David Myatt

In his most recent article, published on his blog on the 24th of March 2017 and dealing as it does with the ancient texts of the Corpus Hermeticum {1}, David Myatt expounds on his decision to translate the ancient Greek term ἀγαθός not by the conventional English term ‘good’ but by – according to context – honourable, noble, nobility. In support of his translation of ἀγαθός he quotes Seneca: “summum bonum est quod honestum est. Et quod magis admireris: unum bonum est, quod honestum est, cetera falsa et adulterina bona sunt.” {2}

This choice – and his unconventional translations of other particular ancient Greek words such as νοῦς – really does give, as he notes in his article, an “impression about ancient Hermeticism which is rather different from that conveyed by other translations.”

The difference, as other commentators on Myatt’s Hermetica translations have noted {3} and as Myatt shows in his article, is between taking those texts as expressing a Christian ethos and taking them as expressing a pagan – a classical, Greco-Roman – ethos.

For those interested in Western esotericism in general and Hermeticism in particular this is a profound and important difference. It restores these texts to the Western pagan tradition and makes them relevant to our times when Western culture and our classical, Greco-Roman, and pagan heritage is increasingly subsumed in schools and elsewhere by other, non-Western, cultures and religions, with it now being ‘politically incorrect’ to point out that Western culture with its Greco-Roman pagan heritage has profoundly changed the world for the better and is arguably superior to all other cultures past and present.

Although Myatt in his article provides three illuminating examples of the difference between his ‘pagan’ (authentic) versions and the ‘Christian’ interpolations of other translators, I will provide two other examples.

The first is from tract XI which Myatt entitles From Perceiverance To Hermes.

“Indulging the body and rotten, you are unable to apprehend the beautiful, the noble. To be completely rotten is to be unaware of the numinous, while having the ability to discover, to have volition, to have expectations, is the direct, the better – its own – way to nobility.”

Copenhaver, hitherto extolled as providing the ‘definitive translation’, has:

“While you are evil and a lover of the body, you can understand none of the things that are beautiful and good. To be ignorant of the divine is the ultimate vice, but to be able to know, to will and to hope is the straight and easy way leading to the good.” {4}

The second example is from tract IV, which Myatt entitles Chaldron Or Monas.

Since that Being is honourable, the desire was to entrust solely to that Being such a cosmic order on Earth […] What is apparent can please us while what is concealed can cause doubt with what is bad often overt while the honourable is often concealed having as it has neither pattern nor guise.

Copenhaver translates as:

“Because he is good it was not for himself alone that he wished to make this offering and adorn this earth […] Visible things delight us but the invisible causes mistrust. Bad things are more open to sight but the good is invisible to what can be seen. For the good has neither shape nor outline.”

It is easy to see which translation echoes a pagan ethos – as the likes of Seneca and Cicero understood classical paganism – and which is redolent of a Christian or a pseudo-Christian ethos.

In summary, Myatt in his translations of five of the texts of the Corpus Hermeticum provides the ordinary reader with an insight into a neglected Western mystic tradition. A neglected tradition because all the other translations available impart – in Myatt’s words – “the sense of reading somewhat declamatory sermons about god/God and ‘the good’ familiar from over a thousand years of persons preaching about Christianity.”

R. Stirling
Shropshire
2017

{1} https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/concerning-ἀγαθός-and-νοῦς-in-the-corpus-hermeticum/
{2} Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales, LXXI, 4.
{3} https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/2016/07/16/a-review-of-myatts-monas/
{4} B. Copenhaver. Hermetica. Cambridge University Press. 1992


Order of Nine Angles

O9A

O9A: Notes On The Corpus Hermeticum
(pdf)

From the Introduction:

Given renewed interest among certain Occultists in the ancient texts of the Corpus Hermeticum following David Myatt’s translations and commentaries on five of the texts it seems timely to provide an overview of the Corpus Hermeticism, particularly as it has been suggested that:

“If many MSS of the Order of Nine Angles are vital to acquire a certain understanding or at the very least, presence through words what a practical life and wyrdful ἄνοδος can bring, the Corpus Hermeticum is, in itself, sufficient to make sense of the Order of Nine Angles quiddity as a whole.”


David Myatt

David Myatt

David Myatt’s translation of and commentary on tractate VIII of the ancient, Hellenic, Corpus Hermeticum is available here:

Corpus Hermeticum – Tractate VIII
(pdf)

This complements his translation of and commentary on tractates I, III, IV, and XI.


Source: https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/2017/03/20/corpus-hermeticum-viii/


orphic3

David Myatt, Corpus Hermeticum I, III, IV, XI. 114 pages.
First Edition, 2017.
ISBN-13: 978-1544269474 US$ 7.00 / GB £6.50

This book is a welcome addition to the works of Myatt available in print bringing together as it does his translation of four of the chapters (tracts, tractates) of the ancient Corpus Hermeticum together with his extensive commentary on each of those chapters.

It is apparent that a lot of thought, study, and erudition has gone into the translation. Instead of choosing the conventional English equivalent of particular Greek terms – such as might be found in lexicons such as LSJ or as taught in those few, select, schools which still teach Greek and Latin, and such as are found in other English translations, from Everard to Mead to Copenhaver, and in the French translation of Nock {1} – Myatt has opted for alternatives (including transliterations) in order, in his words, to avoid reading into the texts such modern – non-Classical – meanings as particular English words now might suggest to the reader. Obvious examples are theos instead of ‘God’, perceiverance instead of ‘Mind’, logos instead of ‘Word’, phaos instead of ‘light’, and physis instead of ‘nature’. Not so obvious examples – from among dozens – include envoy instead of ‘herald’, elden instead of ‘ancient’, geniture instead of ‘genesis’, all of which divergences Myatt explains in his commentary.

Of his choice of the term envoy, for example, he writes:

“While the conventional translation here of κῆρυξ is ‘herald’, I consider it unsatisfactory given what that English term now often denotes: either the type of herald familiar from the New Testament or the herald of medieval literature and stories (qv. Morte Arthure, and The Knights Tale by Chaucer). Given the Greco-Roman context (Hermes, Thoth) and classical antecedents (such as Hermes as the protector of mortal envoys and messengers) then ‘envoy’ is more accurate especially given that this is an envoy from the artisan-creator assigned to impart information to mortals.”

Myatt’s thoughtful choice of English words as well as his transliterations sets his translation apart from all other translations of those four tracts, making them not only more interesting but also more esoteric and mystical as befits texts which are themselves esoteric and mystical. That is, Myatt’s has managed to express in English something of the hermetic, esoteric, and rather pagan nature and pagan mysticism of the original Greek text whereas other translations read either like epistles about the God of the early Christians or like pious sermons.

Three examples will illustrate the difference between Myatt’s translation and two of the most widely read translations.

The first example is from the Poemander (Pymander) tract.

Mead translates:

And I say: Whence then have Nature’s elements their being? To this He answer gives: From Will of God. Nature received the Word and gazing on the Cosmos Beautiful did copy it, making herself into a cosmos, by means of her own elements and by the births of souls. And God-the-Mind, being male and female both, as Light and Life subsisting, brought forth another Mind to give things form, who, God as he was of Fire and Spirit, formed Seven Rulers who enclose the cosmos that the sense perceives. Men call their ruling Fate.

Copenhaver:

The elements of nature – from whence have they arisen, I asked. And he answered from the counsel of god which, having taken in the word and seen the beauty of the cosmos, imitated it, having become a cosmos through its own elements and its progeny of souls. The mind who is god, being androgyne and existing as light and life, by speaking gave birth to a second mind, a craftsman, who as god of fire and spirit crafted seven governors; they encompass the sensible world in circles, and their government is called fate.

Myatt:

So I asked from what place, then, the parsements of physis? To which he answered, from the deliberations of theos, who, having comprehended the logos and having seen the beauty of the cosmic order, re-presented it, and so became a cosmic order from their own parsements and by the birth of Psyche. Theos, the perceiveration, male-and-female, being Life and phaos, whose logos brought forth another perceiveration, an artisan, who – theos of Fire and pnuema – fashioned seven viziers to surround the perceptible cosmic order in spheres and whose administration is described as fate.

The second example is from the beginning of the fourth tract, which Myatt titles Chaldron Or Monas, which Copenhaver titles The Mixing Bowl or Monad, and Mead The Cup Or Monad.

Mead translates:

With Reason, not with hands, did the World-maker make the universal World; so that thou thus shouldst think of Him as everywhere and ever-being, the Author of all things, and One and Only, who by His Will all beings hath created. This Body of Him is a thing no man can touch, or see, or measure, a Body inextensible, like to no other frame. ‘Tis neither Fire nor Water, Air nor Breath; yet all of them come from it.

Copenhaver:

Since the craftsman made the whole cosmos by reasoned speech, not by hand, you should conceive of him as present, as always existing, as having made all things, as the one and only and having crafted by his own will the things that are. For this is his body, neither tangible nor visible nor measurable nor dimensional nor like any other body; it is not fire nor water nor spirit, yet all things come from it.

Myatt:

Because the artisan crafted the complete cosmic order not by hand but through Logos, you should understand that Being as presential, as eternal, as having crafted all being, as One only, who by thelesis formed all that is.

That Being has no body that can be touched or seen or measured or which is separable or which is similar to any other body: not of Fire or Water or of Pneuma even though all such things are from that Being.

The third example is from the end of tract eleven which Myatt titles From Perceiverance To Hermes, Copenhaver Mind To Hermes, and Mead Mind Unto Hermes.

Mead:

But if thou lockest up thy soul within thy body, and dost debase it, saying: I nothing know; I nothing can; I fear the sea; I cannot scale the sky; I know not who I was, who I shall be;—what is there [then] between [thy] God and thee? For thou canst know naught of things beautiful and good so long as thou dost love thy body and art bad. The greatest bad there is, is not to know God’s Good; but to be able to know [Good], and will, and hope, is a Straight Way, the Good’s own [Path], both leading there and easy.

Copenhaver:

But if you shut up your soul in your body and abase it and say ‘I understand nothing,I can do nothing; I fear the sea, I cannot go up to heaven; I do not know what I was; I do not know what I will be,’ then what have you to do with god? While you are evil and a lover of the body, you can understand none of the things that are beautiful and good. To be ignorant of the divine is the ultimate vice, but to be able to know, to will and to hope is the straight and easy way leading to the good.

Myatt:

But if you enclose your psyche in your body and lessen it, saying “I comprehend nothing; have no power; fear the sea; am unable to go up into the heavens; do not know who I was and cannot know what I will be,” then what is there with you and also with the god?

For, indulging the body and rotten, you are unable to apprehend the beautiful, the noble. To be completely rotten is to be unaware of the numinous, while having the ability to discover, to have volition, to have expectations, is the direct, the better – its own – way to nobility.

All the unusual words and terms Myatt uses, such as presential, thelesis, and “parsements of physis”, he explains in his commentary, with his approach making his translation the one most suitable for those interested in ancient esotericism and mysticism in general and those with a special interest in hermeticism; and suitable because it, together with his detailed commentary, allows the reader to decide for themselves matters such as whether ‘theos’ in these texts means ‘god’ in the Christian sense or ‘the god’ – the primary divinity – of an ancient paganism, and whether or not νοῦς in these texts really is ‘Mind’ and thus a definite philosophical principle distinguishable from ‘the body’ or whether it simply means, as Myatt suggests, a perceiveration – an insight or an awareness – by the individual.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that Myatt – in his introduction to the fourth tractate, Chaldron Or Monas – makes an interesting if currently unfashionable point about the culture, the society, and the people, originally associated with the texts of the Corpus Hermeticum, and although he does not spell it out, he means those of Greco-Roman descent and of Greco-Roman culture who, as ancient colonials, lived in Egypt as opposed to what colonials might have called the ‘natives’, the indigenous peoples of Egypt with their very different culture and language. Myatt writes that,

In this matter, I incline toward the view […] that what is imparted in this tractate, as with the Poemandres and Ιερός Λόγος, is primarily a mystical, and – for centuries – aural, Greek tradition, albeit one possibly influenced, over time and in some degree, by the metaphysical speculations of later philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. That is, that in Ἑρμοῦ πρὸς Τάτ ὁ κρατῆρ ἡ μονάς and Ιερός Λόγος and Ποιμάνδρης, we have an intimation of the metaphysics and the cosmogony taught to initiates of that (or those) ancient and aural and paganus Greek mystical tradition(s) mentioned by writers such as Herodotus. And an intimation that is not – a few borrowed illustrative terms notwithstanding – in any significant and metaphysical manner deriving from or influenced by Biblical stories or by early Christian theology or by indigenous Egyptian culture.

This view contrasts with that of Copenhaver, et al, with Copenhaver for instance writing – confusingly, and perhaps in a ‘politically correct’ and certainly populist way {2} – about the ‘north African’ and Egyptian context and origin of the Corpus as if the authors were north African natives of Egypt rather than European (Greco-Roman) colonials speaking and writing Latin and Greek.

In conclusion, this book despite its idiosyncratic large size (8.5 x 11 inches) is a valuable resource for those interested in ancient esotericism and mysticism in general and for those with a particular interest in hermeticism.

R. S.
2017

{1} (a) Everard, J. The Divine Pymander. London, 1650. (b) Mead, G.R.S. Thrice Great Hermes. Theosophical Publishing Society, 1906. (c) Copenhaver, B. Hermetica. Cambridge University Press, 1992. (d) A. D. Nock and A.-J. Festugière. Corpus Hermeticum, Volume I. Societe d’Edition “Les Belles Lettres”, Paris, 3rd edition, 1972.

{2} Copenhaver, Introduction, op.cit.


Image credit: Gold funerary tablet (c. 200 BCE) found at Eleutherna, Crete


Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

Editorial Note: We reproduce here an interesting article which mentions David Myatt in relation to such modern mystics as Julius Evola. It seems that a few select individuals actually do appreciate Myatt’s contribution to Western (esoteric) mysticism.

°°°
Brutalism I
The almighty Sol

I have just finished my artistic exploration of the Sphere of Venus as part of my intent to symbolize the whole Tree of Wyrd, as a sign of my dedication to the Sinister Tradition.

A lot has already been written about the Sphere of Venus, the astrological aspects of Venus, so no need to copy them. Also the Sphere of Venus has already been described in the Mss of the ONA. There are a few things I have personally added through my exploration of its singular power.

First of all, and part of the exoteric strategy of the ONA, the reference to one of the most ancient symbols of the West, namely the magickal script of the Runes. Specifically for Venus I have drawn the Othala and Fehu Runes.

Fehu

Fehu, of course, as the Rune of Freya, the most powerful goddess of love, war and sexual attraction of the Northern pantheon. Fehu’s energy stands for the Will-to-Power, Sexual power, Feminine and matriarchal Power. The Rune itself means ‘cattle’ and stood for mobile wealth. But I prefer not to pay attention to the ‘materialistic’ connotation of this Rune as materialism is already the main focus in the West nowadays. The Rune’s spiritual power lies however in the energy, the transference from the acausal to the causal through Love/agape, in the ability to feel empathy, to feel connected with your folk around you, good friends, soul mates, between lovers but also the connection with Nature, your Heimat. This also denotes wealth, but a spiritual one. Being, as Heidegger wrote, is always a being there (Dasein) as we are thrown into this world (Gefallenheit) we are here with others and the Other. There is the transference of energy, of experiences which we are building on and how we shape who and what we are at this moment, but always with a higher aim. For those who are able to ‘feel’ Fehu, to feel the green glow of Venus, reassuring yet tantalizing, know that there is something Eternal calling us. As Myatt described this very well: there is no division between us, ipseity is just an illusion and ipseities offer us no answer, no matter how we are longing after definite answers. The Sphere of Venus offers no answer, but its green colour, one of the colours of Nature, can actually soothe us. Not soothing us ‘to sleep’ but actually an awakening, a break-through.

The feeling of empathy and compassion is one through which we become humble again, (as opposed to the ‘Black Magic’ formulas of becoming gods), and then we are ready to receive the richness from the acausal. The Sinister demands one to go beyond one’s limits and to leave the Ego behind. Just like in the alchemical Opus we have to become a vessel ready to accept without hesitation. The same applies to showing compassion: we can learn to love, to hold on. Agape is a Greek term which refers to such a state of mind and which is far more spiritual than the word ‘love’ that is used nowadays. Agape refers to a state of mind which destroys all illusions and puts us in an unconditional position. Unconditionally religious (religare = to connect). A most orthodox state of mind. Bataille demanded us to be ferociously religious. And we will not contradict him!

Bataille also referred to ‘love’ and ‘friendship’ as forms of wordless communication, a communication without demands, words, and this puts one in a delicate position almost defenceless. One enters the energetic Continuous where boundaries by definitions no longer apply. When I meditate I open my being-there to the World, and I let go of all my thoughts by casting them aways as illusionary. Agape is for those who are committed to an acephalic path of pure, selfless commitment. The ‘I’ is no longer present, one is devoted to a higher cause, devoted to the happiness of a friend or lover, to the spiritual realization of one’s Wyrd, the Wyrd of the West. A Higher Destiny of which Spengler and Heidegger wrote. Agape is also a Christian term, but one should not be afraid of it, or cast it aside as something ‘un-satanic’ or ‘weak’, for the term goes beyond all morality: to feel connected is a naturalistic essence. It goes beyond ‘good & evil’ and orthodox Christianity (its roots being Gnostic) is well aware of that.

We are all driven by a thrist, a longing, a will-to-power (Buddhist tanha), and we all have the need to satisfy this but let us not focus on that kind of easy satisfaction. Those urges and cravings steer us away from any possibility to inter-connect, to feel the energy drawn from the acausal to the causal.

Othala

The Othala Rune’s energy denotes the spiritual inheritance from our ancestors, our people, the land where we have been raised, its traditions, its folklore, its customs. What can we learn from those traditions that also played an important role in Europe such those of the Greeks, the Romans, the Arabs, Christianity and gnosticism. What can we learn from them? I genuinely believe in an Wordless tradition, a Tradition of the Soul which has been causally transferred through the ages into the Alchemical Tradition of the Great Work. The Sinister Tradition and my particular acephalic path are based on those ancient insights, add new ideas but are loyal to the Tradition.

Now, the Othala Rune exoterically reconnects me to my Heimat, the environment where I have been raised and which strenghtens me to honour those ancients Traditions. Albeit there being different high cultures (Greek, Roman, Arab, Christian) this is not about modern-day multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is only focussed on the causal (food, spice, habits and so on) while an über-cultural Tradition is about the lifting of the Soul, about what Jung referred as a collective unconcious. The Green sphere of Venus can be seen as nurturing that feeling of connecting again.

Another important aspect of the Othala Runes can be traced back to nobilitas, nobility, being noble. And this is an important element if we desire to grow spiritually, to evolve further and further away from the pathetic state of the mundanes in order to realise the Nietzschean Overman. Hence the connection with the Fehu Rune in the Sphere of Venus.

The Wet Path

Alchemically speaking this is the Sphere of Conjunction (in Naos one refers to Coagulation but I cannot agree with this). In the Hermetic Arts Conjunction occurs when a synthesis, a conjunctio occurs of the anima and the animus, the unconscious and conscious, the natural and that which one knows. One must therefore enter the Continuous and start to look introspectively: the Geist must turn towards itself (the inner change of which Myatt writes) instead of always looking at the outside. We must let ourselves be seduced by the Numinous or what Bataille calls the Sacred. Situated in the Sphere of Venus we talke about the Feminine principle, the eternal-Female which has always been honoured in the Satanic manifestation of the Numinous Sinister Tradition. This is quite a revolution as most Satanic ipseities are male oriented, and regard the female as being submissive, to be controlled. In that opinion these paths do not differ from the Magian beliefs they claim to criticize. The Sinister Tradition however is unique because of its utmost respect towards the female. This is based on the Alchemical understanding of the anima and the animus.

The Path of Venus is what is called a wet Path where the practioner is burnt by water. In the wet path of hermetism there also occur sexual symbols. The sexual act can therefore be seen as an alchemical process in which man and woman are united in love. The conjunctio of man and woman is akin to the operation between two vessels:

“the active and passive, the golden force against the captivating and sympathetic wet force that ‘dissolves’ the former and its own ‘enclosure’. […] ‘Our corpereal gold is as though dead before it unites with its mate. Only then is the secret, interior Sulfur developed’. […] ‘With the Sulfur of Venus, the inner sulfur of man is rectified, reinforced and wholly perfected’.” (Julius Evola, The Hermetic Tradition)

Death & Ecstasy

Interestingly, Evola also mentions the fact that the hermetic texts frequently “speak of a death that is a consequence of the coniunctio, of the ‘joining’, perhaps it also refers to the trauma that can occur at the height of the embrace and orgasm if subjected to a deliberate control.” Bataille referred to the orgasm as a ‘little death’ and this is exactly what occurs at the culmination of the sexual act: ecstasy or ekstasis: going beyond of oneself. In this moment of rapture one become headless, acephalic as one transgresses the limits of ipseity. The Sphere of Venus can therefore be deadly as well and the Dark Goddess Darkat reigns most supremely.

Dragon and the Ouroboros

In Naos one can find the symbol Dragon as being atributed to the Sphere of Venus. I have chosen the Ouroboros as it stands for the endless flux of energy, birth and Death, creation and destruction, and I find these aspects united in the Sphere of Venus. Freya as a Goddess embodies both love and war, creation & destruction. The dragon, often described to Mercury with which Venus is connected, devours itself and recreates and archetypically symbolizes the collective UR-grond of the Life Cycle. The attribution to Mercury is perhaps more accurate but Venus does possess such maternal qualities as well for the Water, as they element of Venus, also refers to the maternal water from which we are all born. The Mother as a guardian of the Life Force.

We can therefore conclude that the Sphere of Venus has much to offer to the practitioner. Approach it with the utmost respect. Enjoy the sexual rapture & the mystical Death. Become Acephalic!

Agios O Darkat! 333!
Von S, 128 yf

Literature:

The Hermetic Tradition (Julius Evola)
Alchemie en psychologie
MSS by Myatt


Article source: https://ecstatic-darkness.com/


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/


 

 

David Myatt

David Myatt

David Myatt: Relict

How, will, should, David Myatt be remembered? Premature and recent rumors of his death struck a chord with some of us who – whatever our age, whatever our place of dwelling, and whatever our political inclinations – have somehow in some manner (positive or negative) been affected by his life and by his writings.

But someday, and perhaps soon – give or take a few months, a few years, or perhaps a decade or more – he, now a reclusive uncommunicative mystic, will most assuredly be gone from this our mortal realm. So how should, will, Myatt best be remembered?

For myself I choose his poetry. Or rather that compilation of his poems – titled Relict – which he himself compiled. For there is humanism, a numinosity, the ethos of our Western civilization, presenced in such semi-autobiographical poems as are collected there. As well as the quintessence of what, post-2012, became his mystical, his very personal, his decidedly Western, ‘philosophy of pathei-mathos’.

Thus if he is to be remembered it should, perhaps, be for such so very human, so very civilized, poems. For such poems are such an eloquent rebuke to those who have attempted – or who for private or for political reasons may well continue to attempt – to besmirch him.

Relict
(pdf)

RS
2016


Related:

° Four Forgotten Poems


David Myatt

David Myatt

The Mystic Philosophy of David Myatt
(pdf)

Contents:

I. A Modern Mystic: David Myatt And The Way of Pathei-Mathos
II. A Modern Pagan Philosophy
III. Honour In The Philosophy Of Pathei-Mathos
IV. An Overview of The Philosophy of Pathei-Mathos
Appendix. A Note On Greek Terms In The Philosophy Of Pathei-Mathos


David Myatt

David Myatt

 

For a long time I, personally, have always respected Michael Aquino, founder of the Occult group the Temple of Set. Why such respect? Because, judged by his actions over some forty years and judged by what individuals who have known him have personally said or written about him to me, I judged him to be a person of integrity. Someone, that is, who would not knowingly besmirch a person’s reputation and someone who had and who upheld certain moral standards. Which is most befitting given that he was for years an officer in the United States military.

Thus it is with pleasure that my attention was drawn, by a comrade, to a posting that Aquino (on the 11th of October 2016) made on an internet forum and in which posting he not only reproduced a letter he had received, in the 1990s, from David Myatt but also mentioned that his correspondence with Myatt was “mutually courteous and respectful.”

Since some people who have associated themselves with the Order of Nine Angles seem intent on maligning and mocking Aquino, I reproduce in full here the aforementioned posting in which Aquino quotes from a letter he received from Myatt. The posting is as follows:


[Begin quotation]

My last correspondence with David Myatt [under his own name] occurred in February-March 1998 and was mutually courteous and respectful.

°°°

 David Myatt to M.A. 2/28/98:

Sir: It has come to my attention that you have frequently mentioned my name in connection with a certain “occult” group, alleging among other things that I am some sort of leader or sole member of this group. This is completely untrue. I am not “Anton Long” nor “Stephen Brown”. Neither am I an occultist! As for Mr C Beest, if you know people who had ever met him, you would know he is not yet thirty years old and could not possibly be me, being as I am almost fifty years old!

I am certainly a National-Socialist – that is, a NAZI. I have been a Nationalist-Socialist since I was sixteen years old. For your information I once many years ago infiltrated an occult group in the hope of using that group for NS ends – to propagate National-Socialism. It seemed a good idea at the time!

As far as I am concerned, National-Socialism and the occult are incompatible, and NS and Satanism certainly are! No one can be both a NS and a Satanist – you are either one or the other.

Yours, etc.
D. Myatt

°°°

So let us take Mr. Myatt at his word: that he is not “Long/Brown/Beest”, has no connection with “ONA”, and as he is a professed Nazi considers that it would be impossible for him to simultaneously be a Satanist.

In this case my disapproval of the “ONA” consequent to both the writings under its name and the manners of its professed adherents, are no reflection on Mr. Myatt. I do not know him personally beyond our brief, courteous correspondence almost two decades ago. I have absolutely no reason to wish him ill.

[End quotation]


While a few O9A’ers will doubtless believe that Aquino has fabricated that letter from Myatt, I personally am of the opinion that it is genuine since I accept Aquino’s honesty in this matter and know that Myatt’s letter expresses what Myatt has consistently written and said over many decades. For instance, that Myatt did “infiltrate an occult group in the hope of using that group for NS ends” and that he did believe that “National-Socialism and the occult are incompatible” as evidenced by his 1990s text  Occultism and National-Socialism (pdf).

What I find of particular interest is that the letter from Myatt apparently dates from shortly before – or shortly after – he was arrested for ‘incitement to murder’ following a Dawn Raid on his home by police officers from S012 (Special Branch) stationed at Scotland Yard.

Richard Stirling
2016


Update, November 2016: The ‘sinister polemics’ blog has been deleted by its authors and is no longer available. A suitable end for such a suspicious venture by anonymous persons pretending to be O9A.

Order of Nine Angles

O9A

A recent post on the ‘sinisterpolemics’ blog – about the death of David Myatt, and which report our sources have yet to confirm – raises some interesting issues.

Given the rather anarchic nature of the Order of Nine Angles, and the nature of its Occult philosophy, anyone can associate themselves with the O9A and, claiming to be associated with the O9A, write about it, via the internet or otherwise, and set up an O9A-supporting internet blog or website. They can, anonymously, engage with others on internet forums and post about the O9A on various ‘social media’ platforms.

However, it is quite possible that some individuals doing such things are not really O9A but are intentionally spreading dis-information, providing a false impression of the O9A and its Occult philosophy, or are provoking others into making value judgements about, or inciting them to jump to conclusions about, the O9A and those who are O9A.

What is interesting is that so many modern satanists who are critical of the O9A, for whatever reason, seem to have taken some internet posts, some social media postings, or some blog, by some anonymous persons, seriously: that is, as giving “an O9A view of things” or “as representing the O9A” or, more often, as providing proof of their assumptions about or confirmation of whatever prejudice they harbour regarding the O9A.

How, therefore, can you tell if such blogs, internet posts, websites, comments on social media, and so on, are ‘genuine’ or provide a ‘correct’ view of the O9A? In short, you cannot.

All you can do is be sceptical and take time to consider the content, comparing it, for instance, with the pre-2012 writings of Anton Long and what can be deduced, about O9A Occult philosophy, from those writings. But even then there is no guarantee, given how three of the axioms of the Order of Nine Angles are (i) the authority of individual judgement; (ii) that everything O9A, including its Occult philosophy and its Dark Arts such as the Seven Fold Way, can and should be evolved, and can and should be challenged and changed; and (iii) that what is important is not what Anton Long wrote but pathei-mathos via a personal anados that is both ‘sinister’ and ‘numinous’, both esoteric and exoteric.

Where, then, does that leave such a blog as the ‘sinisterpolemics’ one? With everyone – O9A or O9A critic – rationally assessing it and its contents for themselves, and/or developing such Occult skills as can enable them to intuit the esoteric reality behind outer, exoteric, appearance.

R. Parker
1st October 2016