@sirida21.bsky.social
Very interesting. I'd be keen to see this when it's complete. The article above does seem to be a smoking gun too, even if some ('oxonians' et al) complain otherwise.
Have you been looking at what is happening with Chris Giudice too?
Have you been looking at what is happening with Chris Giudice too?
February 3, 2026 at 3:57 PM
Very interesting. I'd be keen to see this when it's complete. The article above does seem to be a smoking gun too, even if some ('oxonians' et al) complain otherwise.
Have you been looking at what is happening with Chris Giudice too?
Have you been looking at what is happening with Chris Giudice too?
I am glad you found it helpful. Stay tuned, because I will be doing something very visible and public soon regarding the O9A. I'll be sure to link it to you when it goes live.
January 18, 2026 at 12:35 PM
I am glad you found it helpful. Stay tuned, because I will be doing something very visible and public soon regarding the O9A. I'll be sure to link it to you when it goes live.
Sure, definitely not yours. It is contradictory to claim that only AL has the authority to define what the O9A is, yet this supposed group can define the range of when these sources are valid, declare the O9A dead, hence define implicitly what the O9A is (what 'real' sources are, if it's alive, etc)
December 8, 2025 at 10:12 AM
Sure, definitely not yours. It is contradictory to claim that only AL has the authority to define what the O9A is, yet this supposed group can define the range of when these sources are valid, declare the O9A dead, hence define implicitly what the O9A is (what 'real' sources are, if it's alive, etc)
Please show me one article, pre-2012, not attached to the Oxonians/River Isis or any of its members, where AL states only his words are primary sources. Otherwise, there is no labyrinth. If this wasn't true, stuff like the pro-Sapphic views could be denied as labyrinthos. No conflict = no labyrinth.
December 8, 2025 at 10:07 AM
Please show me one article, pre-2012, not attached to the Oxonians/River Isis or any of its members, where AL states only his words are primary sources. Otherwise, there is no labyrinth. If this wasn't true, stuff like the pro-Sapphic views could be denied as labyrinthos. No conflict = no labyrinth.
"all (you) intend to say", yet you waffle on still. Dozens of "final" articles, numerous pleads that the O9A is really dead this time, guys! You do not know my position. Perhaps you may strawman re: the "four factions" article, my views are none of those gerrymandered four.
December 8, 2025 at 9:59 AM
"all (you) intend to say", yet you waffle on still. Dozens of "final" articles, numerous pleads that the O9A is really dead this time, guys! You do not know my position. Perhaps you may strawman re: the "four factions" article, my views are none of those gerrymandered four.
How rhetorically lazy. Academia bestows no more truth to a claim. Even if it did, why the double standard? Where is your name in a published journal?
December 8, 2025 at 9:54 AM
How rhetorically lazy. Academia bestows no more truth to a claim. Even if it did, why the double standard? Where is your name in a published journal?
"Academic" despite it being your distinction? Ditto re: "nitpick about ONA 1.0 and 2.0"? So, simply make up a distinction, then abandon it when challenged, call the criticiser a nitpicker, then slink back to said distinction when they go away? More O9A 1.0/2.0 malarkey was published since.
December 6, 2025 at 11:00 AM
"Academic" despite it being your distinction? Ditto re: "nitpick about ONA 1.0 and 2.0"? So, simply make up a distinction, then abandon it when challenged, call the criticiser a nitpicker, then slink back to said distinction when they go away? More O9A 1.0/2.0 malarkey was published since.
If you are to use his word, you must also use his words where he says such things, aka, it breaks apart. You will find in such "primary sources" an explicit rejection of the authority you are implicitly giving his texts over defining/controlling what the O9A is.
December 6, 2025 at 10:52 AM
If you are to use his word, you must also use his words where he says such things, aka, it breaks apart. You will find in such "primary sources" an explicit rejection of the authority you are implicitly giving his texts over defining/controlling what the O9A is.
The exact issue is to use only his word to "define" the O9A. He said he has no direct authority, that his words are fallible and should be surpassed, and that the O9A cannot be contained by one mortal. That's as concrete a rejection as you can get of there being "primary sources" as you et al use.
December 6, 2025 at 10:50 AM
The exact issue is to use only his word to "define" the O9A. He said he has no direct authority, that his words are fallible and should be surpassed, and that the O9A cannot be contained by one mortal. That's as concrete a rejection as you can get of there being "primary sources" as you et al use.
Also relevant, is the quote that:
"no one now controls or owns the ONA – or can control or own the ONA.(...) it is a new type of organism (...), and thus a living, changing, evolving, long-living entity which no one finite fallible mortal with a limited causal life-span can control, contain, or own"
"no one now controls or owns the ONA – or can control or own the ONA.(...) it is a new type of organism (...), and thus a living, changing, evolving, long-living entity which no one finite fallible mortal with a limited causal life-span can control, contain, or own"
December 5, 2025 at 12:02 PM
Also relevant, is the quote that:
"no one now controls or owns the ONA – or can control or own the ONA.(...) it is a new type of organism (...), and thus a living, changing, evolving, long-living entity which no one finite fallible mortal with a limited causal life-span can control, contain, or own"
"no one now controls or owns the ONA – or can control or own the ONA.(...) it is a new type of organism (...), and thus a living, changing, evolving, long-living entity which no one finite fallible mortal with a limited causal life-span can control, contain, or own"
The leap is in assuming that AL being the founder means his writings are the only "primary sources", or that "primary sources" matter at all re: the O9A.
To quote from AL, his words "should be surpassed by others and are thus not imbued with any kind of grandiose
or pretentious ‘authority’."
To quote from AL, his words "should be surpassed by others and are thus not imbued with any kind of grandiose
or pretentious ‘authority’."
December 5, 2025 at 12:00 PM
The leap is in assuming that AL being the founder means his writings are the only "primary sources", or that "primary sources" matter at all re: the O9A.
To quote from AL, his words "should be surpassed by others and are thus not imbued with any kind of grandiose
or pretentious ‘authority’."
To quote from AL, his words "should be surpassed by others and are thus not imbued with any kind of grandiose
or pretentious ‘authority’."
Here it is. My best advice beyond this is to work solo for the coming months. Groups often seek to bind you to them via blackmail, or may falsely seem pro-LGBT with the intent to harm you. Develop yourself first and foremost.
archive.org/details/a-st...
archive.org/details/a-st...
December 4, 2025 at 6:29 PM
Here it is. My best advice beyond this is to work solo for the coming months. Groups often seek to bind you to them via blackmail, or may falsely seem pro-LGBT with the intent to harm you. Develop yourself first and foremost.
archive.org/details/a-st...
archive.org/details/a-st...
Rounwytha have no such 'kindred honour'. Rounwytha also do not follow the Sevenfold Way. IMO, as I've said before, there is no ONA 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, etc. It's also hardly dead if there are active followers. Though, I will say many aren't true esoteric practitioners and are just TOB neonazi cosplayers.
December 4, 2025 at 12:55 PM
Rounwytha have no such 'kindred honour'. Rounwytha also do not follow the Sevenfold Way. IMO, as I've said before, there is no ONA 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, etc. It's also hardly dead if there are active followers. Though, I will say many aren't true esoteric practitioners and are just TOB neonazi cosplayers.
If you are set on the O9A, just be careful. I can send a link to a study guide I've made, but it's imperative that you work alone for the first few months/year and develop your skills. Though again, I strongly believe a non-O9A esoteric group would be better, especially for transfeminine people.
December 4, 2025 at 12:52 PM
If you are set on the O9A, just be careful. I can send a link to a study guide I've made, but it's imperative that you work alone for the first few months/year and develop your skills. Though again, I strongly believe a non-O9A esoteric group would be better, especially for transfeminine people.
A word of caution, as someone who is trans. Many in the O9A do not follow kindred honour to its conclusion. If you are interested in esotericism, I would strongly suggest looking to non-O9A groups. They're usually nowhere near as toxic and far less hostile to LGBT practitioners at large, e.g Thelema
December 3, 2025 at 7:33 PM
A word of caution, as someone who is trans. Many in the O9A do not follow kindred honour to its conclusion. If you are interested in esotericism, I would strongly suggest looking to non-O9A groups. They're usually nowhere near as toxic and far less hostile to LGBT practitioners at large, e.g Thelema
1. The point is that transness (and any other characteristic for that matter) is irrelevant as per kindred honour.
2. Sexual preference ≠ gender identity. Many transphobic gays exist.
3. I'm assuming this is a proxy for them to ask about O9A stances on trans topics. Hence, just going to O9A texts.
2. Sexual preference ≠ gender identity. Many transphobic gays exist.
3. I'm assuming this is a proxy for them to ask about O9A stances on trans topics. Hence, just going to O9A texts.
December 3, 2025 at 3:40 PM
1. The point is that transness (and any other characteristic for that matter) is irrelevant as per kindred honour.
2. Sexual preference ≠ gender identity. Many transphobic gays exist.
3. I'm assuming this is a proxy for them to ask about O9A stances on trans topics. Hence, just going to O9A texts.
2. Sexual preference ≠ gender identity. Many transphobic gays exist.
3. I'm assuming this is a proxy for them to ask about O9A stances on trans topics. Hence, just going to O9A texts.
"(cont.) on their deeds (not words), and on whether or not and how well they
uphold and live by our code of kindred honour."
Ergo, gender identity, gender expression, and extent of transition would all be irrelevant.
uphold and live by our code of kindred honour."
Ergo, gender identity, gender expression, and extent of transition would all be irrelevant.
December 3, 2025 at 11:13 AM
"(cont.) on their deeds (not words), and on whether or not and how well they
uphold and live by our code of kindred honour."
Ergo, gender identity, gender expression, and extent of transition would all be irrelevant.
uphold and live by our code of kindred honour."
Ergo, gender identity, gender expression, and extent of transition would all be irrelevant.
Not from Myatt, but re: gender identity:
"our code of kindred-honour applies equally to
all of our kind, irrespective of their gender, ethnicity, perceived
social/educational status, sexual preference (and so on) (...) we judge people solely on the basis of a personal knowing of them (cont.)"
"our code of kindred-honour applies equally to
all of our kind, irrespective of their gender, ethnicity, perceived
social/educational status, sexual preference (and so on) (...) we judge people solely on the basis of a personal knowing of them (cont.)"
December 3, 2025 at 11:12 AM
Not from Myatt, but re: gender identity:
"our code of kindred-honour applies equally to
all of our kind, irrespective of their gender, ethnicity, perceived
social/educational status, sexual preference (and so on) (...) we judge people solely on the basis of a personal knowing of them (cont.)"
"our code of kindred-honour applies equally to
all of our kind, irrespective of their gender, ethnicity, perceived
social/educational status, sexual preference (and so on) (...) we judge people solely on the basis of a personal knowing of them (cont.)"
I don't disagree re: a difference. I think my own manuscripts have argued much the same, especially re: the Rounwytha, LGBT topics, etc. Feels odd to be selective though, if the O9A is truly dead, why care if it's accurately represented at all?
November 19, 2025 at 5:11 AM
I don't disagree re: a difference. I think my own manuscripts have argued much the same, especially re: the Rounwytha, LGBT topics, etc. Feels odd to be selective though, if the O9A is truly dead, why care if it's accurately represented at all?
Good to know. I've asked him.
November 19, 2025 at 5:09 AM
Good to know. I've asked him.
Kaplan supposedly had one, along with another unnamed scholar, and others. That's not very helpful though, because Kaplan is dead. His university might still have it, but I wouldn't know if he donated it to them or not, or if his receiving of it bound him to donate it.
November 19, 2025 at 5:01 AM
Kaplan supposedly had one, along with another unnamed scholar, and others. That's not very helpful though, because Kaplan is dead. His university might still have it, but I wouldn't know if he donated it to them or not, or if his receiving of it bound him to donate it.
And, on a possibly unrelated note, it's bizarre how much material seems to be missing from the archives, for a group so focused on archival. Azoth, both the manuscript claimed to be requisite reading and the 33≥ issue long magazine, are simply gone. A lot of the niche material simply runs dry.
November 18, 2025 at 6:32 AM
And, on a possibly unrelated note, it's bizarre how much material seems to be missing from the archives, for a group so focused on archival. Azoth, both the manuscript claimed to be requisite reading and the 33≥ issue long magazine, are simply gone. A lot of the niche material simply runs dry.
Might you happen to know where I can find any of the following texts? There seems to be a lack of information re: dimensionality and a full explanation of O9A's tensors:
A New Cosmology
Bifurcation and Being
Towards a Unified Theory
Relativity and Reality
Farad, Forgotten Genius
A New Cosmology
Bifurcation and Being
Towards a Unified Theory
Relativity and Reality
Farad, Forgotten Genius
November 18, 2025 at 6:25 AM
Might you happen to know where I can find any of the following texts? There seems to be a lack of information re: dimensionality and a full explanation of O9A's tensors:
A New Cosmology
Bifurcation and Being
Towards a Unified Theory
Relativity and Reality
Farad, Forgotten Genius
A New Cosmology
Bifurcation and Being
Towards a Unified Theory
Relativity and Reality
Farad, Forgotten Genius
I'm not sure how it is pejorative. It's just that when I have tried to engage you in discussions about the O9A before, your response has just been to claim it dead and move on. So, the behaviour feels strange.
November 17, 2025 at 8:00 AM
I'm not sure how it is pejorative. It's just that when I have tried to engage you in discussions about the O9A before, your response has just been to claim it dead and move on. So, the behaviour feels strange.
I thought you et al were done with the O9A? Your current fixation on Chris Giudice is rather strange. Refreshing, sure, it's nice to see something that's not Myatt defense ad nauseam, but still a bit baffling why you were/are so evasive with O9A topics.
November 14, 2025 at 11:30 PM
I thought you et al were done with the O9A? Your current fixation on Chris Giudice is rather strange. Refreshing, sure, it's nice to see something that's not Myatt defense ad nauseam, but still a bit baffling why you were/are so evasive with O9A topics.