O9A. One Image, Ten Thousand Words

O9A Insight Role

 

In The Anonymous Denigration Of Myatt section of our article Modern Satanists And The Green-Eyed Monster we made mention of some allegations about Myatt by some anonymous propagandist and gave facts, omitted by the anonymous propagandist, regarding Myatt’s life. In another more recent article titled Suspicious Propaganda And The Exeatic Life of David Myatt, JB mentioned those comments, and concluded that in her opinion:

“in Myatt you have someone who seems to fit the profile of what an ONA person is or should be, regardless of whether he was or wasn’t Anton Long. That, at least to me and some others, make him someone to be admired and – perhaps – emulated.

That article by JB obviously upset the anonymous propagandist who replied with an article of his/her own, posted on his/her blog. In which article the anonymous propagandist again repeated his/her allegations and made the very silly blunder of claiming that Myatt was never interviewed by the BBC in the year 2000. This led to an exchange of opinions in the ‘comments’ section of his/her blog with the anonymous propagandist resorting to his/her usual tactic of ignoratio elenchi, writing that:

I wonder why even mildest criticism of Myatt and debunking his mythos bothers you. Oh wait, it’s rather obvious

To which we responded:

Once again you fail to admit your mistakes and instead of answering questions about why you continually attack and besmirch Myatt you (yet again) use ignoratio elenchi in an attempt to deflect attention away from yourself.

This led to a further exchange of comments, with the anonymous propagandist of course committing (yet again) the fallacies of argumentum ad hominem, ignoratio elenchi, and argumentum ad nauseam, the latter of which involved the anonymous propagandist repeating their mantra that they are only, really, truly, “demolishing the myths and legends that surround Myatt.”

There are no “myths and legends” surrounding Myatt; no need for such things because the documented facts of his life say all that needs to be said about him. Which is why, of course, the anonymous propagandist tries to discredit some of the sources that document aspects of Myatt’s life, writing as the anonymous propagandist does of “tabloid bloggers and shitty journalists and gullible academics.”

As a summary of the matter of the anonymous denigration of Myatt, and as an expose of the anonymous propagandist, we publish here a detailed reply addressed to him/her:


[quote]
Yet again you ignore the mistakes and the omissions you made about Myatt’s life. Instead, and as usual, you employ ignoratio elenchi and abusive ad hominem hoping that the attention of your readers will be diverted away from you and focus instead on the person who exposed your mistakes and omissions.

Judging by the replies here and elsewhere it’s a successful tactic. Which reveals just how gullible some people are.

It’s a tactic also used by self-described satanists when they, having written in derogatory terms about Myatt and the ONA, are taken to task for their errors and omissions and propaganda.

You wrote about Myatt’s life that {quote} The rest is mythos deliberately perpetrated… {/quote}

Which well describes how you and many latter-day satanists talk about Myatt. You and they perpetrate a myth about Myatt which you and they deliberately, month after month and year after year, propagate.

Your shared myth about Myatt goes like this (and we are paraphrasing your own words), “All Myatt ever did was take part in some minor street fights…talk to some Muslim friends, read Quran, attend mosques and participate in some Muslim forum…and write loads of propaganda.”

This myth – by omitting many documented facts about Myatt’s life – is meant to bring him down to the low level of the likes of Levey and try to show that he had an unremarkable rather ordinary life, and that – in your words – “he’s just an ordinary chap.”

You, however, omit Myatt’s violent years – during which he was arrested and convicted at least six times, and for which violence he served two terms of imprisonment.

You omit Myatt’s upbringing in Africa and the Far East and the fact that he attended a private prep school.

You omit Myatt’s leadership of a gang of thieves for which he was arrested and convicted on almost sixteen counts of “handling and receiving” stolen goods.

You omit what one academic described as “his global odyssey which took him on extended stays in the Middle East and East Asia, accompanied by studies of religions ranging from Christianity to Islam in the Western tradition and Taoism and Buddhism in the Eastern path. In the course of this Siddhartha-like search for truth, Myatt sampled the life of the monastery in both its Christian and Buddhist forms.”

You omit the dawn raid on his four-bedroom detached village house and his arrest there by a Special Operations police unit in 1998 on charges of incitement to murder and his three years on bail following that arrest during which time detectives from Scotland Yard worked with the FBI, Interpol, and RCMP, to find evidence sufficient to convict Myatt in a court of law.

You omit his intellectualism, evident in his translation of and commentary on three of the tractates of the Corpus Hermeticism.

You omit that he publicly and under his real name, and when it was unpopular and dangerous to do so, defended the 9/11 attacks and bin Laden and thus made himself liable to arrest and imprisonment. You omit that he travelled in Muslim lands preaching Jihad when it was dangerous to do so given the Western invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. You omit that an article he wrote about Jihad was for years on the website of Hamas.

You omit his poetry, his published letters, and his post-2011 (rather intellectual) philosophy of pathei mathos. You omit many other documented facts about his life.

Little wonder then, given the facts of his complex, rather extreme and far from ordinary life, why one academic described David Myatt as an “extremely violent, intelligent, dark, and complex individual.”

It’s also little wonder why some ONA people – and some academics – consider his documented life as a practical example of what following the ONA Seven Fold Way to the stage of Magus means in real life.

Which brings us to the real reason why you and self-described satanists assiduously propagate your demeaning myth about Myatt. Because if Myatt really was Anton Long, with his life a practical example of the ONA Seven Fold Way, then his life debunks all your and their lies and propaganda about the Order of Nine Angles. Revealing as such a life does what the ONA, and what being ONA, means and implies.

Finally, not content with omitting numerous facts about Myatt’s life you try, just like a propagandist addicted to weasel-words, to discredit objective sources of information about Myatt’s life, calling such sources “tabloid bloggers and shitty journalists and gullible academics.”

All of which are indicative of not only the type of person behind your pseudonym but also of your motives and that of so many self-described satanists.

[/quote]

 

Conclusion

As noted in the above quote, the real reason why the anonymous propagandist – and self-described satanists in general – assiduously propagate their demeaning myth about Myatt is because if Myatt really was Anton Long, with his life a practical example of the ONA Seven Fold Way, then his life debunks all their lies and propaganda about the Order of Nine Angles, revealing as such a life does what the ONA, and what being ONA, means and implies in the real world.

 


Article source: https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2017/01/14/concerning-an-anonymous-propagandist/


Advertisements
Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

I personally find it most interesting – and indicative – how many self-described satanists, how many internet trolls, how many Levey-supporters, and how many suspicious (perhaps government sponsored?) interlopers, continue to try – and have for years tried – to discredit Mr David Myatt.

For example, some anti-Myatt anonymous propagandist last year wrote on some ‘satanist blog’ that:

{quote} One rumor is that Myatt inspired the bomber Copeland [but] all we have is the gossip of the leftist morons from Searchlight. {/quote}

To which someone O9A replied:

{quote}
No [you are wrong, for] there is the research carried out by the BBC TV program Panorama for their [2000 televised] Copeland documentary; there is the view of several well-respected academics (such as Professor Mark Wietzman), and there is the evidence gathered by the ‘anti-terrorism’ branch at Scotland Yard (then named SO13) who interviewed Myatt, under caution, several times after Copeland’s arrest in 1999. As with Myatt’s arrest in 1998 (by SO12, aka Special Branch) for conspiracy to murder, the CPS concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove his guilt in an English court of law. Plus, Myatt was on bail for over three years, having to regularly attend Charing Cross police station in London as part of his bail conditions.

What evidence there is, or was, in the matter of Copeland could be found by an accredited academic or by an accredited researcher writing a biography of Myatt.

As for your repeated quips about Myatt ‘fan boys’ (or fan girls) hyping Myatt and contrasting him with Howard Stanton Levey, what is documented about Myatt’s life puts him way beyond Levey in terms of living an exeatic, weird, violent, antinomian, life. There is no need for them – or anyone – to use unsubstantiated rumors or allegations made by journalists or the likes of Searchlight. Just presenting the documented facts about Myatt’s life is enough to make Levey seem, by comparison, just a showman and a wuss.

For example [Myatt has] convictions and imprisonment for violence, 1972: documented in court proceedings, prison records, and newspapers. Conviction for leading a gang of thieves in 1974 and being a fence: documented in court proceedings (sentenced to 18 months in prison, suspended for 2 years), police records/interviews, newspaper reports. Arrested in 1998 for conspiracy to murder: documented in police records (Scotland Yard, the operation was code-named Periphery), documented in custody records at Malvern and Charing Cross police stations. Founded and led the NSM, documented by several academics. Publicly supported bin Laden and the Taliban before and after 9/11: documented by several academics, by proceedings of NATO conferences, by newspaper reports. Having his writings justifying suicide attacks used by groups like Hamas: documented by several academics, and by proceedings of NATO conferences. And so on, and so on.

Also Myatt’s documented intellectualism – as in his Greek translations and commentaries, and books such as “Religion, Empathy, and Pathei-Mathos” – makes Levey seem, by comparison, a pretentious pseudo-intellectual.
{/quote}

But whatever self-described ‘satanists’, and others, may think of David Myatt – and regardless of whether he is or was Mr Anton Long – he most certainly has lived an exeatic life under his real name: from neo-nazi activist to leader of a criminal gang to preaching Jihad in Arab lands to publicly defending the likes of bin Laden and the Taliban when it was unpopular and very dangerous to do so.

Add to that that he’s regarded by academics as “England’s principal proponent of contemporary neo-Nazi ideology and theoretician of revolution” and you have someone who seems to fit the profile of what an ONA person is or should be, regardless of whether he was or wasn’t “Anton Long”.

That, at least to me and some others, make him someone to be admired and – perhaps – emulated.

JB
2017 ev

°°°°°

Update, 11 January 2017: In reply to this post, the anonymous internet troll who uses the nym Anna Czereda – who regularly posts on ‘satanist’ and occult internet forums and who may or may not be Polish and who may or may not be female – wrote an article on his/her blog. In reply we posted, in the comments section, the following which we reproduce here in full, with a few typos corrected and one or two insertions for context.

[quote]

My Dear Anonymous You,

Thank you for treating us to yet another diatribe full of your personal opinions about Mr Myatt and the Order of Nine Angles.

Accusations were made about Myatt and the point of our “wyrdsister” article (perhaps that should be our wyrdsisters article) was that you et al steadfastly ignored the documented life of David Myatt. As documented for example in books by academics, in contemporary newspaper accounts, in a television documentary, and in official police and Court records. Documents that are available to researchers and to any accredited academic and to any accredited historian who desires to write a biography of Myatt.

You gave your personal opinion about Myatt without apparently doing any research “in the real world”. Of course you – anonymous you – are entitled to your internet presented opinion, as others are. But neither you nor to our knowledge anyone else has done any [detailed] research “in the real world” into the life of Mr Myatt. So your opinion is just your internet presented personal opinion.

In our article we gave details of where anyone interested in researching the life of Myatt can find the relevant documents. So, just what are you complaining about?

You wrote: “Wyrdsister goes on to hype David Myatt.”  As we mentioned, there is no need whatsoever for anyone to hype Mr Myatt for his exeatic life – when objectively studied – is sufficient of itself to show how much he differs from the much-hyped Howard Stanton Levey.

You also wrote: “the blog in question didn’t compare and contrast the sinister achievements of  Myatt and LaVey.” So what? Our post was about Myatt and about accusations made about him, with Myatt’s documented life sufficient to show that – regardless of whether Myatt was or wasn’t the mythical Anton Long – he makes Howard Stanton Levey look like a charlatan and a wuss.

That you et al – who criticize and who write diatribes about Myatt – never ever admit you’re not in full possession of all the facts about Myatt’s life is perhaps the most relevant fact about such criticism and such diatribes.

[/quote]


Article source: https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2017/01/07/suspicious-propaganda/


 

 

Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

[quote]
Evola re-interprets the notion of War as a metaphysical duty. At the centre of a traditional society Evola locates a spiritual elite from which warriors derive their ultimate reason of being, their supreme justification of their actions. According to the traditional concept the warrior does not fight as a servile caste, is not a ‘profession’ or a mercenary as in a capitalist system. The warrior caste has its own spiritual and distinct way of living, its own rituals, and the act of fighting becomes a spiritual practice. This can be compared to the cult of Eastern combat which integrates fighting techniques with the Numinous. This is the definition of metaphysical warriorship.

[David] Myatt’s life has been a supreme example of this kind of exeatic and metaphysical living, and the West was clearly not ready to accept such a living as an example of a regeneration of the European man and his Volk. Georges Bataille was also drawn to this kind of living although he would not have supported the choices made by Myatt. Nevertheless the mysticism of Myatt, his Numinous Living, is a grand example of an ongoing Innerer Krieg and an ongoing influence of the sinister forces of the Sphere of Mars. Evola talks about ‘a spiritualized personality’, namely a personality realized according to its supernatural (metaphysical) destiny.
[/quote]


Source: https://ecstatic-darkness.com/2016/12/28/the-sphere-of-war/


Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

David Myatt, Reichsfolk, Esoteric Hitlerism, and Savitri Devi

David Myatt: One Man Above Time
(pdf)

 


David Myatt

David Myatt

 

It is interesting and perhaps instructive to compare the stories of Joe Pierce, a former member of the National Front (NF), and David Myatt, founder of the 1970s NDFM (National Democratic Freedom Movement) and the 1990s National-Socialist Movement (NSM), convert to Islam, and public supporter of terrorism.

In summary, Pierce gained a certain notoriety in the late 1970s as editor of the NF zine Bulldog; was twice sent to prison for short periods for inciting racial hatred, became a friend of Nick Griffin, moved to Northern Ireland for a while to support Protestant groups against the IRA, then later on (as so many reprobates seem to do) found God, became a practising Catholic, was fêted by the Catholic Church, by the media, and by Establishment figures, gave public lectures, wrote about his experience, and was given a sinecure in academia. His life story is told in Race with the Devil: My Journey from Racial Hatred to Rational Love published by St. Benedict’s Press, and he is written about in glowing terms by journalists and academics alike.

In summary, Myatt was active in neo-nazi politics for some thirty years, was sent to prison twice for violence, organized and led a gang of criminals, founded the short-lived but violent NDFM, became for around two years a Catholic monk before returning to neo-nazi politics; was a member of Combat 18, founded and led the NSM; is notorious for writing the terrorist manual that inspired the London nail-bomber David Copeland; became “England’s principal proponent of contemporary neo-Nazi ideology and theoretician of revolution” {1}; has been accused of being the founder of the Occult group the Order of Nine Angles (O9A); converted to Islam and publicly supported al-Qaida and the Taliban, wrote one the most detailed defences, in English, of suicide attacks (an article used by the terrorist group Hamas), translated Ancient Greek literature, became an apostate from Islam, developed his own mystical philosophy centred about empathy and compassion. He wrote about his life in his autobiography Myngath, published in 2013 {2} and has written extensively about why he rejected extremism in books such as Understanding and Rejecting Extremism: A Very Strange Peregrination, published in 2013.

Unlike Pierce, Myatt – despite his more interesting and more violent past, his more diverse experiences over some forty years, his greater notoriety, his extensive writings as a neo-nazi ideologue, his far greater involvement with terrorism – was and is shunned by Establishment figures, is ignored by academics, and when mentioned by journalists or in mainstream books it is often in a derogatory and/or prejudiced manner and often accompanied by the unproven allegation of him being involved with the O9A.

Why the disparity, given that both by their own admission are reformed racists who regret their extremist pasts? Why the disparity in their treatment by the Establishment especially as Myatt is considered as having been “one of the more interesting figures on the British neo-Nazi scene since the 1970s” {3}{4}{5} whose active involvement with extremism lasted for some forty years while Pierce was a minor figure on the far-right whose involvement with extremism lasted for a far shorter period of time.

My surmise is that the disparity is due to the fact that Pierce is now part of the Establishment – a publicly repentant sinner who has accepted the Christian God and who continues to write, and continues to publicly speak about, what the Establishment approves of – while Myatt is a recluse whose mystical philosophy (the way of pathei-mathos) is essentially pagan. In addition, there is (i) the fact that Myatt has made – both as a neo-nazi and as a radical Muslim – powerful and influential enemies whose mottos are “Never again” and “Never forget, never forgive”, and (ii) that Myatt’s neo-nazi writings (despite his disavowal of them) still resonant with some people within the neo-nazi community, and (iii) that so many people within the modern Satanist and Occult movements continue to believe (without any evidence) that Myatt is Anton Long and the founder of and the driving force behind the subversive, anti-Establishment, Order of Nine Angles.

Myatt thus seems to have become, by some individuals involved with some sub-cultures (occult and otherwise) not only some sort of iconoclastic anti-Establishment figure but also disliked and reviled by many more individuals around the world who have apparently developed a prejudice against him. Thus Pierce is given the benefit of the doubt, and believed, while Myatt is not.

Unless and until there is a critical, scholarly, biography (or two) of Myatt then this prejudiced view of Myatt by so many people is unlikely to change in any significant way. But what is certain is that his many detractors do aid the growth of the now well-established ‘Myatt mythos’.

RS
July 2016

{1} Michael, George. The New Media and the Rise of Exhortatory Terrorism. Strategic Studies Quarterly (USAF), Volume 7 Issue 1, Spring 2013.
{2} Myngath: Some Recollections of a Wyrdful and Extremist Life. ISBN 978-1484110744. A review of Myngath is here: https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/a-review-of-myngath/
{3} The Observer, February 9, 2003.
{4} Arkadiusz Sołtysiak. Neopogaństwo i neonazizm: Kilka słów o ideologiach Davida Myatta i Varga Vikernesa. Antropologia Religii. Wybór esejów. Tom IV, (2010), s. 173-182
{5} Jeffrey Kaplan (ed.). David Wulstan Myatt, in Encyclopedia of White Power. A Sourcebook on the Radical Racist Right. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA 2000, p. 216ff; p.514f


O9A. One Image, Ten Thousand Words

 

O9A: Managing The Chaos?
(pdf)


Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

Todos los textos aquí presentados fueron escritos originalmente por David Myatt, un antiguo teórico y activista Nacionalsocialista, con años de militancia en diversos grupos, afines al Hitlerismo Esotérico, el Nacionalsocialismo y el racialismo identitario blanco, de la talla de la Orden de los Nueve Ángulos, el Movimiento Nacional Socialista del Reino Unido, Reichsfolk y Combat 18, entre otros. David Myatt es uno de los teóricos contemporáneos más reconocidos del movimiento NS moderno, con una cantidad impresionante de textos sobre la materia, aunque actualmente es usado como referencia histórica, ya que en años recientes, Myatt abandonó y desconoció sus trabajos sobre el tema, apostando por una nueva filosofía personal que desarrolló bajo el nombre de “Filosofía de Pathei-Mathos”.

Cabe mencionar que David Myatt se alejó del espectro Nacionalsocialista y abrazó completamente el Islam en 1998, después de estudiarlo durante un tiempo y encontrar afinidades con la lucha NS contra el Marxismo, el Capitalismo y el Sionismo, y entender la Yihad práctica de los musulmanes como una de las muy pocas verdaderas acciones de activismo en el mundo contra estos males y sus patrocinadores, así como comprender que el Islam es una religión que ensalza el honor, la lealtad, la razón y el respeto, entre otras cosas, justo como lo hace la cosmovisión tradicional Nacionalsocialista, a la cual se había adherido durante décadas.

Puede decirse que Myatt es una pieza clave dentro de la doctrina NS dirigida a las generaciones post-NSDAP, pues sus obras escritas son muy bien recibidas en el mundo NS de habla inglesa. Además, también se considera que Myatt -o Abdul-Aziz Ibn Myatt, después de convertirse al Islam-, es quien más ha contribuido a crear una síntesis y un entendimiento entre quienes se dicen Nacionalsocialistas, y los musulmanes.

Al hacer una lectura biográfica de David Myatt, uno puede encontrar que no se trata del típico militante Nacionalsocialista, ni del típico teórico islámico. De hecho, algo de lo que más ha causado controversia en torno a la figura de Myatt, es que su “búsqueda por el sentido definitivo de la vida”, lo llevó a ser monje cristiano, budista, taoísta, pagano y finalmente musulmán, sin omitir su paso por el activismo pro-NS. Por ello, Myatt ha llegado a ser visto como alguien inestable, que fue “cambiando de bando” una y otra vez con el paso de los años, hasta llegar a ser, finalmente, una especie de pacifista, rechazador del “extremismo” y la violencia en cualquiera de sus formas, con su propia visión del mundo y de la vida.

Pero cabe aclarar, que Myatt terminó rechazando el aspecto racialista del Nacionalsocialismo y el “extremismo” del “Islam radical” sólo después de sufrir un grave shock que lo llevaría a “reevaluar” su vida y todo lo que había hecho durante ella.

Y es que la vida personal de David Myatt no fue nada fácil, y al menos en una ocasión anterior se supo de un shock emocional suyo: En 1990, cuando se acababa de mudar a Malvern, para vivir y trabajar, Myatt destruyó sus copias personales de la poesía que había escrito (Myatt también es poeta), calificándolos de “autoindulgentes y decadentes”, añadiendo que “la vida personal está muerta”, expresando finalmente, su deseo (que no cumplió) de no escribir poesía de nuevo.

Este episodio, de acuerdo con JR Wright -la biógrafa de Myatt-, pudo haber sido el resultado de la muerte de su segunda esposa, a causa del cáncer, cuando tenía sólo 39 años de edad, siendo su primer matrimonio un fracaso, después de que su pareja se fugara con una mujer más joven.

Sin embargo, el shock que en este caso nos interesa, y que llevó a este personaje a “reevaluar” su vida y alejarse del Islam definitivamente, fue el suicidio de su prometida Francine, en 2006.

David Myatt ha aceptado abiertamente que este suceso cambió radicalmente su concepción de la vida, llevándolo incluso a un punto muy fuerte de inestabilidad emocional. Por ejemplo, una de las primeras cosas que hizo Myatt, poco después del suicidio de su prometida, fue ir a la iglesia católica más cercana, a encender una vela -a su nombre- en la Capilla de la Virgen María, aun cuando sabía que seguía siendo musulmán y que lo esperado, era ir a una Mezquita o hacer una súplica a Allah.

Así, el suicidio de Francine, llevaría a nuestro personaje a una reflexión de aproximadamente 3 años, durante los cuales se seguiría mostrando como musulmán, aunque esto cambiaría en 2010, cuando Myatt anuncia haber abandonado el Islam, para centrarse exclusivamente en su personal “Filosofía de Pathei-Mathos”.

Si bien la vida de David Myatt dio giros radicales una y otra vez -sobre todo, por cuestiones profundamente emocionales y de gran impacto-, es de reconocer que sus obras, tanto en el ámbito Nacionalsocialista, como en el Islámico, son un referente de gran calidad para quienes desean conocer la más vasta teoría condensada entre el NS y el Islam, creada de la mano de quien fuera uno de los Nacionalsocialistas más importantes del Reino Unido, y después, uno de los musulmanes fundamentalistas más conocidos en el mundo occidental, no sólo por su defensa de la Yihad antisionista, sino por la magnificencia de su obra escrita, en apoyo a un Islam puro, el establecimiento de un Califato, y la gobernanza de la Shariah.

Nosotros rescatamos una pequeña parte de sus textos -ya escritos como musulmán y dirigidos para Nacionalsocialistas y afines- y los compartimos (aun sabiendo que el propio autor se deslinda actualmente de ellos, en pos de su inclinación pacifista) simplemente porque forman la mejor contribución en el tema que alguien haya podido dar jamás.

°°°°°

Editorial Note: Myatt’s National-Socialist Guide To Islam is available as a pdf document here:  ns-guide-islam.pdf


Article source:
http://guerra-de-civilizaciones.blogspot.com/2016/05/la-guia-nacionalsocialista-para.html


Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

Editorial Note:
Below is a link to a pdf version of David Myatt’s 2012 text In Explanation Of Humility and The Need for Tolerance: With Reference to Islam, which text – as he explains – is taken “from a reply sent, in November of 2012, to a personal correspondent living in America who enquired about my peregrinations among various religions; about why – as mentioned in previous correspondence – I still respected the Muslim way of life; and about my response to the particular criticism that Islam encourages terrorism.”

Four years on, the text is even more relevant given the continuing (sometimes violent) anti-Muslim sentiment that pervades certain sections of societies in Europe, Britain, and America. In 2013, Myatt would incorporate a revised version of parts of the text into the Questions of Good, Evil, Honour, and God section of his book Religion, Empathy, and Pathei-Mathos.

°°°°°
With Reference To Islam
(pdf)

David Myatt
A Review of David Myatt’s ‘Good, Evil, Honour, and God’

Introduction

Controversial, iconoclastic, and much maligned as David Myatt is, and metaphysical as his philosophy of pathei-mathos appears to be, it is my contention that Myatt’s 2013 text Questions of Good, Evil, Honour, and God {1} can provide some valuable insights regarding – and a new moral perspective in relation to – current events, especially given the comments and dehortations made, for well over a decade, regarding religious extremism and terrorism.

Such comments and dehortations – by government officials, the Media, and others – have intensified following recent attacks on Western interests, and citizens, in Tunisia, France, and elsewhere, with several government officials, and journalists, repeatedly using the word ‘evil’ to describe both such attacks and the individuals responsible for them, and with the consensus being that governments, police forces, intelligence agencies, other government institutions and even the armed forces, need to ‘”do more – and have more resources – to tackle and counter terrorism and extremism and prevent radicalization,” which often means in practice the introduction of more legislation, the arrest and imprisonment of those proven to be or suspected of being “supporters of terrorism”, de-radicalization programmes, mass surveillance by intelligence agencies, and supporting or facilitating or directly engaging in military action against “extremists and terrorists” in certain foreign countries.


A Different Perspective

In his Introduction, Myatt asks a rhetorical question:

“Can we as a species change, sans a belief in some reward or the threat of punishment – be such karmic, eschatological, or deriving from something such as a State – or are we fated, under Sun, to squabble and bicker and hate and kill and destroy and exploit this planet and its life until we, a failed species, leave only dead detritic traces of our hubris?”

He then goes on to offer his own answer, or rather provides a perspective which, as described in Questions of Good, Evil, Honour, and God, is different and possibly unique, for it is – as he admits in his Understanding and Rejecting Extremism: A Very Strange Peregrination – the result of his

“forty years as a practical extremist [and] forty years of practical experience of extremism and of other extremists; a practical experience that began in 1968 and ranged from fascism, and the racism of National-Socialism, to radical Islam and which practical experience included founding and leading a political organization; producing propaganda, organizing activities and demonstrations, some of which ended in violence; speaking in public and participating in marches, demonstrations, and brawls; formulating extremist ideology; imprisonment for racist and other violence; participating in and recruiting for paramilitary activities; inciting hatred, violence and prejudice; engaging in criminal activities to fund extremist causes; encouraging and supporting terrorism; and so on.

My conclusions regarding extremism resulted from some years of moral, personal, and philosophical questioning and reflexion; a questioning whose genesis was a personal tragedy in 2006, and which questioning led me a few years later to reject all forms of extremism and develope my own weltanschauung – the philosophy of pathei-mathos – based on the virtues of empathy, compassion, and humility.” {2}

Given this experience, and given the erudition evident in his Questions of Good, Evil, Honour, and God, his views certainly merit serious consideration.

Thus, in respect of Islam, he writes that

“the problem with jurisprudence, Muslim and Christian, is and was our fallible, human, understanding of the revelation, of the original message; a problem classically understood in Islam by the distinction made by Muslim scholars between fiqh – our fallible understanding and attempts at interpretation – and Shariah, the divine and perfect guidance given by Allah, based as fiqh (classical Islamic jurisprudence) is on the principles of acceptance of diversity (of scholarly opinion), on custom [لعادة محكمة], and on reasoned deductions by individuals that are stated to be fallible and thus not immutable. A distinction that allows for reasoned change, accepts the necessity of diverse opinions, the necessity of individual independent scholarly judgement in trials, arbitrations, and determining penalties, and manifests both the non-hierarchical nature of the religion of Islam and the original understanding of the good and the bad.

In modern times, in the Muslim world, this necessary distinction between fiqh and Shariah, this allowance for reasoned change based on diverse scholarly opinion, and the necessity of individual independent scholarly judgement in trials, arbitrations, and determining penalties, often seems to be overlooked when attempts are made by governments in Muslim lands to introduce ‘Shariah law’ with the result that inflexible penal codes and immutable penalties are introduced backed by the claim, contrary to fiqh, that such governments have a mandate to impose and enforce such dogmatical interpretations as are an inevitable part of such government-sponsored codified law.”

Which presents an informed, a reasoned, view – based on personal experience, and learning – on how to possibly counter the extremism currently evident in groups such as ad-Dawlah al-Islamiyyah fī al-Iraq wa ash-Sham, commonly but incorrectly referred to as ‘Islamic State’. Which informed view is of supporting, in Muslim lands and elsewhere, classical Islamic jurisprudence and thus the independence, the authority, the learning, of the Qadi.

After analysing how Christianity, Islam, and the modern State, and their respective jurisprudence, view and have viewed ‘good and evil’ – an analysis complete with quotations in Ancient Greek and Arabic and occasionally in Hebrew, together with his own translations – Myatt presents his alternative: what he terms ‘the culture of pathei-mathos’, which he defines – in several of his writings, such as his Education And The Culture of Pathei-Mathos – as

“the accumulated pathei-mathos of individuals, world-wide, over thousands of years, as (i) described in memoirs, aural stories, and historical accounts; as (ii) have inspired particular works of literature or poetry or drama; as (iii) expressed via non-verbal mediums such as music and Art, and as (iv) manifest in more recent times by ‘art-forms’ such as films and documentaries. The culture of pathei-mathos thus includes not only traditional accounts of, or accounts inspired by, personal pathei-mathos, old and modern – such as the With The Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa by Eugene Sledge, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and the poetry of people as diverse as Sappho and Sylvia Plath – but also works or art-forms inspired by such pathei-mathos, whether personal or otherwise, and whether factually presented or fictionalized. Hence films such as Monsieur Lazhar and Etz Limon may poignantly express something about our φύσις as human beings and thus form part of the culture of pathei-mathos.” {3}

In a memorable passage from Good, Evil, Honour, and God, he writes that:

“Gandhi, motivated by a desire for communal change and a vision of the future, more recently wrote that civilization, correctly understood, does not mean and does not require cities and centralized government and vast industries – and thus a modern State – but rather means and requires a certain personal moral conduct, a “mastery over our mind and our passions”, non-violence, the simplicity of village life, and communities voluntarily cooperating together in pursuit of collective, and personal, development.”

For he argues that the culture of pathei-mathos – to which Gandhi made a significant contribution – is an alternative to these two influential but similar ontologies of (a) The State, and (b) conventional religions such as Christianity and Islam, both “with their powerful entities, their guidance, their punishments and rewards, and the progression of individuals toward some-thing which the powerful entity asserts or promises it can provide.”

In effect, Myatt suggests that the answer to religious and political extremism and to terrorism lies not with governments and their laws, their police and armed forces, and their institutions, all of which he describes, in the perspective of our human ‘culture of pathei-mathos’, as transient. Rather, that it lies in the wisdom evident in that thousands of years old ‘culture of pathei-mathos’ whose different ontology is:

“the ontology of the illusion of self and of the unity, sans denotatum, of all living beings; of how we – presenced as human beings – can and do affect, and have affected, other life including other humans, often in ways we are not aware of; and of how our perception of I and of ‘them’ (the separation-of-otherness) has often led to us affecting other life in a harmful way, thus causing or contributing to or being the genesis of suffering, for that other life and often for ourselves. The ontology where there is no distinction, in being, between us – the emanations – and what emanates; there is only the appearance of difference due to our use of a causal-only perception and of denotatum.”

This necessitates a moral reformation of ourselves as individuals, for:

“there is in this culture of pathei-mathos a particular ethos: the tone of harmony, ἁρμονίη; of a natural balance, or rather of how certain human actions are hubris – ὕβρις – and not only disrupt this needful harmony but also cause or contribute to suffering. Of the importance, and perhaps the primacy, of human love; of how Eris is the child of Polemos and Hubris, and of how a lovelorn Polemos follows Hubris around, never requited. Of how the truths of religions and spiritual ways are, in their genesis, basically simple, always numinous, and most probably the same: guides to living in such a way that we can rediscover the natural balance, appreciate the numinous, and avoid hubris.

All of which lead to an understanding of (i) how good and bad are not ‘out there’ and cannot be manifest or assumed to be manifest in some form, by some ideation, or in ‘them’ (the others), without causing or contributing to or being the genesis of suffering, but instead are within us as individuals, a part of our nature, our character, our φύσις, and often divergently expressed; and (ii) of how, in my view at least, personal honour and not a codified law, not a jurisprudence, is the best, the most excellent, way to define and manifest this ‘good’, with honour understood, as in my philosophy of pathei-mathos, as an instinct for and an adherence to what is fair, dignified, and valourous. An honourable person is thus someone of manners, fairness, reasoned judgement, and valour; with honour being a means to live, to behave, in order to avoid committing the folly, the error, of ὕβρις; in order try and avoid causing suffering, and in order to rediscover, to acquire, ἁρμονίη, that natural balance that presences the numinous (sans denotatum and sans dogma) and thus reveals what is important about life and about being human.

For, in effect, the truths concerning honour and dishonour, and of our propensity for both honour and dishonour, are the essence of what we can learn from the supra-national, the living, and the thousands of years old, human culture of pathei-mathos.”

Importantly, he writes that what he is suggesting is just

“an alternative way that compliments and is respectful of other answers, other choices, and of other ways of dealing with issues such as the suffering that afflicts others, the harm that humans do so often inflict and have for so long inflicted upon others. The personal non-judgemental way, of presumption of innocence and of wu-wei, balanced by, if required, a personal valourous, an honourable, intervention in a personal situation in the immediacy of the moment.”

Personal Honour

In practical terms, the reformation that the culture of pathei-mathos suggests is, according to Myatt, simply an acceptance of personal honour, and thus it is:

“for each of us to gently try to carry that necessary harmony, that balance, of δίκη, wordlessly within; to thus restrain ourselves from causing harm while being able, prepared, in the immediacy of the moment, to personally, physically, restrain – prevent – others when we chance upon such harm being done. This, to me, is Life in its wholesome natural fullness – as lived, presenced, by the brief, mortal, consciously aware, emanations we are; mortal emanations capable of restraint, reason, culture, and reforming change; of learning from our pathei-mathos and that of others […] The answer which is to live in hope – even need – of a personal loyal love; to live with empathy, gentleness, humility, compassion, and yet with strength enough to do what should be done when, within the purvue of our personal space, we meet with one or many causing suffering and harm, no thought then for the fragility of our own mortal life or even for personal consequences beyond the ἁρμονίη we, in such honourable moments, are.”

However, Myatt clearly states that he is only offering his “own fallible answer to the question of how to deal with the suffering that blights this world.”

Conclusion

What Myatt has thoughtfully and from experience proposed here is an alternative way of living, a new philosophy, deriving from ‘the culture of pathei-mathos’. That is, from the wisdom of centuries, and – although Myatt himself has said {4} that he is not expressing anything new “only re-express[ing] what so many others, over millennia, have expressed as result of (i) their own pathei-mathos and/or (ii) their experiences/insights and/or (iii) their particular philosophical musings” – my own view is that it is not only new but also radical.

New, and radical, because at its core – as a way of life, and as what he terms ‘the philosophy of pathei-mathos’ with its own ontology and epistemology {5} – is the virtue of personal honour, defined by a specific code of personal, ethical, behaviour. A practical virtue which – so far as I know – has not occupied a pre-eminent place in the thought of, or been the foundation of the philosophy of, those who, over centuries, contributed to the culture of pathei-mathos.

When Myatt’s Questions of Good, Evil, Honour, and God is considered in the context of his writings about his philosophy of pathei-mathos, and recent essays by him such as Some Conjectures Concerning Our Nexible Physis and Extremism, Terrorism, Culture, And Physis: A Question Of Being {6}, then it is clear that what he is suggesting is that both the problem and the solution lie in us as individuals, in our nature as human beings; and that it is our responsibility as individuals – not, for example, the responsibility of some State – to “do what should be done when, within the purvue of our personal space, we meet with one or many causing suffering and harm.” That the solutions proposed and implemented by temporal States, and by political and religious ideologies and their followers, only – in the perspective of centuries and millennia – contribute to suffering because they do not and cannot change en masse (and have not changed, en masse) our nature as human beings. That an acceptance – by us as individuals – of, and a living by us according to, the virtue of personal honour is such a means to change our nature, and thus to break the cycle of suffering and hubris.

As Myatt wrote in 2014, he believes not only that

“it is the muliebral virtues which evolve us as conscious beings, which presence sustainable millennial change. Virtues such as empathy, compassion, humility, and that loyal shared personal love which humanizes those masculous talking-mammals of the Anthropocene, and which masculous talking-mammals have – thousand year following thousand year – caused so much suffering to, and killed, so many other living beings, human and otherwise,” {7}

but also that it is

“the personal virtue of honour, and the cultivation of wu-wei, [which] are – together – a practical, a living, manifestation of our understanding and appreciation of the numinous; of how to live, to behave, as empathy intimates we can or should in order to avoid committing the folly, the error, of ὕβρις, in order not to cause suffering, and in order to re-present, to acquire, ἁρμονίη. For personal honour is essentially a presencing, a grounding, of ψυχή – of Life, of our φύσις – occurring when the insight (the knowing) of a developed empathy inclines us toward a compassion that is, of necessity, balanced by σωφρονεῖν and in accord with δίκη.” {8}

R. Parker
Shropshire
2015
v.1.03


Notes

{1} Myatt’s text is available from his site as a pdf file – Questions of Good, Evil, Honour, and God. It is also included in his book Religion, Empathy, and Pathei-Mathos. 2013. ISBN 978-1484097984.

{2} Understanding and Rejecting Extremism, 2013. It is available in pdf format here – Understanding and Rejecting Extremism – and as a printed book, ISBN 978-1484854266.

{3} The text Education And The Culture of Pathei-Mathos is available here – https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/2014/08/08/education-and-the-culture-of-pathei-mathos/

{4} The Way Of Pathei-Mathos – A Précis (2014).

{5} Myatt’s philosophy is described in the books, texts, and essays mentioned on his site at https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/2014/10/07/writings-concerning-the-philosophy-of-pathei-mathos/ with many of the texts and essays freely available there as pdf files.
{6} In Extremism, Terrorism, Culture, And Physis: A Question Of Being, Myatt writes:

“The reality – the truth – of our being is that we humans can always find, and have always found – century after century, millennia after millennia – some cause or some ideology or some ideation or some interpretation of some religion or some dogma or some leader to allow us to express, to live, what is solely masculous […]

[For] a harsh modern interpretation of a particular religion hallowed what is masculous to the detriment of what is muliebral, making such a basal, such an unbalanced, masculous physis an ideal to be imitated and strived for, and which masculous ideal included the notion of a personal immolation, via kampf and a dishonourable disregard for the innocency of others, as a means to some posited goal. An unbalanced masculous physis also evident in – and idealized by – the ideologies of communism, nazism, and fascism, and in and by the ‘puritanical’ and inquisitorial interpretations of Christianity centuries before.”

He then goes on to suggest – as he also does in some other of his recent writings – that a solution to the problem of extremism (whether religious or political) is to balance, in the individual, the masculous with the muliebral by:

“the development by individuals of empathy and the cultivation of the virtue of personal honour; and, in terms of society, Studia Humanitatis: that is, education to form, to shape, the manners and the character, of individuals by not only acquainting them with such topics as are, and were traditionally, included in that subject, but also of them being educated in such knowledge concerning our physis as our thousands of years old human culture of pathei-mathos has bequeathed to us.”

{7} David Myatt: Some Questions For DWM (2014, e-text). The text is included in a collection of his essays published under the title One Vagabond In Exile From The Gods: Some Personal and Metaphysical Musings, ISBN 978-1502396105.

{8} The Natural Balance of Honour, 2012.  The text is an extract from Myatt’s The Way of Pathei-Mathos – A Philosophical Compendiary.


A pdf version is available here – review-myatt-good-evil.pdf


David Myatt

David Myatt

 

Selected Letters of David Myatt
(pdf)

From the Introduction by JR Wright:

“Included in this volume are a selection of letters that David Myatt has written between the years 2002 and 2008, divided into two sections. These letters reveal a different side of his character – poet, Gnostic, Nature-loving mystic – to his more well known public personae, deriving as these public personae did from his political and religious peregrinations. It is in these letters that the “real” David Myatt speaks, shorn of his varied, and changing, public personae […]

It is my view that these letters are important for not only a correct understanding of Myatt himself, but also for understanding the development of his Numinous Way. Many of the later letters are intensely personal – and remarkably honest – and several deal with his feelings following the suicide, in May 2006, of his fiancée. It is also clear from many of these letters that, already by early 2002, he had begun to develop empathy and compassion as a basis for The Numinous Way and was quite aware of his own mistakes.”

The letters certainly, in my view, document some of the interior, spiritual, struggles that Myatt mentions in works such as his essay The Development of The Numinous Way and his autobiography Myngath
(pdf).