefore, much blogorrhea and forumorrhea by such self-described modern satanists defending their interpretation of satanism and their cowardice while denigrating the diabolical, evil, O9A.
SOURCE: Regarding David Myatt