Interviews, Journalists, And The Police

David Myatt

David Myatt

From The Archives

Interviews, Journalists, The Police, and Pathei-Mathos
(pdf)

°°°°°

Extract from the Editorial Preface:

The following autobiographical article by David Myatt was written in 2009 and revised in 2010. It was included as an Excursus in early (2009-2011) drafts of his autobiography Myngath, copies of which were circulated to a few friends, with the drafts briefly appearing on some internet blogs, to be replaced by the final and substantially revised version published in May 2013 which lacked this article.

The article provides Myatt’s side of the story in relation to the police, interviews, and journalists such as Nick Ryan who have written about Myatt in a propagandistic manner.

Four interesting things deserve mentioning in connection with the article. The first – and most curious – is that the journalist who, in 1974, “stitched Myatt up” by making allegations about animal sacrifice became ill shortly after his report was published in a local newspaper. He was diagnosed with a terminal disease, and died less than a year later, with the local rumour being that Anton Long’s then Leeds-based Temple of the Sun (an early O9A nexion) had undertaken The Death Ritual (qv. The ONA’s Black Book of Satan) and thus cursed that journalist […..]

°°°°°°°

Related:

Myatt: A Matter Of Honour
(pdf)


Advertisements

In Reply To Some Questions (2012)

800px-Cumulus_clouds_panorama

From Myatt’s preface:

“These answers, though dated, may be of some interest; for example, in regard to the development of my ‘numinous way’ into the ‘philosophy of pathei-mathos’ and in regard to my temerarious statement that “I do not intend to write anything more about” that philosophy, for I have of course since 2012 continued to write about, and develope, that philosophy and which more recent writings have obsoleted most of the essays referenced in the following answers.”

Questions For DWM, 2012
(pdf)


Source: https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/questions-for-dwm-2012/


Regarding The Term Numinous

David Myatt

David Myatt

A Note Regarding The Term Numinous

As a chapter of a book by Christopher Pankhurst – Numinous Machines, published in December 2017 by the ‘right-wing’ San Francisco based Counter-Currents organization – is titled Nexus of Life: David Myatt & the Acausal, it is fitting that we examine the origin of the term ‘numinous’ and what Myatt himself means by the term, especially as the blurb for the book on the publishers website repeats the common but mistaken belief that “Rudolf Otto coined the term numinous to refer to the primal experience of the holy.”

A mistaken belief since as a certain “Anton Long” pointed out in his text Alchemical Seasons and The Fluxions of Time published in 123 yfayen (2011 ce) that

“despite the now common belief that the use of the word ‘numinous’ is fairly recent, deriving from the writings of Rudolf Otto, its first occurrence in English – so far discovered – is in a religious tract published in London in 1647 ce, entitled The simple cobler of Aggawam in America. Willing to help mend his native country. The author, Nathaniel Ward – a scholar at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, an English clergyman, and a Puritan supporter – emigrated to Massachusetts in 1634 ce.”

The meaning of the term numinous in that book, and in later books such as The Quest of the Sangraal by Robert Stephen Hawker published in 1864 (where it is spelt numynous), is “of or relating to a god or a divinity, revealing or indicating the presence of a divinity; divine, spiritual,” derived as it is from the classical Latin ‘numen’, which Latin word implied a deity, a divinity, a reverence for what is divine.

In his 2013 book The Numinous Way Of Pathei-Mathos Myatt described how he then philosophically used and understood the term:

“The numinous is what manifests or can manifest or remind us of (what can reveal) the natural balance of ψυχή; a balance which ὕβρις upsets. This natural balance – our being as human beings – is or can be manifest to us in or by what is harmonious, or what reminds us of what is harmonious and beautiful. In a practical way, it is what we regard or come to appreciate as ‘sacred’ and dignified; what expresses our developed humanity and thus places us, as individuals, in our correct relation to ψυχή, and which relation is that we are but one mortal emanation of ψυχή.”

Prior to that ‘Pathei Mathos iteration’ (c.2011 – present) Myatt had frequently used the term ‘numinous’ during his ‘National Socialist iteration’ (1968-1998) writing in his 1990s text The Meaning of National-Socialism, {1} published by George Dietz in his Libery Bell magazine and also circulated by Myatt’s National-Socialist Movement, not only that

“Something is numinous if it has beauty and awe. Something which is divinely-inspired or divinely-representative is numinous. What is numinous is generally what is revered, or regarded as sacred – as spiritual or divine. Nature herself is numinous – a wonderful, awe-inspiring mystery. The numinous is an expression of the acausal – of the Unity behind causal, temporal, appearance,”

but also that

“a folk is not an abstract, easily defined, static, “thing” like the concept of race. It is a living, changing, evolving, being – a unique type of life. What defines a folk is thus far more than a certain set of physical or physiological or genetic characteristics. A folk is a symbiotic being – in symbiosis with the being which is the homeland of that folk, with that community or that collection of folkish communities. All this makes the culture, the Way of Life, the ethos (or soul) of that folk living as well. And it is this living which is numinous, which presences the numinous.”

Since Myatt uses and used the term numinous in specific ways, and always seemed to avoid using the English word ‘holy’ both in reference to that term and in his Greek translations, it is interesting and relevant to mention his commentary on the Greek word ἅγιος in section 5 of the Pymander chapter of the ancient Corpus Hermeticum. {2}

The Holy

In regard to ἅγιος – conventionally translated as ‘holy’ – Myatt, quoting Rilke and providing his own translation of the German, writes that the numinous has two aspects:

{Begin quote}

Numinous is better – more accurate – than ‘holy’ or ‘sacred’, since these latter English words have been much overused in connexion with Christianity and are redolent with meanings supplied from over a thousand years of exegesis; meanings which may or may not be relevant here.

Correctly understood, [the] numinous is the unity beyond our perception of its two apparent aspects; aspects expressed by the Greek usage of ἅγιος which could be understood in a good (light) way as ‘sacred’, revered, of astonishing beauty; and in a bad (dark) way as redolent of the gods/wyrd/the fates/morai in these sense of the retributive or (more often) their balancing power/powers and thus giving rise to mortal ‘awe’ since such a restoration of the natural balance often involved or required the death (and sometimes the ‘sacrifice’) of mortals. It is the numinous – in its apparent duality, and as a manifestation of a restoration of the natural, divine, balance – which is evident in much of Greek tragedy, from the Agamemnon of Aeschylus (and the Orestia in general) to the Antigone and the Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles.

The two apparent aspects of the numinous are wonderfully expressed by Rilke:

Wer, wenn ich schrie, hörte mich denn aus der Engel
Ordnungen? und gesetzt selbst, es nähme
einer mich plötzlich ans Herz: ich verginge von seinem
stärkeren Dasein. Denn das Schöne ist nichts
als des Schrecklichen Anfang, den wir noch grade ertragen,
und wir bewundern es so, weil es gelassen verschmäht,
uns zu zerstören. Ein jeder Engel ist schrecklich.

Who, were I to sigh aloud, of those angelic beings might hear me?
And even if one of them deigned to take me to his heart I would dissolve
Into his very existence.
For beauty is nothing if not the genesis of that numen
Which we can only just survive
And which we so admire because it can so calmly disdain to betake us.
Every angel is numinous

wenn ich schrie. ‘Were I to sigh aloud’ is far more poetically expressive, and more in tune with the metaphysical tone of the poem and the stress on schrie, than the simple, bland, ‘if I cried out’. A sighing aloud – not a shout or a scream – of the sometimes involuntary kind sometimes experienced by those engaged in contemplative prayer or in deep, personal, metaphysical musings.

der Engel Ordnungen. The poetic emphasis is on Engel, and the usual translation here of ‘orders’ – or something equally abstract and harsh (such as hierarchies) – does not in my view express the poetic beauty (and the almost supernatural sense of strangeness) of the original; hence my suggestion ‘angelic beings’ – of such a species of beings, so different from we mortals, who by virtue of their numinosity have the ability to both awe us and overpower us.

{End quote}

Myatt thus provides a new – yet ancient, and most certainly pagan – interpretation of the term, so very different from the understanding of that of Christianity, which Christian understanding is “pertaining to God; belonging to God, commissioned by God, or persons devoted to God; conforming to the will of God, entirely devoted to God.”

Three Wyrd Sisters
2017

{1} A copy of Myatt’s text is available here: https://regardingdavidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/myatt-ns-meaning-v3.pdf
{2} David Myatt. Corpus Hermeticum: Eight Tractates. 2017. ISBN-13: 978-1976452369


Islamic Terrorism: A Voice of Reason

David Myatt

David Myatt

Editorial Note: We republish here an article by Mr Myatt written in 2015 which concerns the causes of what has been described as “Islamic terrorism”. Myatt’s provides an alternative – a rational and a philosophical – explanation that is at odds with the strident political rhetoric of the past decade.

°°°°°°°

Extremism, Terrorism, Culture, And Physis
A Question Of Being

Disinclined as I am, and as I have been for many years, to comment on recent events, I have – after much reflexion – decided to respond to certain questions asked of me, given that several friends and diverse individuals (communicating through correspondence forwarded to me through intermediaries) have expressed an interest in my opinion about some recent events in France because of my forty years of (now regretted) practical experience of extremism [1] and extremists and which experience included not only being an advocate, as a Muslim, of what has become known as ‘Islamic extremism’, but also of being a neo-nazi activist and ideologue who preached and who advocated subversion, insurrection, hatred, and terrorism.

The recent events in France, where seventeen people were killed at four locations between the 7th and 9th of January 2015 – and similar events on other lands, from September 2001 (9/11) onwards – have led many people to speculate about the problem of, about causes of, and what may be required to prevent, such acts.

My admittedly fallible view, derived from my personal decades of experience, is that simple cause-and-effect answers are rather misguided, however naturally instinctive and/or politically expedient they might be – and/or however effective (or perhaps necessary) some of them might be in the short-term: of years, of a decade or more. For I incline toward the view that the long-term solution does not lie in more legislation, or in more security measures, or in idealizing one culture over and above another (as in the West verses Islam), or in invading other lands, or even in attempting to combat ‘extremism’ by means of advocation of a ‘moderate’ interpretation of some religion or some political ideology. Rather, the long-term solution lies in understanding our basal physis [2] as human beings and then considering how – or even if – that basal physis can be changed, evolved.

For 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 [3]. For as I know from my own experience and involvements such an expression, such a living, vivifies, excites, and has so often provided us (or a significant portion of us) with a sense of purpose, an identity, and thus given our lives meaning.

Thus, for that significant portion of us, it is our basal nature – our basal character – as human beings which is at fault, the cause; not some current or past harsh interpretation of some religion or of some weltanschauung; not some ‘extremist’ ideology, per se; not some failure to tackle extremism; not some deficiency of law nor some failure (of intelligence, or otherwise) by the Police or by some State security service. That is, the harsh modern interpretation of a religion such as Islam (manifest for example in al-Qa’ida and in groups such as ad-Dawlah al-Islamiyah fil ‘Iraq wa ash-Sham), or the extremism manifest in nazism and fascism (past and present) are symptoms, not the cause.

For it is my considered opinion – fallible as it is and based as it is on what (admittedly limited) knowledge I have of the circumstances – that the perpetrators of recent events in France simply found, in a harsh interpretation of Islam, something which not only gave them a sense of purpose, a goal – which gave their lives meaning – but also provided them with an excuse to behave according to their physis or what they believed their physis should be: to be what they were or had become or should become. That is, lacking that empathy – such compassion and such honour, such muliebral virtues – as would have engendered within them a feeling for, an intuition of, and thus an appreciation of, innocency [4] and of individuals as individuals and not as abstracted ‘enemies’ or as somehow ‘inferior’ to them or as a means whereby what they believed in, or desired (such as some after-life), could be achieved.

In other words, 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.

How then can that basal physis be changed or evolved? How can the masculous be balanced with the muliebral thus avoiding such unbalance, such bias toward the masculous, as has brought so much suffering recent and otherwise? All I have is a rather philosophical, quite long-term, and quite personal answer. Of, in terms of individuals, 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 [5].

David Myatt
January 2015

Notes

[1] As I have explained in many of my post 2009 writings, by ‘extreme’ is meant “to be harsh”, so that I consider an extremist is a person who tends toward harshness, or who is harsh, or who supports/incites harshness, in pursuit of some objective, usually of a political or a religious nature. Here, harsh is: rough, severe, a tendency to be unfeeling, unempathic, uncompassionate.

Hence I consider extremism to be: (a) the result of such harshness, and (b) the principles, the causes, the characteristics, that promote, incite, or describe the harsh action of extremists. In addition, a fanatic is considered to be someone with a surfeit of zeal or whose enthusiasm for some objective, or for some cause, is intemperate.

[2] I use the term physis (φύσις) as a revealing, a manifestation, of not only the true nature of beings but also of the relationship between beings, and between beings and Being. Physis is often apprehended (and thus understood) by we humans as the nature, the character, of some-thing; as, for example, in our apprehension of the character of a person.

[3] By the term masculous is meant certain traits, abilities, and qualities that are conventionally and historically associated with men, such as competitiveness, aggression, a certain harshness, the desire to organize/control, and a desire for adventure and/or for conflict/war/violence/competition over and above personal love, compassion, and culture. In my view, extremist ideologies manifest an unbalanced, an excessive, masculous nature.

Masculous is from the Latin masculus and occurs, for example, in some seventeenth century works such as one by William Struther: “This is not only the language of Canaan, but also the masculous Schiboleth.” True Happines, or, King Davids Choice: Begunne In Sermons, And Now Digested Into A Treatise. Edinbvrgh, 1633

[4] I use the term ‘innocence’ to refer to a presumed attribute of those who, being personally unknown to us, are therefore unjudged by us and who thus, as honour requires, are given the benefit of the doubt. For this presumption of the innocency of others – until direct personal experience, and individual and empathic knowing of them, prove otherwise – is the fair, the reasoned, the honourable, the cultured, the virtuous, thing to do.

[5] Refer to my May 2014 essay Education And The Culture Of Pathei-Mathos, and my more recent Some Conjectures Concerning Our Nexible Physis.

°°°°°°°

Article source: https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/extremism-terrorism-culture-and-physis/


Related:

The Ignorant Vulgarians And Islam


The Ignorant Vulgarians And Islam

odal3

The Ignorant Vulgarians And Islam

There are two things that I find of particular interest about David Myatt. The first thing is the range and the depth of his practical experience, which included thirty years experience of street-level often violent political activism, several years as a Christian monk, and ten years as a practising Muslim. The second thing is his erudition, evident as that erudition is in his familiarity with the culture – and especially the literature – of the West from the time of Homer to Cicero to TS Eliot and beyond. Having “fluency in the classical languages (Greek and Latin), as well as Arabic and possibly Persian” {1} he is thus erudite, a scholar, as those terms were understood by English speakers from before the time of Shakespeare to the time of Ralph Waldo Emerson.

When, therefore, he in his mature – post-2011 – years writes about ancient Greek culture, about Christianity, about the culture of the West, and about Islam, he is writing not only from personal experience but also as a scholar able to read primary sources – such as Homer, the New Testament, and the Koran – in their original language.

What Myatt in recent years has written about Islam and Muslims directly contradicts the anti-Muslim rhetoric of “the vulgarians”, such as The Master Vulgarian who currently occupies a position of power and influence in America and the hordes of minor, anti-Muslim, vulgarians who style themselves as defenders of ‘civilization’. {2}

Regarding such people Myatt asks:

“Have [they] read the Quran in Arabic? Have they studied the Sunnah – at the very least the collections of Bukhari and Muslim? Have they studied Al-Adab Al-Mufrad? Have they studied Islamic jurisprudence and discussed Shariah with a Qadi? How many conversations about Islam have they had with learned Imaams? Have they lived in a land where the majority of people are Muslim? How many times have they been guests of Muslim families and so shared meals and personal conversations and thus empathised with Muslims? How many Muslim women have they interviewed or asked about Hijab – about why they wear it and how it makes them feel?

If they have not done all those things then they are, in my view, fundamentally ignorant concerning Islam and the Muslim way of life, and thus they speak and write and demonstrate in public about what they personally are uneducated about and about those whom they have not personally interacted with in a courteous way. Thus their opinions, their views, are those of bigots, and their behaviour is uncivilized – that is, the behaviour of people who are unlearned, ill-informed, uncultured, uncourteous, hubriatic. They are also hypocritical, for these leaders and organizers – and those who bankroll them – are virulent in their praise of ‘Western civilization and Western values’ without, it seems to me, realizing that they themselves with their ignorance, their hubris, their intolerance, their prejudice – their bigotry – are excellent examples of the new barbarians assailing Western culture.” {3}

In another article he writes:

“My personal view of Islam, of the Muslim way of life, and which view I have expressed in recent correspondence with others, is a very positive and tolerant one; of respect born from experience, a scholarly study, and a comparative assessment with other religions and spiritual ways also personally experienced.

Perhaps the bad opinion many people in the West have of Islam would be changed if they spent time with Muslim families in places as diverse as Egypt, Somalia, Turkey, Morocco, Pakistan, Senegal, Malaysia, and Birmingham. Until they have, who are they to pass judgement on the Muslim way of life, and on the Quran, the Sunnah, and the Shariah, that inspires and informs that way of life?” {4}

National Socialism And Honour

Even during his time with Reichsfolk in the late 1990s Myatt was writing about the need to treat other races with honour and thus respect their way of life. In a letter to an imprisoned Comrade {5} dated JD2452013.275 (that is, 13 April 2001) and which letter he expanded into an article published under the title The Question of National-Socialism, Racism and Tolerance, {6} Myatt rhetorically asked important questions such as:

“Should we strive to attain our freedom through certain tactics, one of which is a fanatical intolerance? Is our situation that desperate that we should see those who uphold other ways of life – and those of other races – as our enemies? This is the means that has been mostly followed in the past fifty years or so, albeit that it has been followed and employed on a mostly instinctive level. This is the means of “racism”, whether called by that Zionist-invented term or not.

Or, should we strive to be idealistic, and follow the ethic of honour to its logical conclusion? This means that we always strive to do what is honourable, which means that we should strive to be both strong, yet tolerant in a warrior way: proud of our people, our culture, but accepting of other ways, other people, if those other people respect us.”

After considering the options, he concluded:

“I assert that what is good is what is beneficial to our folk, but also honourable, and that if something – some deed or action – benefits or may benefit our folk but is also dishonourable, then that deed or action is something which a National-Socialist should not do […]

We must use our own values of honour, of loyalty, of duty to the folk as the criteria, the standard, to judge what is right, what is wrong, and what is necessary. Furthermore, we must use these values to determine our own behaviour toward others. This is the National-Socialist way: the way of honour, of loyalty, of duty to our folk.

I firmly believe that we can return our people to their own way of life by setting them a personal example, and to do this we must be prepared to live by, and if necessary die for, our ideals of honour, loyalty and duty.”

His words seem even more relevant now as the vulgarians among us gain more and more influence.

R. Stirling
29 November, 2017
(Revised 30 November 2017)

°°°°°

{1} Connell Monette. Mysticism in the 21st Century, Sirius Academic Press, 2013. pp. 86.

{2} While The Master Vulgarian barks about “Islamic terrorism” he in his ignorance forgets – or ignores – two things. First, that America in the last twenty years has directly and indirectly (through its policies) killed far more civilians than all Muslim terrorists combined; directly, in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and indirectly in places like Yemen and Syria. Second, that it is not a question of “Islamic terrorism” – as if the religion of Islam is responsible – but rather of some individuals doing what is dishonourable and using something such as a religion as an excuse for their dishonourable deeds: see for example Extremism, Terrorism, Culture and Physis.

{3} Source: https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/just-my-fallible-views-again/

{4} Source: https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/let-us-then-try-what-love-can-do/the-need-for-tolerance/

{5} Although the Comrade is not publicly named, aural tradition names him as Richard Scutari, of Brüder Schweigen, with whom Myatt corresponded for some years beginning in the 1990s.

{6} A copy of the article is available here: https://regardingdavidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/ns-and-tolerance.pdf

The article was included in the Reichsfolk publication National-Socialism and Islam: The Case for Co-operation, first distributed in 2003 as part of Myatt’s plan to bring National Socialists and Muslims together to fight “their common enemy.” A copy of the publication is available here: https://regardingdavidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/ns-islam.pdf


Related:

The Vulgarian


The Uncertitude Of Mr Myatt

David Myatt

David Myatt

Editorial Note: The following 54-page work incorporates and thus supersedes the previously issued work by Wright & Parker titled From National-Socialism To The Philosophy Of Pathei-Mathos which was published in October of this year.

°°°°°

The Uncertitude Of Mr Myatt
(pdf)

°°°°°°°

Contents

° Preface
° Part One: David Myatt And The Uncertitude Of Knowing
° Part Two: A Modern Pagan Spirituality
° Appendix One: Three O’clock One English Morning
° Appendix Two: David Myatt, Reichsfolk, Esoteric Hitlerism, and Savitri Devi
° Appendix Three: Concerning The Development Of The Numinous Way
° Appendix Four: Hitler, National-Socialism, and Politics – A Personal Reappraisal
° Appendix Five: Some Philosophical and Moral Problems of National-Socialism

°°°°°

From the Preface:

{quote}
This study concerns (i) the evolution of Myatt’s thought between 2010 and 2012, and especially his move away from National Socialism to his non-political, mystical, philosophy of pathei-mathos with its virtues of compassion, tolerance, and honour, and (ii) whether or not his recent work such as his Pagan Mysticism And The Ethos of Christianity signifies a further evolution in favour of a modern world-view, based on Greco-Roman paganism, as “a means to reconnect those in the lands of the West, and those in Western émigré lands and former colonies of the West, with their ancestral ethos, for them to thus become, or return to being, a living, dwelling, part – a connexion between the past and the future – of what is still a living, and evolving, culture.”

Such evolution of his thought is natural given that in his Uncertitude of Knowing – one of the works discussed here – he writes:

“I am aware that I may not have all or even many of the answers required, and that such answers as I do have, or some of them, might be erroneous and that [they] therefore may need to be amended […] I have made enough mistakes in my own life to know my fallibility, as my views have evolved, matured, as a result of my experiences, my pathei-mathos. So all I have is my own perspective, my own uncertitude of knowing.”

So we should understand that he sees all his post-2010 writings – from his ‘numinous way’ to his later ‘philosophy of pathei-mathos’ to his recent Pagan Mysticism And The Ethos of Christianity – as inconclusive, fallible, subject to change […]

[Such] changes express the reality of the world-view he developed post-2006, aptly described by Myatt as based on pathei mathos, on the learning that can arise from adversity and personal experience.
{/quote}


Related

The Mystic Philosophy of David Myatt
(pdf)


Toward Understanding The Numinous

David Myatt

David Myatt

Editorial Note. Republished here is an archive item by David Myatt, originally published on his blog, and dating from the early part of 2010. That is, before he refined his ‘numinous way’ into his philosophy of pathei-mathos, writing as he did in his 2012 article The Development Of The Numinous Way, that

{quote}

Given that the essence of The Numinous Way is individual empathy, an individual understanding, the development of an individual judgement, and the living of an ethical way of life where there is an appreciation of the numinous, the more I reflected upon this ‘numinous way’ between 2011 and Spring 2012, the more I not only realized my mistakes, but also that it was necessary to remove, to excise, the detritus that had accumulated around the basic insights and the personal pathei-mathos that inspired me to develope that ‘numinous way’. Mistakes and detritus because for some time, during the development of that ‘numinous way’, I was still in thrall to some abstractions, still thinking in terms of categories and opposites, and still fond of pontificating and generalizing, especially about The State. I therefore began to re-express, in a more philosophical manner, the personal, the individual, the ontological, the ethical and spiritual nature, of The Numinous Way, and thus emphasized the virtues of humility, love, and of wu-wei – of balance, of tolerance, of non-interference, of individual interior (spiritual) reformation, of non-striving, of admitting one’s own uncertitude of understanding and of knowing.

The year-long (2011-2012) process of refinement, correction, and reflexion resulted in me re-naming what remained of my ‘numinous way’ the philosophy of pathei-mathos.

{/quote}

Given the topics covered by Myatt in his reply we feel it will be of interest to our readers even though it is dated and therefore probably does not represent Myatt’s current views on the topics in question.

RS,
2017


The following extracts are from my correspondence, in the Spring of 2010 CE, with a young Western gnostic residing, at the time, in India. I have slightly revised the text in order to correct typos and, in a few place, to clarify the meaning.

Toward Understanding The Numinous

I was most interested to receive your reply, since it seems that both you and I have been on somewhat similar quests among the Ways of Life of this world.

You wrote that:
“Political action without the element of the sacred seems futile to me (or at least doomed to failure).”

Something I certainly agree with – and what attracted me, at quite a young age, to NS was that I felt there was something numinous about the life, and the NS, of Adolf Hitler. Many years ago, now, I had the wonderful fortune to meet someone who knew him personally, and he – and another comrade of his (also a personal friend of The Chief) – amply confirmed my initial intuition.

But what I, in my youthful arrogance, failed to understand was that, essentially, National-Socialism was Adolf Hitler – as those two individuals told me, and it was only after several decades of fighting for NS, that I gradually came to realize my error. Which was that my [political] attempt – and all such attempts – to revive NS were doomed because they lacked the numinous, which numinous had to be, for our still unenlightened times, embodied in a living person. Hence, I suppose, my mythos of Vindex: an attempt (perhaps a vain one) to prefigure a new charismatic leader who might, by his (or her) very life presence the numinous, in the modern world, and possibly by the medium, the causal form, of politics.

Yet I have also come to understand that AH may have made some mistakes, through elevating a particular abstraction over and above the numinous, and through occasionally striving to make real his vision by using certain un-numinous – that is, dishonourable – means, such as modern impersonal warfare.

You wrote:
“do you still consider yourself to be a Muslim?”

Possibly, but only in the sense that I understand authentic Islam as an apprehension, one presencing, of the numinous, in our dishonourable times; and in the sense that being Muslim means (at least according to my rather limited understanding) acknowledging our human fallibility before, and dependence and reliance upon, The One, named Allah (as we are but mortal travellers in the realm of the causal).

This, perhaps, is veering toward a rather Sufi-esque view, where there is the understanding of how various Ways may also be, or can sometimes be, a path, a Way, toward The One.

Again, I was perhaps fortunate in having been able to spend some time in the Middle East and Iran, talking to Muslims, both Shia and Sunni, and especially during one trip in Egypt into the desert where I felt I came close to feeling and understanding the simple beauty, the numinous purity, behind the label “Islam” which as been assigned to that Way – a simple beauty, a purity, I had also felt during my time as a Christian monk.

You wrote:
“I’m still very much interested in NS and Islam, however, as well as the Numinous Way”

What I have called The Numinous Way are simply my own tentative answers to questions which have perplexed me for decades, and/or which I have been seeking answers to, as well as being the result of my learning from my errors, my mistakes, my arrogance. I am quite aware that my answers, my conclusions, may be incorrect or somehow incomplete, and that they are not, nor can ever be, definitive, or even adequately describe our (and my own) apprehension of the numinous.

In a sense, I seem to have found something lacking in all the many and various Ways I have experienced and lived, over the decades; found myself in some way or other dissatisfied with the answers which seem to have accumulated around such Ways over the centuries.

Thus my Numinous Way is just my own perspective, my own view, of the numinous, and does not seem to me to necessarily contradict the essence of many other Ways, when such Ways are considered sans dogma, sans the abstractions, they have acquired over the centuries.

So, for the moment, at least, I am reasonably happy with such personal answers of mine, which answers seem to have taken me to what appears to be the essence behind many Ways, such that, in one sense, I am (and yet am not) Muslim, and Catholic, and Taoist, and pagan, and Buddhist, and so on. Such terms – such -isms – just seem to get in the way of living one’s life in a numinous, empathic, manner.

You wrote:
aspects of [life here] can be difficult for a Westerner to adjust to…

In many if not most ways your experiences there [in India] seem to be the opposite of mine in Muslim lands. When I lived for a while in the Middle East – and whenever I travelled to such lands – I found acceptance and friendship. Indeed, sometimes, I found it rather overwhelming and occasionally embarrassing – still having something of an archetypal old-fashioned English demeanour. For instance, I can remember on many occasions going into a Mosque somewhere (almost always the only White person there) and being greeted with genuine warmth and asked to sit in the front row for Namaz (a position of honour normally) and afterwards being invited into people’s homes.

You wrote:
If I’ve understood your notion of the numinous correctly, then I believe you’d agree that the problem with the Right is that it keeps trying to put abstraction in front of the Real

Certainly – and this means a rejection of all conventional politics. It seems to me that the solution is two-fold. First, that one has to go beyond the old, un-numinous, abstraction of the nation-State, and instead establish new communities based upon tribes and clans and thus upon a new, emerging, living – numinous – tradition. Second, that one has to make personal honour not only one of the foundations of one’s own life, but also the only basis for the ethics of, and law and justice in, such new communities.

My understanding of a living tradition is that it arises naturally from a small community or some collection of such small communities, with the individuals often bound together by bonds of kinship and the sharing of toil and of hardship overcome. These individuals dwell in a specific area which they have an affinity to and which provides them with sustenance and a means of living. That is, there is a direct and necessary relationship to the land, to Nature, in a specific, small, local area.

Personally, I do not believe that it is possible to resurrect, and certainly undesirable to try and resurrect, some dead tradition, even if it be of one’s ancestors, one’s own folk. Rather, one has to plant the seeds of a new numinous tradition and nurture the growth of that tradition.

Having spent a great deal of my adult life living and working in the English countryside, and having some experience of politics and religions, I am acutely aware of what native Europeans have not only lost but also need to acquire, and develope.

What has been lost – in the pursuit of materialism, through technology, and an increasing urbanization – is that numinous connexion to Nature, to a certain small area which we personally know and where we dwell, and a living in a way we are not bound by the modern abstraction of Time or swayed and manipulated by abstractions in general (and politics and all un-numinous religions are abstractions), but rather where the horizon of our daily lives and thus our concerns are set by what we know, and those whom we know, personally, directly.

What needs to be acquired and developed is, in effect, a new personality – a new type of human being.

You wrote:
you always write something original, rather than just developing a new synthesis of other men’s words

Well, during my second term of imprisonment I decided that I would henceforward write only about what I personally felt, had experienced, or concluded as the result of my own thinking – mostly because I then perhaps rather arrogantly believed that no one hitherto had fully understood the problem or conceived of a viable solution (relating to the problems of the West) or even answered in a way I found satisfying the fundamental questions about our own existence as human beings.

Prior to this, I had spent almost a decade in reading the views, and answers, the writings, of others – ranging from Homer to TS Eliot, from Aristotle to Nietzsche and Heidegger; from Norse myths to Buddhism to Savitri Devi; and so on.

My early NS writings were mainly derived from my own youthful idealistic vision and my passion to remake my own land into a better, more noble, place, and to counter what then I understood as the machinations, the “social engineering” of the Magian, and others. My writings about Islam were often inspired by what I felt was a certain insidious Western influence so that for example the simple submission and guidance that was Al-Islam came be viewed and understood and re-interpreted through certain Western abstractions, philosophical and political, for even the use and acceptance of the term “religion” by Muslims in relation to their own Way of Life was such an error.

But it took me several decades, in the case of NS and such things as Christianity and Buddhism, and almost a decade in the case of Islam, to acquire the practical experience, the theoretical (academic) knowledge, and thence the direct personal understanding, that led me to form certain conclusions about such forms, ideas, and Ways, and which drew from within me my own, individual, refined and complete, answers to the fundamental questions about our human existence.

In respect of NS, I came to understand that the problem was not the simple “us and them” concept that the biological notion of the folk, the concentration on the machinations of the Jews, and the concept of eternal struggle, created. That is, the belief that we had been somehow led astray, and needed to return to some idealized notion of some past we have lost, to re-connect ourselves with “our true identity” and “purify” our land and folk.

Instead, I concluded that we ourselves – native Europeans – were an integral part of the problem; that it was necessary for us to fundamentally change ourselves, and that this change had to arise from within each one of us, directly, numinously, and could not be achieved by the imposition of or the striving for some political, some social, ideology or by adherence to some pre-existing religious world-view. It certainly could not be achieved by trying to resurrect some dead – and often some idealized – past tradition.

Thus, as you wrote:
the fixation on the biological view of race is one such symptom

In respect of Islam, I came to understand that for all its benefits, for all its intimations of the numinous in this materialistic modern world of ours, it was – had become – an abstraction, which individuals imposed upon themselves and mightily strove to follow and adhere to in the hope of Jannah, and that, and unfortunately, even a desire to return to the perceived, the original, fundamentals – as manifest for instance in the modern awakening that was Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah – was not and never could be the numinous, the evolutionary, the ethical, the correct philosophical, answer, just as what one might described as the more natural, the less abstract, the less dogmatic, perhaps the more human, approach of Sufism was not, ultimately, the answer either.

Which answer, for me, is the simple one of empathy, compassion, personal honour, and of ourselves as one nexion, one fragile connexion to all Life, with there being no need for the abstraction of some biological folk, no need for some suffering-caused concept of struggle and dominance, no need to project blame on others for our own failings, no need for assumptions such as Jannah, no need to strive to adhere to some rigid principles or rules laid down by someone else in some past. Instead, there is a being-human in a natural way – a knowing of each moment of life in its immediate personal reality (sans abstractions), and a gentle acceptance of just living empathically, honourably, within that immediate and personal reality.

Philosophically, this is the knowledge that our life – our conscious human life which we possess the ability, the faculties, to change – is no longer and of necessity bound to what Heraclitus described as polemos; to some interminable dialectic of conflict and thence to some abstraction, some ideal, some linear concept, named “progress”. The knowledge that one of the most common causes of suffering – and of the loss of the numinous, in our lives – is the assumption of linearity, of causal Time (linear cause-and-effect), implicit in all our human manufactured abstractions, and which abstractions we impose upon ourselves, which we project onto and impose on other human beings, and on the life with which we share this planet.

David Myatt
May 2010