Talk:Order of Nine Angles/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reverting recent edits

@86.28.230.177. The citation of an academic work (a published book by an academic press) regarding the subject in question is not an "irrelevant citation". In fact, vis-a-vis Wikipedia criteria, it ticks all the boxes in respect of being a reliable and verifiable source. I have therefore removed the "irrelevant citation" tag. Coolmoon (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@82.16.252.128. Some anonymous blog is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia criteria. Also, terms such as "significant" and "biggest" are not neutral, and thus contravene Wikipedia NPOV. Is the nknews website a reliable source regarding the ONA? IMO, no, since the article referenced does not mention the ONA at all. Therefore I have reverted the edits. But feel free to provide evidence that the nknews website is a reliable source of info re the ONA according to Wikipedia criteria. Coolmoon (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed Tag

Removed the weasel-words tag for as stated in the Wikipedia manual of style claims "should be clearly attributed" and "views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source." The expression used - "one of the most extreme Satanist groups in the world" - is attributed to a reliable source in the "beliefs and structure" section and does reflect the view of the person concerned.

According to my understanding what is in the lead section of an article does not need an in-line citation providing a citation is given in the body of the article where the quotation appears in the relevant section. Coolmoon (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

References to Massimo Introvigne

In a recent change to the Wikipedia article is was claimed that "Massimo Introvigne stated that the ONA has more or less acknowledged that Myatt and Long are the same person."

Since this claim has been disputed by the O9A it seems relevant - re presenting a NPOV - to reference their rebuttal to Introvigne's claim, which rebuttal is in the More Academic Inaccuracies section of the article Academia, David Myatt, and the Order of Nine Angles to which I have provided a link. Coolmoon (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing. I was not sure of the accuracy of Introvigne's claim, but I thought it worth citing nonetheless, particular given his standing within the sociological study of new religions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Knife Sotelo

Can anybody here verify Knife Sotelo's claim:

"Sotelo began to pursue other Satanic religious practices and became the Outer Representative of the Order of Nine Anglesand remained its spokesperson until 2013..."

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Knife%22_Sotelo

I'm unaware of he ever being associated with the ONA, let alone being its Outer Rep. LEFT9 (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Since the O9A is a collection of independent cells and individuals, and there is no central organization or leader, anyone can claim association with the O9A. So he may well have been associated with the O9A. As for being 'outer representative', that title has been claimed by several individuals over the past 20 years but as to whether their claims are "genuine" is another matter. (What is "genuine" anyway?) The Wikipedia article includes a quote from an article by "Anton Long" about this "outer representative" title - which article may or may not be "the last word" on the matter. Pavane7 (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hvile I Kaos

As Midnightblueowl noted in her recent revert of your edit the criteria of Wikipedia is verifiability by reliable published third-party sources such as books, articles, and mainstream newspapers. Were such a source to publish what you mention vis-a-vis the O9A then it could be included in the O9A article. Pavane7 (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to find some reliable sources which provide the Hvile I Kaos "point of view" but haven't found any. The only reference I can find is in the They Arrive, They Depart, They Move On section of the article at https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/on-leaving/

Perhaps Midnightblueowl can ascertain if that reference meets Wikipedia criteria. Pavane7 (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The O9A Wordpress would be a WP:Primary Source—these are generally avoided but sometimes acceptable. In this instance, it probably would be acceptable if used to cite the exact claim being made on that site, but nothing additional to it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Dangerous

Why delete this reference in the lead as it is referenced later in mainstream media in the article? Pavane7 (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

"It has been described as one of the most extreme and dangerous Satanist groups in the world" just reads as being a little sensationalistic, as opposed to encyclopaedic, to my eye. I think that it would make more sense to explain why it has been construed as "extreme", specifically by outlining its views and the actions that arise from their influence. It's no big deal, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. The reference may read as "sensationalistic" but given it is referenced in mainstream media I believe it fulfils Wikipedia criteria as a verifiable source but do please correct me if I am wrong. If another verifiable source contradicts this "sensationalistic" reference then it should be included. Pavane7 (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Part of my concern stems from the wording "in the world" as much as the terms "extreme and dangerous". I wonder if a different wording might convey the same information but in a manner more in keeping with Wikipedia's textual style. Something like "It has been characterised as taking a more extreme and violent approach to Satanism than other Satanic groups like the Church of Satan and Temple of Set." How does that sound to you? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The fact is the expression was used by an academic (Per Faxneld) who has mentioned the O9A in books published by Oxford University Press, with his comment published in a credible source. I therefore see no reason to change or delete the expression although it could be qualified by referring to the person who made the comment: "It has been described by Per Faxneld as one of the most..." Pavane7 (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Allegations

The source given for the allegations is not a credible source according to Wikipedia criteria. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. Therefore I have reverted the edit. Pavane7 (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Affiliated Groups

I have reverted the edit and substituted "associated" in place of "affiliated". For given the nature of the O9A/ONA - as described in the Wikipedia entry, in articles on its omega9alpha blog, and by academics such as Monette - the O9A itself is not affiliated to any group be it "the sinister coven" or any other. Other groups, and individuals, can claim to be associated with or inspired by the O9A and that's all. Examples include Tempel ov Blood in America and Secuntra Nexion in Italy.

Since, to quote Monette, the ONA is "a movement, a subculture or perhaps metaculture that its adherents choose to embody or identify with" it has no central authority, and no leader, and thus there is no one person, or any persons, who can claim to represent or who can claim to speak or write on behalf of the O9A, and who thus can say that the ONA is affiliated with this or that group.

See the article on the O9A blog at https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/o9a-exoteric-and-esoteric-reality/

I quote from that article: "In practice, this exoteric and esoteric understanding means that, as Anton Long and many others have stated time and time again, no one person, no one O9A nexion, no collocations of O9A nexions, can ever speak or write "on behalf of the O9A" since one of the fundamental principles of O9A philosophy, based on its exoteric and esoteric reality, is what is termed the authority of individual judgment. This principles means that the O9A does not have, never has had, and never will have an "official policy" about anything, and never has, and never will make official statements about anything." Pavane7 (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering if the Temple of THEM and the White Star Acception qualify for references in the info box? Dr. George Seig and Dr. Monette mention them in their respective articles Angular Momentum and Chapter 5. The Quietus also did an article on ONA which mentions both of them. Tankumudi (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Broadly Associated With the O9A

Reverted edit. The lead does not require references, they are provided in the following sections: see Senholt (reference #149) and Monette (reference#150) regarding estimates. The context of the statement is broadly associated with the O9A, not actual membership.

In addition, the 1990s claim by Harvey that there are "fewer than five" is ridiculous - and perhaps should be removed from the article - given how many people responded to the poll by Lewis regarding involvement with the O9A, (reference#152) and the fact that recent mainstream media reports - qv. references #160, 161, 162, 163, and other references not included in the article - indicate O9A infiltration of right wing groups such as Atomwaffen, National Action, and Sonnenkrieg Division, with the O9A, as reported by BBC journalist Daniel De Simonet, recently (October 2019) mentioned at a trial of someone accused of terrorism as the “most prominent and recognisable link between Satanism and the extreme right,” https://mobile.twitter.com/DdesimoneDaniel/status/1182394450657628160, and http://www.o9a.org/2019/10/the-terrorism-trial-and-the-o9a/

Thus those broadly associated with the O9A include members of groups such as Atomwaffen, National Action, and Sonnenkrieg Division, as well as some musicians - as mentioned in the 2018 Quietus article about O9A entryism in the Black metal music scene, and so on. Pavane7 (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Banning The Order of Nine Angles

I have reverted the edit since according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources BBC News is a reliable source. The ban was also reported in the New Statesman - https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/03/nazi-satanist-cult-fuelling-far-right-terrorist-groups-overlooked-uk-authorities-order-nine-angles and the Times of Israel at https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/calls-for-neo-nazi-satanist-group-to-be-banned-as-terrorist-organisation/

It is note worthy that the ban is supported by several members of the British parliament including Yvette Cooper and Louise Haigh - Member of Parliament for Sheffield Heeley and Shadow Policing & Crime Minister - both of whom are mentioned in the New Statesman. Haigh issued a statement that said "the government must move to proscribe the Order of Nine Angles as a terror group. Their beliefs and tactics are horrific and they pose the most extreme danger imaginable". Pavane7 (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly a notable development and is backed by several Reliable Sources. It should certainly be included within the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Deprecated Source

I reverted certain edits since the political advocacy group "Hope not hate" is listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources as unreliable and biased it does not seem appropriate - re NPOV - to extensively quote from their literature or statements by their spokespeople, especially as the O9A has issued rebuttals to many of their accusations: see for example https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/2020/03/10/o9a-truth-and-propaganda/ Pavane7 (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

If some of the non-probative accusations made by "Hope not hate" et al are to be included then surely to maintain a NPOV the O9A rebuttal of such accusations should be included. Pavane7 (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pavane7:Hope not Hate neutrality should be decided on case by case basis, according to link. And no, WP:WEIGHT, it "surely" isn't necessary to add a rebuttal from the blog site of a fringe cult, this is the textbook case of "undue weight". Extremist organizations generally do not get that benefit in Wikipedia, of having "their side heard" supposedly for NPOV. WP:NONAZIS. Hope not Hate wasn't the only source I used, but if you feel like I could add a few more sources I will, because several articles by BBC and others back the statements made by Hope not Hate.RKT7789 (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia NPOV allows for the subject of the article to be treated in a neutral way, regardless of how the subject is perceived by some people. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

To say that "extremist organizations generally do not get the benefit of the doubt" in Wikipedia, of having their side heard, is IMO against presenting a NPOV since who defines what is "extremist" and why? To present the O9A rebuttal of non-probative (prejudicial) allegations made by a political advocacy group is IMO presenting a NPOV.

What you seem to be saying is that in, respect of Wikipedia, groups or people you and some others deem to be "extremist" should not be treated in a neutral manner, and that such groups or people should not be allowed to present their rebuttal to non-probative allegations. In other words, and again IMO, it is akin to a criminal trial in which the prosecution makes allegations while the defense is not allowed to produce evidence which challenges such accusations.

You wrote: "several articles by BBC and others back the statements made by Hope not Hate." No, they do not "back the statements", they just repeat the non-probative allegations made by a political advocacy group, as do all the references you gave.

Also there is nothing probative to prove that Richard Moult was a "leader" of the O9A. Pavane7 (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

RKT7789, it's probably for the best if you seek consensus at the Talk Page before making further additions to the article. An edit war doesn't benefit anyone. I would also note that WP:NONAZIS is just an essay written by a couple of Wikipedia editors who would like to see Wikipedia take a more explicitly political (and probably left-wing) stance than it presently does. It is not policy, has no formal standing, and thus has no validity here. Best to keep to arguments rooted in policy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

US soldier Ethan Melzer accused of planning attack on own unit

[1] -- Ghettobuoy (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Propaganda

I have removed the reference to sexual abuse as this in my opinion is not mentioned in any O9A material dating from 1976 to 2020 and which material includes the Deofel Quartet, Naos, Hostia, Black Book, and recent works such as Feond. It was and is a non-evidential claim made by various antifascist groups. There are several O9A texts which describe sexual abusers as suitable candidates for what the O9A term culling. This is mentioned in several replies published in rebuttal of allegations made by a particular anti-fascist group, one of which is titled Exposing Twelve Basic Errors, Or, How To Spread Fake News.

To me, such an addition does not present a NPOV.

The fact that some individuals who associate themselves with the O9A may have promoted such a thing does not means the esoteric philosophy of the O9A promotes or condones it especially as, technically, the O9A is such a philosophy and not a group with members and never has had a leader. One might as well condemn the whole Catholic Church on the basis that some of its adherents have committed sexual abuse.

Further, no one can contact the O9A as it has no contact information and no spokesperson just as a philosophy has no contact information and no spokesperson. The nature of the O9A is explained in the text titled Beyond Nihilism and Anarchy: The O9A. The fact is that most if not all O9A critics do not bother to read such works as that one, and works such as Feond, and Baeldraca, and Tyberness, which present O9A philosophy and give copious references to O9A texts. If they do read such texts they would get a more balanced view of the O9A. --Pavane7 (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't accept original research. And even if it did, your research is lacking. Several Reliable sources state that sexual violence is a good way of undermining the mundane society. Multiple BBC articles, Hope not Hate and "Angular Momentum" by George Sieg. Even if some individual members disagreed with the notion, it warrants a mention at the very least, as people linked to O9A have put this ideology to practice, Andrew Dymock and Ryan Fleming to mention a few, both accused/convicted of sexual violence against teenage girls. If you want to do original research, independent of the article, into pro-rape material by nexions associated with O9A, read Iron Gates and Bluebird by Martinet Press or The Rape Anthology - Augur of the Apocalypse. Just off the top of my head. They explicitly endorse raping women and children.

Also incidentally during the process of outlawing Order of Nine Angles, sexual violence was brought up several times as a factor why the group must be banned.RKT7789 (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You et al are reproducing allegations made by an anti-fascist group who supply no evidence from established O9A texts such as Naos, Hostia, the Deofel Quartet, and books such as Feond.

The press and other reports you linked to merely repeat the unproven allegations and make no mention of O9A texts such as the above. Even the report in Hansard shows that MP's are merely repeating such unproven allegations.

If you or anyone can find in established published O9A texts any proof for the allegations then I will withdraw my objections. Have you read, for instance, Feond, and Baeldraca, and Tyberness? If not why not? Have you read the pro-Lesbian O9A novel Breaking The Silence Down, published decades ago? Are you aware of the O9A Code of Kindred Honor which enshrines gender equality?

Until there is evidence - not merely rumors and allegations - it is against, IMO, the NPOV to state that the O9A is supporting the criminal activity of sexual assault.

That a few of the supporters of the O9A might be involved in such activities is far enough, but to extrapolate from a few such supporters to castigate O9A philosophy itself is a logical fallacy, just as castigating the whole Catholic church for the aberrant behavior of some of its adherents is illogical. --Pavane7 (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Religious groups can hold contradictory or hypocritical views or have religious texts that contradict one another. It's been known to happen. I don't know why this is so incomprehensible considering David Myatt has been a Satanist, Nazi, Muslim and then into "Numinous Way". Veritable smorgasbord of contradictory views. I don't know how being lesbian makes you incapable of sexual violence. And you ignored what I wrote. If you want to read pro-rape material by nexions associated with O9A, read Iron Gates and Bluebird written by and promoted by Tempel ov Blood and Drakon Covenant nexion or The Rape Anthology - Augur of the Apocalypse. Just off the top of my head. I don't know how Code of Kindred Honour is against sexual assault either. Just because you wouldn't cull or rape a fellow noctulian doesn't mean you wouldn't do it to a mundane. Goes without saying. RKT7789 (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The dispute is about NPOV. You give prominence to unproven allegations and do not give the O9A denial, which is against NPOV. So, I have included a new section titled Sexual Abuse which includes all your references and provides a reference to the O9A response. This IMO restores a NPOV while having mention of such unproven allegations in the info-box does not in my opinion present a NPOV.

Also you fail to mention that those who support or are influenced by the O9A are not the O9A which is an esoteric philosophy not a group. In addition you repeat the unproven allegation that Myatt is a Satanist, something he has always denied and for which there is no actual evidence. See for example https://davidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/a-matter-of-honour.pdf --Pavane7 (talk) 06:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

We do not have to provide a rebuttal from the subject to maintain NPOV. As it stands, your new section is overly accepting of O9A's statements while deriding the accusations as those of a "political advocacy group." This is really starting to smell of whitewashing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion there are three issues here.

1. NPOV. Where there is a conflict describe both points of view and work for balance. Giving prominence - as in the info box - to one point of view (accusations made and repeated with no reference to primary O9A sources) does not present a NPOV.

No one has presented any evidence from primary O9A sources - such as the 1970s and 1990s texts Naos, Hostia, and the Deofel Quartet, and from Breaking The Silence Down, and the O9A Code of Kindred Honor - that the O9A condones and encourages sexual abuse. Quite the contrary, as the pro-Lesbian novel Breaking The Silence Down and the female characters in the Deofel Quartet reveal.

It seems that those making and repeating the accusations have not bothered to read such primary O9A texts. The fact that the accusations made against the O9A do not provide any evidence from such texts needs mentioning.

Which brings us to the second point.

2. Membership. Since the O9A is an anarchist philosophy it cannot have members - only those who associate with some or all of that philosophy or who are inspired by it and who may form their own nexions. The anarchist nature of the O9A was made clear as early as the 1990s in letters sent to people such as Aquino of the Temple of Set; letters published in 1992 in the two volumes titled The Satanic Letters Of Stephen Brown. Those letters are primary sources in respect of the O9A and are quoted from in texts such as https://wyrdsister.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/o9a-nihilism-anarchy.pdf

Again, such primary O9A sources seem to have been ignored. How can an esoteric philosophy - anarchist in nature - be banned?

Also, what someone or some group associating themselves with or influenced by the O9A believe or propagate does not mean that they represent the O9A, no more than Catholic priests or monks who abuse children represent the world-wide Catholic church.

3. Neo-Nazism. As a study of basic O9A texts would have revealed the O9A praises Hitler and the Third Reich because to do so is antinomian - a modern heresy; with joining and supporting neo-nazi groups just one Insight Role among many and which last at most eighteen months after which the individual moves on to other things such as spending three or more months living alone in the wilderness. See such texts as the aforementioned The O9A: Beyond Nihilism And Anarchism, and text such as the 300 page http://www.o9a.org/wp-content/uploads/o9a-trilogy-print.pdf

Thus, this and my others posts here are not an attempt to whitewash the O9A but to understand it on the basis of its primary texts, beyond the unproven accusations of those with a particular political agenda.

in view of this, I have removed mentioned of unproven sexual abuse allegations from the info-box as it is covered in the Sexual Abuse section. If anyone can show that, according to primary O9A sources, that O9A philosophy condones and encourages such abuse then I will admit my error. --Pavane7 (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pavane7: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Order_of_Nine_Angles if you'd keep it here and make your case that'd be swell.RKT7789 (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources are exactly that: primary sources. They are only useful for stating what the subject believes, not matters of fact. We rely on reliable secondary sources to document what the group & its members actually do. So no, we are not going to rely on O9A's own internal writings, and we do not need to present "their side" to maintain NPOV. See WP:FALSEBALANCE.

You cannot claim they cannot have members and simultaneously claim people who associating themselves with the movement does not mean that they represent the O9A. Especially while you above talk about primary O9A sources. If no one is a member, then who determines which sources are real O9A ones?

I'm going to put this one out here, because it's not the win you think it is (emphasis mine):

As a study of basic O9A texts would have revealed the O9A praises Hitler and the Third Reich because to do so is antinomian - a modern heresy; with joining and supporting neo-nazi groups just one Insight Role among many

Seriously, your argument is "they're just doing it ironically!" which we all know is a bullshit excuse.

If anyone can show that, according to primary O9A sources

Again, we are not going to use primary sources from the subject as a Get Out Of Jail Free card. We are not going to tolerate "but if they don't say outright that sexual assault is okay, you can't prove they believe it" as an excuse. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You know, I was originally content having the sexual abuse stuff just mentioned with one word in the infobox, but since Pavane7 created the sexual abuse section and challenged people to prove there was a phenomenon of O9A related sex crimes instead of "antifa lies", I managed to find several cases I wasn't even previously aware of. The numerous news articles and politicians talking about it weren't just hoaxing us, who knew? Now it's a pretty decent, informative section, instead of just "O9A respects women and antifa is trying to smear them". And considering how even the article tells how O9A revels in spreading disinformation, it would seem pretty foolish to take their word at face value. Also Pavane7, they're still waiting at WP:DRN.RKT7789 (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I am no longer waiting at DRN. Any discussion can be here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Supporters Not Members

Since the O9A is not a group with members but an esoteric philosophy and has no central authority and no contact details there are and can be no members, only those who support or are inspired by that philosophy, which is outlined in primary O9A sources such as Naos, Feond, and The Deofel Quartet.

As for the book The Dreccian Way it is a compilation of articles by various authors, with Moult having denied writing one article which had his name attached. --Pavane7 (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Once again we have to repeat. You seem to have extreme difficulty in understanding what several people have been telling you. We rely on reliable secondary sources to document what the group & its members actually do. So no, we are not going to rely on O9A's own internal writings, and we do not need to present "their side" to maintain NPOV. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. This is why, say, article about nazis gives more weight to the academics writing about them than, say, Mein Kampf. I can only again recommend you read the basic policy of wikipedia which you previously have refused to do Wikipedia:PSTS. The fact we give O9A.org that opportunity for denial is be overtly generous in itself.

You might think to yourself that we're wrong and lying and you know the "true" interpretation of O9A esoteric truth. But, to bluntly put it, we're not interested in that, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Even if Anton Long edited the page himself it wouldn't matter unless you can quote a reliable source. O9A book is not reliable source. I've put it as simply as I can. Please this time read what you have been written. Instead of satanic tomes, look for reliable sources.RKT7789 (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pavane7: if still after reading this you feel the need to quote O9A to "restore the NPOV", maybe just wait until User:Midnightblueowl wakes up. Owl most assuredly understands basic wikipedia policies and can explain them better than I or Dispute resolution noticeboard volunteers can. RKT7789 (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't been following all these arguments at the Talk Page but it does seem a bit WP:UNDUE to have a whole, comparatively lengthy section on "Sexual abuse"; a few sentences might suffice. Moreover, such a sub-section certainly does not belong in the "History" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Trimmed the non-RS primary source material and some unnecessary detail and moved sexual abuse next to human sacrifice. Now the sections are about the same size, which seems about fair, considering there's actually been plenty of cases of former in real life. RKT7789 (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Pavane7 said that the O9A is "not a group with members but an esoteric philosophy." But the ONA has an inner circle? Does something like a mere philosophy have an inner circle? Tankumudi (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I brought that point up previously, and never received a reply. I don't think they have an answer to that point, they're just arguing in circles to try and beat the article into submission. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

If you read primary O9A texts - and not what others have written about the O9A - you will see that the O9A has no "inner circle" which term is a supposition by others. The recent 300 page text the Seofonfeald Paeth explains the matter, http://www.o9a.org/wp-content/uploads/o9a-trilogy-print.pdf

See also the text The O9A: Beyond Nihilism And Anarchism, which quotes from 1990s O9A texts such as The Satanic Letters Of Stephen Brown, some of which letters were sent to Aquino of the Temple of Set, and which include his replies. http://www.o9a.org/wp-content/uploads/o9a-nihilism-anarchy.pdf

The problem here, as often, is separating the actual O9A - as evident in their primary texts - from what others, including some of its supporters, have written or assumed about it. It seems few commentators and fewer supporters have taken the trouble the read the entire O9A corpus. --Pavane7 (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll deal with this in the following section, but your entire argument is ultimately self-defeating. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The very first paragraphs of this wikipedia article states that the ONA has an inner ONA: "it operates as a broad network of associates – termed the "kollective" – who are inspired by the texts which were originally authored by Long and other members of the 'Inner ONA'." The so-called primary source that Pavane7 keeps talking about were written by Anton Long (the founder and leader of ONA) and members of an Inner ONA known to each other. Who are those members of the Inner ONA? And what is a mere philosophy doing with an Inner ONA?

The very same "primary source" Pavane7 claims to say that no inner circle exists actually says one exists on page 171 at footnote {5}, I quote: "{5} In regard to the 'outer representative', as of the beginning of phase three (c. 2011-2012) of the century long O9A sinister strategy to disrupt the existing order, recruit a small number of suitable people (for the inner ONA), and aid the emergence of a new aeon based on the law of kindred honour, this particular causal form no longer serves a purpose." So, again, what is that "inner ONA" and who is recruiting people for this "Inner ONA," and what is a mere philosophy doing with an "Inner Circle?" Pavane7's very own so-called primary source defeats her own argument.

The other problem with Pavane7's relentless argument is the group of ONA members called the "Old Guards." It's been known that these "Old Guards" kick people out of the ONA. Ryan Anschauung of the Temple of THEM was himself publicly kicked out of ONA by such "Old Guards": https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/australian-satanism-and-the-temple-of-them.164506/#post-3810882

How does a mere philosophy kick people out of its philosophy? It's unheard of. I've never heard of the philosophy of Plato of Kant kicking people out for any reason? Who in a philosophy has such an authority to remove people or recognize or unrecognize someone as being an adherent of the philosophy? Tankumudi (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Censoring The O9A POV

In reply to RKT7789. You rely heavily on the accusations of HnH - which being a group with a political agenda is not always a reliable source, which is why it is listed as a deprecated source - and you do not allow the O9A point of view to be expressed. Since the article is about the O9A, the O9A point of view is necessary for balance, for a NPOV, as per Wikipedia guidelines.

The O9A view, as evident in their pre-2011 texts, is not - in the context of the article being about the O9A - a minority view nor an extraordinary claim and thus does not provide a "false balance" but rather a balance to what HnH and others have claimed. In addition, O9A sources and texts are regularly referred in the article. As the guidelines state: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources

You also seem not to appreciate that the O9A has no members, only those inspired by or supporting O9A philosophy or aspects of it, according to their own understanding of that philosophy, of what is now a sub-culture. A member is a person who has joined a group. Since the O9A is not a group but a philosophy and/or a sub-culture a person cannot "join it". They can only identify with it in their own way. That the article and most of those writing about the O9A do not make or emphasize this distinction implies a lack of understanding of what the O9A is. Which brings mention of the indictment of Ethan Melzer by the US Department of Justice which states that he passed info to the O9A - interestingly described by the DoJ as a "neo-Nazi, anarchist, white supremacist group." Since the O9A has no leader, no HQ, no contact details, no members, it will be interesting to see what evidence they have in regard to whom or to whomsoever he passed information to. --Pavane7 (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You are simply wrong, multiple people have tried to put it is as simply as they can but you still cannot have extreme difficulty in understanding it. You don't see Josef Fritzl's views on sexual abuse presented to "add fair balance" to the articles or the nazi point of view "it didn't happen" taking half of the Holocaust article for "fairness". Don't prove User:HandThatFeeds right by ignoring everyone and spamming the article, hoping that eventually something will stick. You asked for outside opinions on NPOV, you got them, but didn't like them, so you simply ignored them.RKT7789 (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You keep missing the obvious problem with your argument: If there are no members, no leadership, etc. then who is writing these primary texts and how do they have any authority to speak for this group? If they are recognized leaders within the "movement", then we're right back at "we are not taking their word for it over reliable sources."

Further, if we accept your argument that this is a loose movement with no membership or authority, then these "primary sources" are just the views of specific individuals with no bearing on O9A, because they have no "official" status within the movement. So we're right back to not using those sources, because they're just opinion pieces. They're not even primary sources since there is no organization to publish them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Very well put. Talking about self-defeating arguments, odd that Pavane would quote the US Department of Justice describing O9A as a group, directly contradicting her own point. In any case, so many people have explained to her why her imagined NPOV issue is a non-issue that she has to comprehend at this point and we're dealing with a case of willful ignorance. Dispute resolution board likewise agreed her claim had no basis in policy so yet again Pavane chose to ignore them. So we have a broad consensus with Pavane alone refusing to accept it, ignoring overtly patient people explaining it to her and smashing her head against the wall, hoping by ignoring people she'll eventually have her way.RKT7789 (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to turn this talk page into a forum, but just to throw it out there, the blog that Pavane has been shilling hard has curiously just made a post word-for-word identical to content Pavane has been trying to insert on the page. In addition the article complains about Wikipedia not taking them seriously and denying the Holocaust in the same sentence which certainly is a take. So, you know. Prepare for mysterious IP editors arguing for Wikipedia to take more sympathetic and balanced view of nazi-satanism. In good faith, of course.RKT7789 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Now, that's concerning. @Pavane7: what affiliation do you have with that blog? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds real familiar, doesn't it? I mean I have refrained from throwing accusations because that quickly sours any discussion but...yeah. It's kind of hard to see anyone defend a nazi group this fanatically out of pure academic curiosity and desire to build an objective encyclopedia.RKT7789 (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It's just how Pavane7 and Company that run o9a.org work and have been working for a while. They write "primary source" stuff, and then force academics to accept their "primary source" stuff, and use it to rewrite wikipedia articles. If there is an argument on the internet, they will write new "primary source" stuff as counterarguments. They are essentially making things up as they go along. It's what their "inner ONA" has been doing for years. And people fall for it. Tankumudi (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Iron Gates

The book titled Iron Gates was not written by Ryan Fleming but by the founder of the USA based Tempel ov Blood, Joshua Caleb Sutter. --Pavane7 (talk) 05:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Flags or not

@Northern Moonlight: Wouldn't use in this specific case fall under "administrative subdivisions" and such in WP:INFOBOXFLAG, as we're literally talking about subsections of O9A based on geographical location? I think flags also make the box look cleaner, that said, I don't feel overtly strongly one way or the other.RKT7789 (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that the original text is substituting the name of the country with a flag while placing it before the subnational division name (like this: Karelia). It feels unnatural and way less intuitive than just spelling out the country name. And once you add a country name, the flag becomes redundant, especially inside an infobox. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう 04:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Northern Moonlight: I guess it's just a matter of preference, I've seen it done on other pages, flag representating the country in infobox, makes it more compact. Feels kinda redundant typing "Shropshire United Kingdom" twice, you know? I prefer it the other way but I won't start reverting if you're adamant this is how it has to be.RKT7789 (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Shandon Simpson is member of O9A nexion:

@Quutamo123: from WaPo: "Pfc. Shandon Simpson had participated in a white supremacist channel on the Telegram messaging app called RapeWaffen Division, according to the SITE Intelligence Group. The channel’s members have touted the rape of female police officers, posted images with Confederate battle flags and swastikas and called white women who have children with men of other races “traitors.”

More info of Rapewaffen can be found here.RKT7789 (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

This is neither proof that he is in a "Nexion" nor that he knew the person who planned an attack on their unit, nor that he was apart of the o9a or even knew what it was or was apart of an o9a associated group, him being a neo nazi is despicable enough, if what you're trying to do is lie about him that is defamation, you don't need to write in your own personal headcanon about what terrorist groups a person is apart of on wikipedia because they have extremist political views.--Quutamo123 (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Quutamo123: HnH identifies Rapewaffen as O9A nexion, Shandon was a part of it. I'm not sure which part of this is hard to understand. Rapewaffen even encouraged people to join their local nexion, their words.RKT7789 (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

HnH does not identify Rapewaffen as O9A as a nexion and none of what you quoted proves that, in both the quotes you showed me and the entire article, it says that it's a telegram group and not an o9a nexion, it says nothing in the article about Shandon being apart of an o9a nexion, please requote the article in a different place if you're going to try to show me evidence to the contrary. [User:Quutamo123|Quutamo123]] (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The first search for nexion: "The relatively large channel “RapeWaffen”, which claims to have splintered from AWD, states that its “official beliefs are o9a Satanism and Esoteric Rapistism”, encouraging followers to “JOIN YOUR LOCAL NEXION”."RKT7789 (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not calling itself a nexion, nor is this sufficient proof for Shandon being apart of one or him knowing the soldier who planned an attack on his own unit, nor does this refute the fact that "RapeWaffen" is a telegram channel, which if your apart of one is similar to following a persona on twitter or following someones facebook feed, it is not tantamount to conspiracy, membership, intimacy with a terrorist or terrorist group or religious cult or doctrine as your edit implies. Quutamo123 (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure, Shandon might have not known Melzer, but they undeniably were both o9a and members of the groups online chatroom which you don't even seem to deny. WaPo is reliable source, they say he was in rapewaffen, there's not much you can do about it.RKT7789 (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

No where is rapewaffen described as a group or membership based organization or o9a nexion, your statement implies directly that Shandon is o9a, following a persona on twitter or likewise being apart of a telegram channel ( very similar things if you know how telegram works which you clearly do not) is not membership in a terrorist group or subscribing to a religious doctrine. I never denied the reliability of the sources, you are using them wrong, there is extreme ability to deny the fact the accusation that shandon was apart of the o9a because there is no black swan. Quutamo123 (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Quutamo123: So you don't dispute he was in Rapewaffen that identifies as O9A group, great, we are in agreement. You denying he identifies as o9a, which cannot really be proven one way or the other and is immaterial. If someone is member of, say, Waffen SS, his personal feelings are irrelevant, he's still in the fuckin SS.RKT7789 (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Terrible analogy, Rapewaffen is never designated as an o9a group in the source, even if it was there is also zero evidence that Shandon had membership or affiliation with it, this is what I had been in dispute with the entire time actually Quutamo123 (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

also not to mention the fact that even if it was somehow an organized o9a group which there is not sufficient evidence for in the article still, and it's something the article does not claim, it is still contentious to say whether this "group" was a nexion or not and there is obviously a bend to call shandon a o9a affiliated terrorist when there is proof to the contrary that rather he was a neo nazi that said stupid shit on a personal group chat with friends. Quutamo123 (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I do appreciate the added ambiguity to the section edit, this is definitely more accurate, a telegram channel is not really a "chatroom" it's more like a twitter account where there's one way messages that the user reading can't respond to or communicate with but this is definitely more accurate, thank you Quutamo123 (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Infiltration of State, Church and Civil Society in Montenegro

Claims about living people in this section were sourced with a seemingly self-published podcast, which I removed, since claims about living people in self-published sources not stated by the subjects themselves are not to be used on Wikipedia articles. I could potentially be wrong about this, so I am opening this discussion. Dege31 (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion? The subtopics of "4.2 In Montenegro" and "4.3 The Legion Ave Satan offshoot" feels out of place being under the topic of "4 Terrorism and Crime." Could we create a new subtopic under "3 Organization," called something to the effect of "3.3 Known Nexions & Associates" and then we can move all subentries about ONA nexions, offshoots, and known associates to that subtopic?" SeptaNiner (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Star Game

I have been making a draft for an article on the Star game here Draft:Star Game can we have this be separate? Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 23:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

FBI bankrolled O9A because the leader was an informant.

I just… can’t even. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Nick Land Connection

The Nick Land connection is spurious at best- the linked source is certainly not 'promotion' and there is no serious, sustained philosophical influence either from o9a to Land or vice versa. Seems odd to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.214.62.168 (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems verifiable to me. Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 13:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Noctulius Waffen

I can smash many rumors on this site. But nineangles.net was mine its down now. Noctuliuswaffen9.wordpress.com is my website there's a split of sorts in o9a Thormynd on one side, Nameless Therein on another and Noctulius Waffen as the new Dreccian way and such. I do know Myatt and others on some level. I was Tempel ov Blood for 10 years and knew Joshua Sutter for that long. I go out of my way here for information purposes and research. I'd be willing to give a phone interview as well and offer proof. terrencerhodes@proton.me is my email. I wish to go by pseudonyms but I am the famous Dark Gnosis no one else is. 142.162.227.2 (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Without reliable sources, we can't use any of this. Personal anecdotes are not sources we can use in Wikipedia articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

allies with Atomwaffen fails verification

i added a failed verification tag to both sources which assert in the infobox that this group is allies with the US group Atomwaffen because each asserts that o9a has influenced atomwaffen but not that the two groups are allies. the only talkpage mention of this is in archive 2 of this talkpage so i presume this hasn't been brought up here before. in any event the two sources are now tagged and if nothing else comes to light soon, i will remove atomwaffen as "allies" with o9a. eventually. .usarnamechoice (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• i also tagged some other refs used to associate the two groups as failed verification. there was nothing i could do with the foreign language sites (except the Russian site) so i left them alone. i will look again in two weeks or so and if no source is forthcoming, i will include that this group "is an influence on" atomwaffen, not vice versa nor are they allies. .usarnamechoice (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  it appears @DragonRouge: has seen fit to remove the FV tags with the edit summary "inappropriate tagging", and without any discussion here. i would like to invite the user to come and explain why these refs describe these groups as "allies" with atomwaffen. statements like "influenced by" and "drawing from the beliefs of" does not make the groups allies. when i tagged these refs, i was very careful (given the controversial nature of this article) not to 'inappropriately' tag the refs so i am puzzled and hopefully DragonRouge can explain further here. .usarnamechoice (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Nick Land Connection

I found, about a year ago, a forum on which Nick land and reza negarestani shared fascist conspiracy theories and o9a propaganda. Specifically, Nick “highly recommended” Myatt’s work, or the catechism of the o9a in general. I’ve spent a few hours searching for this data and am worried it may have been scrubbed from the internet. Can anyone help me? 83.151.136.26 (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Unless a secondary source covered those forum posts, we couldn't really use it here anyway. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Federal bankrolling of Tempel ov Blood

Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that the FBI funded Tempel ov Blood and that Joshua Caleb Sutter was an informant/asset? It had been rumored for over a decade, was confirmed a year ago with a filing in the court case of Kaleb Cole and there are now reliable sources discussing it, some of which are below. One of the most important parts of the whole O9A story and I don't think it's possible to get a non-misleading picture from an article that neglects to mention it. Fundamentally changes how at least ToB, if not the whole O9A, has to be viewed and in a different media environment it would probably be one of the biggest FBI scandals in a decade or more, considering that the literature ToB published was not just neo-Nazi but extremely and graphically pro-pedophilia, rape, cannibalism etc. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/the-satanist-neo-nazi-plot-to-murder-u-s-soldiers-1352629/ https://nypost.com/2021/08/26/fbi-funded-neo-nazi-book-publisher-court-docs-reveal/ https://eu.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/nation/2022/06/09/fbi-informant-white-supremacist-atomwaffen/7237901001/ ThoroldWest (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@ThoroldWest: All the O9A-FBI and Myatt's Gladio connection allegations are such a huge can of worms I've steered clear of them. If you have a smart way to laying it all down, go right ahead. According to Eric Striker the US army has attempted to recruit veteran neo-Nazis and has promised cleartheir rap sheet in exchange for service. The US intelligence service/neo-Nazi connections go so deep it makes one's head spin, and its hard to tell which is just neo-Nazis talking crap and fedjacketing one another, and which is legitimate.RKT7789 (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@RKT7789:A can of worms is putting it mildly, it immediately takes you into some extremely strange and dark territory if you think through the implications. I was trying to keep my original comment in this topic to things that can be proven conclusively from reliable sources (by wikipedia's standards of reliability) but now that you've mentioned him, Eric Striker also claimed that there are allegations of actual, real world sexual abuse against Sutter floating around. And we know from ex-members and their own propaganda that ToB was torturing and brainwashing their own members, all while fawning over MK Ultra and guys like James Jesus Angleton. Of course Myatt, Chloe, Moult etc. aren't innocent in all this, they've all advocated sexual violence and pedophilia at various times and were all great friends of Sutter until it became undeniable that he was some sort of intelligence asset (Chloe was a big supporter of ToB even after that actually).

I think we're probably on roughly the same page about what it actually is given your last sentence. Don't need a tinfoil hat to see it as intelligence agencies running a terroristic Nazi sex cult, you just need to not be blind. And it's very far from the first time that's happened. This isn't even the first one that's been satanist lol. Obviously we can't go too far into stuff like Gladio, CHAOS, PTK etc. but I think if we just laid out the facts as they're presented in MSM articles about the Sutter thing, we'd be in the clear. It's an important aspect of the case and I don't think anyone's going to argue that Rolling Stone and USA Today don't meet WP:RS. The Gladio connection is more difficult because there's less information on it and because it can't be proven that O9A is an op or Myatt an asset simply because he was in a Gladio organization. But there are sources putting him in that Gladio organization and it's certainly worth adding them. Myatt's membership is talked about on the Column 88 article with respectable citations.

To my mind, the only question is the logistical one of where exactly in the article to put these things and whether to group them in the same section or not. My thought is to add the Column 88 stuff into the portion of the article where Myatt is introduced and then add a separate "Federal Involvement" section that goes into ToB being FBI-funded. A section which exists only to talk about FBI connections to Sutter/ToB isn't ideal but idk where else we could put it. You're certainly much more familiar with wikipedia than I am so I think your ideas will be better than mine when it comes to this and would be interested in hearing them. ThoroldWest (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

MLO Described as a 09A group

Why has MLO been involved as a 09A-group? The MLO has nothing to do with 09A but was founded by Swedes and works with different traditions and has not the same "goals" as 09A. The Nazis that are involved with 09A like traditions is more likely to be Black Order. 83.253.100.56 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

There's frequently overlap between O9A and ACS. A ton of the literature ToB published had an anticosmic bent, you occasionally see AWD/NSO post Liber Azerate, and a decent amount of ACS material shows clear influence from O9A, arguably including the original material. Falxifer was originally an O9A Dark God, Liber Azerate has a passage about how great Hitler was, iirc MLO stuff uses the term nexion even.

On a related note, O9A likes to claim that its magical system isn't influenced by Jewish occultism at all but this isn't true. The line "I will go down to the altars of hell" in the O9A black mass is a reversal of a line from a major Rosicrucian ritual according to Chloe in Nexion. The abyss is also clearly taken from Crowley and post-Crowleyan occultism, you're not going to find that concept in Cicero or the CH lol. ThoroldWest (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that those are superficial similarities. Just like O9A reworked Baphomet into a different character then it is in its original form. As for the actual teachings there are differences in rituals and the esoteric meaning of certain words. While both 09A and other groups (including Black Order which actually is the O9A like group that actually has a group in Sweden) are focused on developing a new form of human and the evolution, MLO seeks the destruction of cosmos. Noxaz (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine vs Russian Media

Do we really have no issue with characterizing Ukrainians as Nazis, with every bit of evidence coming from Russian tabloids and Russian state-owned media, in the middle of a Russian invasion whose pretext was eliminating Nazis? This seems like blatant propaganda, do these sources comply with Wikipedia standards? I feel like this section should be removed unless corroborated by an unbiased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheriffjt (talk • contribs) 19:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Finnish Ylioppilaslehti corroborates that there's ONA satanists in Azov. Azov's link to satanist Atomwaffen are well known so I believe it.RKT7789 (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't speak Finnish, but that source appears to say that they heard that was true but have been unable to confirm it. That doesn't seem to be confirming the claims made by the other untrusted sources, given that this was added to the article shortly after the invasion of Ukraine.Sheriffjt (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Komsomolskaya Pravda is definitely not a reliable source, it's a tabloid. Which makes the entire section suspect. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Citing WP:BOLD, I'm killing this entire section. (1) It uses WP:OR, since some of the sources (e.g. Haaretz) say nothing of ONA. (2) As noted above, Russian media is not even remotely reliable on the topic of "Satanism in Ukraine". (3) The Ylioppilaslehti article is neat, but this is just a student magazine; and in any case it's only talking about The Black Order, a group that "follows" the ONA and distributes its material. Conflation, synth, non-valid filler cites and Russian media suggest to me that this section is psyop. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Further to this: Yes, there are cites about Jarrett Smith, but only that A) he was an "adherent" of Current 218, and that he wanted to travel to Ukraine to join Azov. That's not enough to establish there is a "Ukrainian offshoot" without a heaping dollop of WP:SYNTH and parenthetical references to Russian media. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems fair enough to me.RKT7789 (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Note, if there is an actual offshoot of ONA in Ukraine, and if the synthesis & research is completely handled by a reliable third-party source that can fully support the re-addition, I'm not against re-adding. But I think ONA as such died with David Myatt's onward journey (though I'm not up-to-date on them anymore), and I'd rather see info about Current 218, Atomwaffen or Black Order go into its own article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hvile I Kaos

The band Hvile I Kaos is listed as an o9a band, as mentioned in the 2018 LA Weekly article, but they've since departed and made a point of distancing themselves, not only from the o9a but from anything remotely far right or fascist in nature. They've made multiple statements about this on social media, and even the Quietus article from 2018 documents their departure in a footnote at the bottom of the article. Given the effort they've gone to in order to sever those ties, it seems only fair this article should be updated to accommodate that. Cbrowncello (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

If there are any articles reporting on this, that would help tremendously. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Michael W. Ford link

The Michael W. Ford link failed because it did not contain his middle initial. It has been added; thus, it is now an up-and-running, valid link. 2600:8800:FF0B:1400:34B4:E955:E1BB:11F9 (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You’re most welcome. 2600:8800:FF0B:1400:34B4:E955:E1BB:11F9 (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Complete overhaul

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In my opinion this entire article needs a complete rewrite. As discussed in previous posts, there's no objective evidence or reliable sources that O9A ever existed as a real group, that it was ever anything more than the invention of one man's writing. The wording of the article should be changed to assume, based on what can be assumed within reason, that O9A only "started" in the 1980s (if even that early) and is more or less just a fiction created by David Myatt and propagated by largely unrelated groups of fans on the internet. The myth and mystique that's built up around them over the years is a big farce. 2600:8801:710D:EA00:1415:F860:B955:B995 (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I think everyone agrees they were founded in 1973 by David Myatt. Is your claim forward that they don’t exist now? Can you provide sources on their non existence? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle:I hate to assume bad faith, but the O9A people always love to claim O9A doesn't exist, its just an idea, because they're on the cusp of being declared a terrorist organization by the British government. You go to any O9A virtual space and see this claim a lot. O9A is made up of nexions instead of a colossal organization though they do have common leaders, so O9A folks are just being really disingenuous. It's like saying Protestantism doesn't exist because there are many smaller churches instead of one colossal one like in Catholicism (simplifying it a bit).RKT7789 (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know anything about that. I just know that 95% of this page as it currently exists is just overwritten lore that relies too heavily on O9A propaganda, satanic panic "journalism" and kooky niche scholarship. I skimmed the edit history and it seems like earlier versions (prior to around 2015) were more appropriate in terms of both length and tone, explaining the subject concisely without taking it too seriously or uncritically. I'm merely skeptical of the massive amount of dubiously founded weight given to this obscure group of edgelords, and if you're first reaction to skepticism is to assume I'm one of their disinfo agents then that says a lot about the encyclopedic standards of this article. 2600:8801:710D:EA00:3CAC:AB5:9C27:C9C7 (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inclusion of Individualists Tending to the Wild as allies

The infobox claims this organization as an 'ally', giving in the body of the article a source that claims that a 'purported leader' said that they had taken inspiration from the Order. See, the source says that this person claimed to have taken 'some organizational experiences', which can be quite distinct from an ideological proximity. I think its not accurate to state some kind of 'alliance' between them on this base. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

ITS released a communique celebrating the Christchurch shooting, they're precisely similar anti-civ accelerationist fascists.RKT7789 (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)