A printed version of the 72 page compilation Such Respectful Wordful Offerings: Selected Essays Of David Myatt, edited by Rachael Stirling, is now available.

ISBN-13: 978-1978374355. BISAC: Biography & Autobiography / Philosophy.


° Editorial Preface
° Bright Berries, One Winter
° The Leaves Are Showering Down
° Perhaps Words Are The Problem
° A Non-Terrestrial View
° Musings On Suffering
° Blue Reflected Starlight
° A Slowful Learning, Perhaps
° Toward Humility – A Brief Personal View
° A Catholic Still, In Spirit?
° Some Personal Perceiverations
° Twenty Years Ago, Today
° Some Questions For DWM, 2017
° Cantio Arcana
Appendix I – A Note On Greek Terms In The Philosophy Of Pathei-Mathos
Appendix II – On Translating Ancient Greek
Appendix III – Concerning ἀγαθός and νοῦς in the Corpus Hermeticum
Appendix IV – Cicero On Summum Bonum
Appendix V – Swan Song Of A Mystic
Appendix VI – Self-Dramatization, Sentimentalist, Or Chronicler Of Pathei Mathos?

Order of Nine Angles


It Can Sometimes Be Informative To Chastise

It can sometimes – in a dialectical sort of way {1} – be informative for our readers, as well as mildly amusing for us, to polemically {2} chastise when someone publicly makes statements about the O9A, and about themselves, which reveal (a) just how silly and ill-informed that ‘someone’ is, and (b) just how they, in their silliness and ignorance, contribute albeit unwittingly to the O9A mythos and thus to its Labyrinthos Mythologicus {3).

Exhibit 1.

In the case under consideration, a silly and ill-informed ‘someone’ wrote: “I am proud of my religion, the Left Hand Path celebrates liberty, life and responsibility.”

In that one short sentence, there are two falsities, indicative of ignorance. First falsity is that the Left Hand Path (LHP) – more correctly, the Western, Occult, Left Hand Path – is a religion; second, that it celebrates some causal (some supra-personal, and social and/or political) abstraction denoted by the term ‘liberty’.

Correctly understood, through a scholarly perusal of Western esotericism, the LHP means: (a) antinomianism, that is (i) the rejection of the morality, and the zeitgeist, of contemporaneous society or societies, and (ii) a rejection of the laws established and enforced by others and in particular by supra-personal entities such as governments; and (b) rejection of religion and of the religious attitude, with the essential attributes of both religion and of the religious attitude being “belief in and (often uncritical) obedience to” what someone or some entity has codified, and “acceptance of being part of” some hierarchical group, community, or organization.

This understanding leads and has led to various modern LHP practices, from those redolent of anarchy and nihilism to those ‘extreme practices’ such as exemplified by the Order of Nine Angles who have defined ‘their’ LHP as a personal Occult way where:

“there is nothing that is not permitted; nothing that is forbidden or restricted. That is, the LHP means the individual takes sole responsibility for their actions and their quest. This makes the LHP both difficult and dangerous – its methods can be used as an excuse for anti-social behaviour as they can be used to aid the fetishes and weaknesses of some individuals as well as lead some into forbidden and illegal acts. However, the genuine Initiate of the LHP is undertaking a quest, and as such is seeking something: that is, there is a dynamic, an imperative about their actions as well as the conscious understanding and appreciation that all such actions are only part of that quest; they are not the quest itself. This arises because the LHP Initiate is seeking mastery and self-knowledge – these being implicit in such an Initiation. Accordingly, the LHP Initiate sees methods as merely methods; experience as merely experience. Both are used, and then discarded.

Because of this the LHP is by its nature ruthless – the strong of character win through, the weak go under. There are no ‘safety nets’ of any kind on the LHP […] The LHP breeds self-achievement and self-excellence, or it destroys.” {4}

In other words, the essence of the O9A LHP is practical, esoteric and exoteric, pathei-mathos {5}.

Exhibit 2.

In the case under consideration, a silly and ill-informed ‘someone’ wrote: “I earned the hatred of the ONA…my lone LHP voice did significant damage to the ONA.”

In that one short sentence, there are two falsities, indicative – in this case – both of ignorance and self-aggrandizement.

a) First falsity. Since the Order of Nine Angles, correctly understood (by means of detailed study of the entire O9A corpus over many months) is an esoteric philosophy presenced in three Occult praxises – and thus rather akin to “a movement, a subculture or perhaps metaculture that its adherents choose to embody or identify with” {6} – then “it” cannot “hate” anybody, no more than Nietzsche’s philosophy can “hate” a person.

b) Second falsity. Since the Order of Nine Angles is an esoteric philosophy presenced in three Occult praxises, an internet-based “voice” or internet-based “voices” cannot do any damage to such a philosophy, significant or otherwise, especially given that such a “voice” or “voices” is or are unscholarly and has not, or have not, presented any formalized philosophical, and mainstream published, written rebuttal of that philosophy in terms of its ontology, epistemology, and theory of ethics.

It seems to have escaped the notice of this particular silly and ill-informed ‘someone’ – and others of that ilk – that (a) a rant or rants, via the internet, about the ONA, (b) making unsubstantiated allegations about the ONA, and (c) spreading rumours about the ONA, do not amount to a philosophical rebuttal of ONA ontology, epistemology, and ethics; and as such are only and will only ever be taken seriously by such silly and ill-informed persons and others of their (mostly internet-bound) ilk.

Which exposure of such falsities will, in all probability, not prevent this particular silly and ill-informed ‘someone’ – and others of that ilk – from continuing to propagate such falsities about the ONA in the future. For no doubt their, apparently necessary, self-belief that their “voices” can make a difference will motive them to continue making unsubstantiated allegations and continue spreading rumours, strengthened as that self-belief no doubt has been, is and will be by what is, for them, an apparently convincing delusion that they possess a detailed, esoteric, and philosophical, knowledge of the ONA.

Exhibit 3.

In the case under consideration, a silly and ill-informed ‘someone’ wrote: “fanatics such as David Myatt (Order of Nine Angles) promote murder in the name of religion.”

In that one short sentence, there are three falsities, indicative – in this case – of that someone giving voice to the zeitgeist of contemporaneous Western society. Or, in less abstruse terms, parroting Magian propaganda {7} about a particular person in some apparent attempt to discredit and demean him.

a) First falsity. Since Mr Myatt, over seven years ago now, (i) has publicly distanced himself (theoretically and practically) from all types of extremism, (ii) was and is engaged only in academic pursuits, such as translations, (iii) lives and has lived as a recluse, and (iv) has developed a personal philosophy of life based on virtues such as empathy, humility, and compassion, he is most certainly not a ‘fanatic’.

b) Second falsity. Since neither the silly and ill-informed ‘someone’ nor anyone else has provided probative evidence that Mr Myatt is or was connected to the Order of Nine Angles, associating him with the ONA amounts to using ‘weasel words’ in order to create a misleading, propagandistic, impression of Mr Myatt.

b) Third falsity. Since the silly and ill-informed ‘someone’ used the present tense (promote) and does not provide any details as to where and when this current promotion of murder – in the name of religion or otherwise – occurred, then the accusation is at best a misleading, propagandistic, one, and at worst is a malicious, libellous, allegation.

Given that the silly and ill-informed ‘someone’ is giving voice to the zeitgeist of contemporaneous Western society by simply parroting Magian propaganda about a particular person – disliked, even hated, as that person is by the savants of the Magian status quo – then the silly and ill-informed ‘someone’ is most certainly not, as they believe, “of the Left Hand Path.”


What this particular case illustrates, once again, is how the majority view by individuals – be they self-professed Occultists or ‘satanists’ – of both the Order of Nine Angles and of Mr Myatt is simply a parroting of Magian propaganda about a particular person and about a particular esoteric philosophy.

In the matter of the Order of Nine Angles, it is disliked – even loathed – because of its opposition to the “Ayn Rand with trappings” Magian ‘satanism’ of Howard Stanton Levey, its opposition to the foreign influenced (the non-Western) cult of Aquino’s ‘Setianism’, and of course because of the O9A’s antinomian, ‘heretical’, support of National Socialism, holocaust revisionism, and of Muslim Jihad.

In the matter of of Mr Myatt, he is disliked – even hated – by the savants of the Magian status quo (which savants include followers of the ‘satanism’ of Howard Stanton Levey as well as anti-fascists) not only because of his alleged links to, and his alleged founding of, the Order of Nine Angles, but also because his experiential life is one of practical opposition to everything Magian, from his thirty years as a neo-nazi activist and as a “principal proponent of contemporary neo-Nazi ideology and theoretician of revolution,” {8} to his decade as an active supporter of Muslim Jihad {9}{10}, to his Western, ineluctably pagan, philosophy of pathei-mathos {11}, and his recent translations of Western texts about hermeticism {12} which restore them to the Western, pagan, mystical tradition.

Our silly and ill-informed ‘someone’ is therefore simply following what has become something of an established Magian tradition of demeaning and trying to discredit both the O9A and Mr Myatt.

2017 ev


{1} Being pedants by inclination and occupation, we shall explain what we mean by various terms. Dialectical/dialectic:

(i) Having premises which are merely probable as opposed to demonstrably true; based on probable opinions rather than on demonstrable fact. (ii) Characterized by the existence or operation of opposing forces, tendencies, opinions, etcetera; the tension and disputes produced by the clash of such forces, opinions, etcetera; and the revealing of truth (the insight) that can result from such tension, disputes, and clashes. (iii) A disputant who disputes to be transgressive and/or to engender a dialectical response.

(ii) Polemic/polemical:

“Of the nature of, exhibiting, given to, or relating to dispute or controversy; contentious, disputatious, combative. a diatribe. A controversial argument; a strong verbal or written attack on a person, opinion, or doctrine. An aggressive debate or controversy; the practice of engaging in such debate. A person who argues or writes in opposition to another, or who takes up a controversial position; a controversialist.”

{3} The Labyrinthos Mythologicus of the O9A is explained here: https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/labyrinthos-mythologicus/

{4} The LHP – An Analysis. 1991. Published in Hostia, volume III.

{5} Refer to Notes On The Esoteric Learning Presenced Through Pathei-Mathos, available at https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/pathei-mathos/

{6}Monette, Connell. Mysticism in the 21st Century. Sirius Academic Press. 2013. p. 89.

{7} The O9A use the term Magian to refer to the hybrid ethos of Yahoud and of Western hubriati, and to those individuals who are Magian by either breeding or nature. The essence of the paternalistic Magian ethos is inherent in Judaism, in Nasrany, and in Islam.

Two of the most prominent manifestations of the Magian ethos, in the modern world and in Western societies in particular, are (i) the State sponsored religion of holocaustianity (with the attendant demonizing of Hitler, the Third Reich, National Socialism, and the demonizing of ‘White’ – but not of non-White – ethnic awareness) and (ii) causal abstractions deriving from materialism, with the attendant cults of (a) usury and capitalism, and of (b) hubris and egoism such as the “Ayn Rand with trappings” so-called ‘satanism’ of Howard Stanton Levey.

Hubriati: The O9A use the term hubriati to refer to that class of individuals, in the West, who have been and who are subsumed by the Magian ethos and the delusion of (causal) abstractions, and who occupy positions of influence and/or of power. Hubriati include politicians, Media magnates and their savants, military commanders, government officials, industrialists, bankers, many academics and teachers, and so on. The oligarchy (elected and unelected) that forms the controllers of Western governments are almost excursively hubriati.

{8} Michael, George. The New Media and the Rise of Exhortatory Terrorism. Strategic Studies Quarterly (United States Air Force), Volume 7 Issue 1, Spring 2013.

{9} Simon Wiesenthal Center. Response. Summer 2003, Vol 24, #2

{10} Mark Weitzmann, Anti-Semitism and Terrorism, in Dienel, Hans-Liudger (editor), Terrorism and the Internet: Threats, Target Groups, Deradicalisation Strategies. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series, vol. 67. IOS Press, 2010. pp.16-17.

{11}Refer to The Philosophy of Pathei-Mathos .

{12} David Myatt. Corpus Hermeticum: Eight Tractates. Translations and commentaries. 2017. ISBN-13: 978-1976452369

Source: https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2017/09/18/it-can-sometimes-be-informative-to-chastise/

In a recent article {1} David Myatt quotes from one Flavius Josephus, the much vaunted Jewish ‘historian’ who lived during the time of Vespasian, the Roman general whose son destroyed the Jewish temple in Jerusalem.

Myatt’s article reminded me of how unreliable Josephus is as an historical source, how boastful he was about himself, and how his writings (such as The Antiquities of the Jews, and The Jewish War) are still used as a reliable source by many authors.

Among the uncorroborated boasts of Josephus was his claim to be of “royal blood” and that he was so knowledgable at 14 years of age that High Priests and other influential people came to him for advice (The Life of Flavius Josephus, 1) . Other uncorroborated boasts are that during the Judean rebellion against Rome he was high-ranking military officer who was responsible for raising and training a large army and for fortifying cities, and that when the people of Jerusalem believed false rumors of his death they were all in morning for a month.

When what he writes can be checked with other historical accounts his errors are obvious. To present just four from dozens of examples. (1) Comparing the account of Josephus regarding the camp of Mithridates by the Nile (Antiquities, 14. 128-136) with the accounts of Cassius Dio (42.41ff), and of Alus Hirtius in De Bello Alexandrino (26ff) shows that Josephus got his facts wrong. (2) Comparing the account of Josephus regarding the expulsion of Hebrews (Antiquities, 12.414ff) with sources such as For Flaccus (28) by Cicero contradicts Josephus. (3) Josephus confuses the Persian Kings Darius the Second and Darius the Third. (4) Josephus (Antiquities, 168) claimed that Nehemiah travelled to Jerusalem in the 25th year of the reign of Xerxes despite the fact that the reign of Xerxes only lasted for 20 years.

In summary, because of his proven unreliability and his boasting Josephus comes across as someone repeating uncorroborated hearsay; as biased, and as self-serving. Someone, that is, who in this day and age would not – or who should not – be considered a reliable witness.


{1} https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/2017/07/05/a-note-on-the-term-jews-in-the-gospel-of-john/

David Myatt

David Myatt

David Myatt: Satanic Islamist?

Extract from the article:

We analyse here a representative sample of the claims, made some years ago about Myatt by an anonymous accuser in an internet published article, revealing as the analysis does the flaws in the sources used, the factual errors made, and how the accuser employs propagandistic methods in an obvious attempt to try and convince readers that his claims about Myatt are true or at least merit serious consideration […]

As for the Order of Nine Angles, they – being “a dangerous and extreme form of Satanism” – revel in not only such associations with someone whose exeatic life encompasses violence, terrorism, extremism, and crime, but also in the notoriety of “being bad” in the real world as the anonymous accuser certainly believes Myatt to be. In this respect, every accusation made against Myatt by the anonymous accuser, and by others, is kudos for the amoral ONA, enhancing their image, their reputation, as practitioners of evil in the real world.

Thus, the more they revile and seek to demonize Mr Myatt – based on the assumption that he is Anton Long – the more they hype the “dangerous and extreme” Order of Nine Angles as being evil.

Now, were they to accept Myatt as now being some reformed extremist, some modern mystic extolling the virtues of compassion, love, and humility, then the ONA might have something of an image problem given how so many seem to believe that, as Senholt wrote, “the role of David Myatt [is] paramount to the whole creation and existence of the ONA.”

That opponents of the ONA and of Myatt do not seem to understand this is most amusing, for us and our kind.

David Myatt

David Myatt


For the past seven or eight years – including in recent months – there have been attempts made to ‘demonize’ David Myatt all based on the unproven allegation that he is Anton Long of Order of Nine Angles fame.

These attempts have been made both by some individuals associating themselves with the Order of Nine Angles (ONA, O9A) and by those who for whatever reason or from whatever motive are opposed to the O9A or to Myatt himself. Such O9A opponents include self-described
modern Satanists as well those who profess to be followers of Jesus and those who take exception to what they believe is the pro-Nazi stance of the O9A. Those who are opposed to Myatt himself include anti-fascists who profess such slogans as “never forgive, never forget” and who thus cannot forgive or forget Myatt’s neo-nazi past, {1} and individuals who for unconscious emotive reasons of their own are in some way either jealous of the real Myatt or hate the ‘sinister Myatt’ conjured up by their imagination, with the ‘real’ Myatt having been described as “having fluency in the classical languages (Greek and Latin), as well as Arabic and possibly Persian, [and] possessed of a gifted intellect and apparently a polymath,” {2} and as “an extremely violent, intelligent, dark, and complex individual,” {3} and with the ‘sinister’ Myatt being accused by demonizers of all manner of crimes even though no evidence is ever provided to substantiate their accusations. {4}

        In the matter of individuals associating themselves with the O9A, their intent seems clear. It is to portray Myatt – aka Anton Long – in the most sinister light possible given that such individuals assert that the O9A is Satanist and indeed the only modern genuinely antinomian and satanist group because it espouses and practices what is evil such as criminality, violence, hatred, human sacrifice, political extremism, drug-trafficking and terrorism. Hence their composition and circulation of texts such as Bealuwes Gast {5} and Diablerie {6} and hence their assertion that Myatt is central to the O9A with his weird life an example of what it means to follow the O9A Seven Fold Way.

In the matter of individuals who are followers of Jesus – or at least sympathetic to the Christian religion – their intent also seems clear. It is to portray Myatt as an example, par excellence, of either a nihilistic modernism or of what a servant of Satan is and does in the real world, with one for instance recently writing that

“it is clear from my reading of O9A material that it is essentially not about the promethean elevation of the human person or individuality at all, which its talk of individuation and so on might seem to imply at first sight, but that the entire ‘philosophical’ system is geared towards the cunning seduction of human individuals in order to have them possessed and effectively taken over by these demonic entities (‘dark gods’), whose agenda is the source of this magical covenant itself, rather than David Myatt as an individualistic ‘philosopher’ with a personal agenda. Much of the teaching as presented exoterically to non-initiates is thus no more than upaya or ‘skilful means’ (if I’m permitted to appropriate the Buddhist term) to get people hooked so that the demons will have their incarnate vehicles to exploit. Some of the O9A fiction outlines very explicitly how it is a matter of a demonic infection being spread through the empowered transmission from a possessed initiate to another human vessel. The terrible truth is that the ‘new, more evolved individual’ is nothing more than a puppet of these satanic beings.”

A Common Theme

All such attempts to demonize Myatt have one thing in common. They all ignore important aspects of Myatt’s life and a swathe of his writings.

The ignored aspects of his life include his public (post 2010) rejection of all extremism (including neo-nazi and fascist ideology) while his ignored writings include his poetry, his published letters, his post 2011 writings about extremism, his writings about his philosophy of pathei-mathos with its principles of empathy, humility, and compassion, his 2013 autobiography Myngath; his post 2012 autobiographical essays included in books such as Sarigthersa and One Vagabond In Exile From The Gods {7} and his essays praising Christianity and in particular Catholicism. {8}

The demonizers of Myatt have ignored such things because those things reveal a very different Myatt. One at odds with the ‘sinister’ image of him they have all in their own way strived to manufacture and have propagated in pursuit of their aims. For the image of Myatt that emerges from his poetry and his post 2011 writings is of a reclusive man who regrets his extremist past, who values virtues such as empathy and compassion, and who believes that

“the most important truth concerning human life […] is that a shared, a loyal, love between two people is the most beautiful, the most numinous, the most valuable thing of all.”

Naturally, one or two demonizers have tried to ‘square the circle’ here by claiming that Myatt’s rejection of extremism is a ruse and that the aforementioned writings of his were either written by someone else or were a clever ‘sinister’ jape by Myatt in order to mislead people.

Such claims are of course both laughable and revealing of the need such demonizers have of their ‘sinister Myatt’. That some of these demonizers have resorted to forgeries which they claim were written by Myatt while others have attached Myatt’s name to old or photocopied O9A typewritten articles, {9} shows the lengths they will go to propagandise their ‘sinister Myatt’ and to support their claim that Myatt is after all Anton Long.

As noted in an essay by Ms J. Wright, Myatt’s later writings

“express is a mysticism, a reverence for and an appreciation of the numinous, so at odds with the ethos and the practice of Satanism – of whatever variety – that it is inconceivable that they were written by a Satanist or even by a practising Occultist.” {10}

Rachael Stirling

{1} According to an academic source Myatt is “arguably England’s principal proponent of contemporary neo-Nazi ideology and theoretician of revolution.” Michael, George. The New Media and the Rise of Exhortatory Terrorism. Strategic Studies Quarterly (USAF), Volume 7 Issue 1, Spring 2013.

{2} Connell Monette. Mysticism in the 21st Century, Sirius Academic Press, 2013. pp. 85-122.

{3} Raine, Susan. The Devil’s Party (Book review). Religion, Volume 44, Issue 3, July 2014, pp. 529-533

{4} Some of the silly accusations made against Myatt are included in the 2010 pdf compilation titled Lies of a Moac, currently [March 2017] available at

These silly accusations include (see pp.7ff of the aforementioned document) gangstalking, hacking into various internet forums, stealing people’s ID’s by hacking their computers, attacking disabled people, and that he was a police informer.

{5} Regarding the forgery titled Bealuwes Gast see the article Bealuwes Gast: A Study in Forgery.

{6} Regarding the forgery titled Diablerie see the article A Skeptic Reviews Diablerie.

{7} All these writings, and the poetry, are available from Myatt’s blog Learning From Adversity; A Rejection of Extremism.

{8} For instance see A Catholic Still In Spirit?

{9} Several people have claimed that they have or they have seen old typewritten O9A articles or letters or manuscripts signed with Myatt’s name. Yet as noted in O9A Questions And Answers 2017 (pdf) in response to one such claim that

“a signature on some old ONA typewritten MSS proves nothing. Anyone could have affixed Myatt’s name on them at any time and until the original documents are made available and examined in a forensic way by a professional qualified to do so then it’s just speculation; just another rumor about Myatt. A forensic examination would involve, among other things, finding the age of the paper, the type of ink used in the signature, comparing the signature with a documented signature by Myatt.”

{10} The Strange Life Of David Myatt (pdf).

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.”

Richard Stirling

{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: Notes On The Corpus Hermeticum

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

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/


David Myatt, Corpus Hermeticum I, III, IV, VIII, XI. 126 pages.
Second Edition, 2017.
ISBN-13: 978-1545020142

This book is a welcome addition to the works of Myatt available in print bringing together as it does his translation of five 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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

{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, 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.


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


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

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