David Myatt

David Myatt

More Academic Inaccuracies

Given the lamentable state of modern academic research into esotericism, as highlighted in several previous articles such as the one titled The Occult And Academia {1}, it was no surprise to read the many mistakes about the Order of Nine Angles and about Mr David Myatt in a recently published book by a major and well-respected academic publisher.

The book in question is Satanism: A Social History written by Massimo Introvigne (professor of Sociology of Religions at Pontifical Salesian University, Torino) and published in 2016 by Brill, Leiden, as volume 21 in the series Texts and Studies in Western Esotericism. The book consists of 651 pages and retails in the UK for around £156.

A section of the book – under the heading Satan The Prophet – is devoted to the Order of Nine Angles (pp. 357-364) with Introvigne writing, among other things,

1. That Myatt was Anton Long was “confirmed” by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke in his 2003 book Black Sun.
2. That Myatt’s middle name is “William”.
3. That Senholt “offered a number of elements confirming that Long was indeed Myatt”.
4. That the ONA “acknowledged that Anton Long was a nom de plume of Myatt”.
5. That Myatt joined Jordan’s British Movement in 1969.
6. That the ONA Black Mass “derived from Huysmans and the rituals of the Church of Satan.
7. That the Temple of Set “perceived the competition [the ONA] as dangerous, particularly when in the late 1980s some members of the Temple of Set started considering themselves members of the ONA at the same time. In 1992, Aquino and his British representative David Austen launched an internal purge, expelling from the Temple of Set those members who also wanted to remain in the ONA.”

In respect of his claims:

§ Introvigne not only, due to a lack of detailed research, gets several facts wrong – for instance, Myatt’s middle name is Wulstan, not William; he joined British Movement in 1968 not 1969 – but also does not provide any evidence from primary sources (or indeed from any sources) in support of several of his claims, such as the claim regarding the ONA Black Mass, and the claim regarding the Temple of Set. His claims are just stated as if they were fact. In the matter of the claim about Aquino, for example, it seems that Introvigne did not bother to contact Aquino himself to ask for his side of the story.

§ In addition, Goodrick-Clarke did not confirm anything regarding Myatt being Long, he merely stated that Myatt was Long and accepted without question that the MS titled Diablerie – a notorious forgery {2} – was written by Myatt and that it recounted details of Myatt’s early life. Goodrick-Clarke did not provide any evidence from primary sources that Myatt was Anton Long nor regarding Myatt having written that MS.

§ Likewise in respect of Senholt, for Senholt also provided no evidence from primary sources that Myatt was Anton Long. Instead, he claimed – without providing any evidence from forensic linguistics – that there was a similarity of writing style between works by Myatt and Long, a claim disputed by several other academics (Monette, Sieg, Kaplan), and also claimed that Myatt’s extremist adventures (neo-nazi followed by radical Muslim) were ONA Insight Roles and thus linked Myatt to the ONA even though such Insight Roles only last around a year while Myatt’s neo-nazi adventures lasted thirty years (1968-1998) with his time as a radical Muslim lasting over ten years (1998-2009). Furthermore, Senholt made no mention of the many things about Myatt’s life which contradict his thesis, such as Myatt’s marriage in a Christian church and his writings praising Christianity and especially Catholicism. {3}

§ As a source for his claim that the ONA “acknowledged that Anton Long was a nom de plume of Myatt” Introvigne cites the text A Modern Mage: Anton Long and the Order of Nine Angles, neglecting to mention four important facts.

(1) “That since Anton Long retired in 2011 no one publicly speaks ‘on behalf of the O9A’. Nor can anyone now or in the future speak ‘on behalf of the O9A’. As befits the O9A principle of ‘the authority of individual judgement’. For even if the person is O9A, as the author of that book is, they are just presenting their own opinion, their own interpretation, just as these answers – and the earlier ones – are someone’s opinion, their interpretation, of matters O9A.” {4}

(2) That the authors of that text are presenting their personal opinions about Myatt and Long and provide no evidence from primary sources in support of such opinions.

(3) That others associated with the ONA have lambasted that text, writing that “the authors seem to have committed the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc; concluding that Anton Long is (or must be) Myatt because his publicly documented life apparently fits the paradigm of what someone ONA should be like and should do in the real world.” {5}

(4) That the nature of the ONA – with its independent nexions and its principle of the authority of individual judgement – means that those associating with the ONA have diverse and often different opinions about various matters, including about whether Myatt=Long and including about the ONA itself. {6}

Conclusion

As noted in a recent ONA polemic,

“Correctly understood, a scholarly approach means undertaking a meticulous, unbiased, research into a specific subject over a period of some years using, wherever possible, primary sources; formulating an opinion based on such learning, such knowledge, as results from such research, and in respect of writing academic papers and books about the subject providing copious, accurate, references to the source material.

Primary sources include direct evidence such as original documents dating from the period under study, and accounts and works (written, verbal, published or unpublished) by such individuals whose life or whose writings or whose works form part of the research. In addition, if such sources – documents or accounts or writings – are in another language, then it is incumbent upon the scholar to have knowledge of that language and thus be able to translate such documents themselves, for a reliance upon the translations of others relegates such sources from the position of primary ones to secondary ones.

Hence, if the author of an academic book or academic paper writes about a person and/or about their works, or about an event, using only secondary sources – sources containing the opinions, the interpretations, or the conclusions of others – then the opinion, the interpretation, the conclusions of that author about such a person and/or about their works, or about an event, are unauthoritative because unscholarly.” {7}

The last paragraph sums up what Introvigne writes about the ONA and about Mr Myatt, for since Introvigne only offers the opinions, the interpretations, or the conclusions of others, providing no evidence from primary sources, his own opinion is unauthoritative because unscholarly. That he also makes some basic factual errors and obviously has not done detailed research into the ONA (as evident in not knowing about the authority of individual judgement and other matters) highlight once again the shoddy nature of quite a lot of academic research into Western esotericism in general and modern Satanism in particular.

K.S.
2017

{1} https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/more-unscholarly-research/
{2} https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/about/a-sceptics-review-of-diablerie/
{3} The facts which contradict Senholt’s thesis are enumerated by Myatt is his essay A Matter of Honour available at https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/myatt-a-matter-of-honour/
{4} Some Questions About The Order of Nine Angles (2016), Part One. Available (April 2017) at https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/o9a-q-a/
{5} https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2017/02/09/review-of-the-radical-philosophy-of-anton-long/
{6} A classic example of differing ONA views is given in the text at https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/2017/02/15/aristocracy-anarchy-or-nihilism/
{7} https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/another-typical-anti-o9a-example/


Related:

Academia, David Myatt, And The Order of Nine Angles
(pdf)

David Myatt And Satanism
(pdf)


Advertisements
David Myatt

David Myatt

David Myatt, Satanism, and Anton Long

Analysis of Some Rumors

 

Regarding the much discussed question of Myatt and his alleged involvement with the sinister group the Order of Nine Angles (ONA), in my opinion there are three alternative scenarios.

Possible Myatt Scenarios

1) Individuals can choose to accept David Myatt’s consistent and decades long denial regarding being ‘Anton Long’, and his claim that his occult involvement (such as it was) was brief and – as he mentioned in Ethos of Extremism and (decades ago) to people like Professor Kaplan – occurred in the 1970s when he participated in a clandestine occult honeytrap for the sole purpose of subversively aiding his then fanatical nazism 1. Thus, as he outlined in his autobiography Myngath, in his Ethos of Extremism, and in many other of his writings, (i) for 30 years he sincerely believed in nazi ideology, in a neo-nazi revolution, as evidenced by his political and para-military activities, by his imprisonment, his writings, and his leadership of the NSM and Reichsfolk; and (ii) that following a decade of travels in lands such as Egypt 2 and a growing admiration of Muslims he personally met, he converted to Islam and spent many years sincerely trying to live the Muslim way of life; (iii) that following the death of his then partner he was forced to re-evaluate his life and beliefs and which re-evaluation led to him rejecting all forms of extremism and developing the personal weltanschauung he termed ‘the numinous way’ (aka the philosophy of pathei-mathos).

In this first scenario Myatt was a fallible if arrogant trouble maker – a rebel and a fanatic – who gradually learned humility 3 after an eventful life, and who rediscovers his humanity, and admits his mistakes, following a personal tragedy.

2) Individuals can choose to believe that David Myatt was and is Anton Long and that his 30 years as a nazi and his 10 years as a Muslim were part of some life-long sinister and cunning plan of his to subvert society and that he was so sinister and so skilled at deception and so charismatic that he could: (i) initially convince people about his sincerity regarding being a nazi fanatic and then a sincere Muslim, and (ii) also fool scores of people consistently for 30 years (in the case of NS) and 10 years (in the case of Islam) and (iii) that in order to maintain the charade he was prepared to and did endure imprisonment (in the case of NS) and was prepared (in the case of Islam) to be regarded by various governments as a terrorist and so be liable to arrest, interrogation, extradition, and imprisonment, and (iv) while doing all the foregoing also managed to create, expand, write for and run the ONA.

In this second scenario he is some kind of evil genius (with good acting skills) involved in a decades long and international sinister conspiracy; someone who, astonishingly 4, is capable of living a double (or triple) life for years on end and capable of manipulating and duping (for years on end) all kinds of people from hardened criminals to neo-nazi ruffians to devout Muslims to believing Christians to intellectuals.

3) Individuals can choose to believe – as some conspiracy minded individuals have suggested 5 – that David Myatt has spent most of his adult life as some kind of government/state asset, undercover operative, or agent provocateur, having been recruited either at University or during his time with the underground paramilitary group Column 88 (part of NATO’s secret anti-communist Gladio network).

In this third scenario he is a loyal servant of the British state – a patriot, a ruthless operative (inciting violence, disorder, subversion, and terrorism) – who obeys a covert chain of command, and which British state indulges in and has indulged in ‘dirty tricks’ in order to protect its security and its interests, and which ‘dirty tricks’ include undercover surveillance, entrapment, infiltration and disruption of groups perceived to be a threat and/or terrorist, and – possibly – using terrorist (and extremist) groups/the threat of terrorism as a pretext for greater surveillance and government control.

Explanations Required

Those who believe versions/scenarios 3 and 2 (the agent provocateur and the satanist scenarios) have to explain Myatt’s life – and his philosophy, his personal letters, and his mystical writings – since 2006, and which life and which writings (many of which writings deal with humility, compassion, his remorse about his extremist past, and his mistakes) do not fit the theory of Myatt being either a life-long satanist or some dedicated ruthless covert government asset. The only explanations consistent with those versions of Myatt’s life are the following additional assumptions: (i) that his numinous way/philosophy of pathei-mathos is something he does not personally believe in, and he diabolically constructed it as some sort of smokescreen or jape and (ii) that his personal writings are all lies, some clever attempt (by an amoral genius) at obfuscation 6 to divert attention from ‘the sinister deeds’/the covert ops such believers believe he has done and probably is still doing, or was doing until very recently; or (iii) in the particular case of the agent provocateur theory, that c.2006 he ‘retired’ and devoted himself to expressing what he really believed in all along or what he came to believe following a lifetime of state-sponsored covert activity.

Furthermore, those who accept version 2 (the satanist scenario) have additionally to explain not only the lack of factual evidence proving he is a satanist 7 but also many other things about Myatt’s life, among which are the following 8,

1) His time as a Christian monk and his many subsequent writings praising Catholicism in particular and Christianity in general 9.

2) His Occultism and National-Socialism text – written in the 1980’s and republished in the 1990’s and again around 2006 – and in which he denounced occultism.

3) The “small matter” of him being married in Church in accordance with the Christian ceremony of marriage.

4) His semi-autobiographical poetry 10.

5) His voluminous writings about the hubris of extremism, and about his rejection of and his remorse concerning his extremist past 11.

6) An extensive seven hour search of his home by six Detectives from Scotland Yard in 1998 failed to find any occult items or literature.

7) A forensic analysis, by the police, of Myatt’s seized computers following his arrest in 1998 failed to find any occult material.

Again, the only explanation of all these things consistent with the Myatt as satanist scenario is that he is and was not only the astonishingly cunning, duplicitous, evil genius mentioned above, but also someone who has now (again astonishingly) contrived to create yet another persona for himself (as philosopher of ‘the numinous way’ and humble penitent) and which persona he has managed to rather convincingly and certainly consistently portray through letters, poems, and scores of essays, spanning some six years (2006 -2012) 12.

Conclusion

We basically have a choice between:

(i) believing Myatt is an astonishingly diabolical, duplicitous, creative, polymathical genius who over four decades has been playing ‘sinister games’ and who has not deviated from his youthful sinister cunning plan, and which diabolical genius makes the likes of Crowley and LaVey (and everyone else associated with modern Satanism and the ‘left hand path’) seem pathetic and mundane; or

(ii) assuming Myatt has spent most of his adult life as a covert servant of the British state; or

(iii) accepting that Myatt has lived a quite adventurous (but not an exceptionally amazing) life, has made mistakes, has suffered a personal tragedy, and has learned from and been changed by his experiences and by that tragedy.

How do we choose? I have always admired Isaac Newton’s Rules of Reasoning of which the first is:

“We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.”

To guide us toward choosing one of the three suggested explanations of Myatt’s diverse life we might profitably apply this rule of reasoning. Which of the above three scenarios is therefore the most plausible? Which offers the most simple, the most rational, explanation for Myatt’s peregrinations? Which require the pomp of conspiracy theory, and which involve superfluous causes, and (sometimes bizarre, sometimes astonishing) ad hoc assumptions and claims?

I know which one I favor.

JR Wright

2012

Footnotes

[1] In part two of his political memoir Ethos of Extremism – covering the years 1973-1975 -Myatt wrote:

” There also developed in me during this time, and because of my involvement with C88, a realization that both covert action and terrorism were or might be useful tactics to employ in the struggle for victory, a struggle which I – extremist and fanatic that I was – accepted would be brutal, violent, and bloody, and thus possibly cost the lives of some of us, some of our opponents, and even some non-combatants […]

In respect of covert action, I came to the conclusion, following some discussions with some C88 members, that two different types of covert groups, with different strategy and tactics, might be very useful in our struggle and thus aid us directly or aid whatever right-wing political party might serve as a cover for introducing NS policies or which could be used to advance our cause. These covert groups would not be paramilitary and thus would not resort to using armed force since that option was already covered, so far as I was then concerned, by C88.

The first type of covert group would essentially be a honeytrap, to attract non-political people who might be or who had the potential to be useful to the cause even if, or especially if, they had to be ‘blackmailed’ or persuaded into doing so at some future time. The second type of covert group would be devoted to establishing a small cadre of NS fanatics, of ‘sleepers’, to – when the time was right – be disruptive or generally subversive.

Nothing came of this second idea, and the few people I recruited during 1974 for the second group, migrated to help the first group, established the previous year. However, from the outset this first group was beset with problems for – in retrospect – two quite simple reasons, both down to me. First, my lack of leadership skills, and, second, the outer nature chosen for the group which was of a secret Occult group with the ‘offer’, the temptation, of sexual favours from female members in a ritualized Occult setting, with some of these female members being ‘on the game’ and associated with someone who was associated with my small gang of thieves […]

For some time, this underground group appeared to flourish, with some ‘respectable’ people recruited – initially a lecturer, a solicitor, a teacher, among others – with some of the recruits becoming converts to or in some way helping our political cause, and with such clandestine recruitment aided, later on, by some unexpected, non-factual, unwanted, publicity.

But what happened was that, over time and under the guidance of its mentor, the Occult and especially the hedonistic aspects came to dominate over the political and subversive intent, with the raisons d’etat of blackmail and persuasion, of recruiting useful, respectable, people thus lost. Hence, while I still considered, then and for quite some time afterwards, that the basic idea of such a subversive group, such a honeytrap, was sound, I gradually lost interest in this particular immoral honeytrap project until another spell in prison for an assortment of offences took me away from Leeds and my life as a violent neo-nazi activist.”

[2] In part six of Ethos of Extremism – dealing with the years 1998-1992 – Myatt wrote:

” There was no sudden decision to convert to Islam. Rather, it was the culmination of a process that began a decade earlier with travels in the Sahara Desert. During the decade before my conversion I regularly travelled abroad, with this travel including well-over a dozen visits to Egypt and a few visits to other lands where the majority of the population were Muslim.

Egypt, especially, enchanted me; and not because of the profundity of ancient monuments. Rather because of the people, their culture, and the land itself. How life, outside of Cairo, seemed to mostly cling to the Nile – small settlements, patches and strips of verdanity, beside the flowing water and hemmed in by dry desert. I loved the silence, the solitude, the heat, of the desert; the feeling of there being precariously balanced between life and death, dependant on carried water, food; the feeling of smallness, a minute and fragile speck of life; the vast panorama of sky. There was a purity there, human life in its essence, and it was so easy, so very easy, to feel in such a stark environment that there was, must be, a God, a Creator, who could decide if one lived or died.

Once, after a long trip into the Western Desert, I returned to Cairo to stay at some small quite run-down hotel: on one side, a Mosque, while not that far away on the other side was a night-club. A strange, quixotic, juxtaposition that seemed to capture something of the real modern Egypt. Of course, very early next morning the Adhaan from the mosque woke me. I did not mind. Indeed, I found it hauntingly beautiful and, strangely, not strange at all; as if it was some long-forgotten and happy memory, from childhood perhaps.

Once, I happened to be cycling from Cairo airport to the centre of the city as dawn broke, my route taking me past several Mosques. So timeless, so beautiful, the architecture, the minarets, framed by the rising sun…

Once, and many years before my conversion, I bought from a bookshop in Cairo a copy of the Quran containing the text in Arabic with a parallel English interpretation, and would occasionally read parts of it, and although I found several passages interesting, intriguing, I then had no desire, felt no need, to study Islam further. Similarly, the many friendly conversations I had with Egyptians during such travels – about their land, their culture, and occasionally about Islam – were for me just informative, only the interest of a curious outsider, and did not engender any desire to study such matters in detail.

However, all these experiences, of a decade and more, engendered in me a feeling which seemed to grow stronger year by year with every new trip. This was the feeling that somehow in some strange haunting way I belonged there, in such places, as part of such a culture. A feeling which caused me – some time after the tragic death of Sue (aged 39) from cancer in the early 1990’s – to enrol on, and begin, an honours course in Arabic at a British university.

Thus, suffice to say that a decade of such travel brought a feeling of familiarity and resonance with Egypt, its people, its culture, that land, and with the Islam that suffused it, so that when in the Summer of 1998 I seriously began to study Islam, to read Ahadith, Seerah, and the whole Quran, I had at least some context from practical experience. Furthermore, the more I studied Islam in England in those Summer months the more I felt, remembered, the sound of the beautiful Adhaan; remembered the desert – that ætherial purity, that sense of God, there; and remembered that haunting feeling of perhaps already belonging to such a culture, such a way of life.

Hence my conversion to Islam, then, in September of that year, seemed somehow fated, wyrdful.”

[3] Of this learning of humility, Myatt – in his Pathei-Mathos, A Path To Humility – writes:

“In terms of my own pathei-mathos, the culture of Islam – manifest in Adab, in Namaz, and in a reliance on only Allah, and a culture lived, experienced, by me over a period of some nine years – was not only a new revelation of the numinous but also a grounding in practical humility. The very performance of Namaz requires and cultivates an attitude of personal humility, most obvious in Sajdah, the prostration to and in the presence of Allah, Ar-Rahman, Ar-Raheem; a personal humility encouraged by Adab, and shared in Jummah Namaz in a Masjid and during Ramadan.”

[4] Even adherents of the Myatt is a satanist scenario are forced to admit that this kind of supposition is astonishing:

“Even more astonishing than this transition [from neo-nazi to Muslim], is that it seems both his Nazism and Islamism are merely instruments for the ONA’s underlying sinister esoteric plots.” Per Faxneld: Post-Satanism, Left Hand Paths, and Beyond in Per Faxneld & Jesper Petersen (eds) The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity, Oxford University Press (2012), p.207. ISBN 9780199779246

[5] As the Canadian author and satirist Jeff Wells wrote:

“Is Myatt an agent provocateur, a shit-disturber who can’t settle upon a radical philosophy, something more, or something less? It’s difficult to assess motive, but consider that he has been arrested numerous times for such things as writing and disseminating ‘practical terrorist guides’ [and] on suspicion of conspiracy to murder. These cases have always been dropped due to ‘lack of evidence’. Does he enjoy protection? The record is suggestive that he does…

So again: whose interests are served by there being a David Myatt? Is he is own man – or men – or does he belong to someone else? Or is it something else – an intelligence service perhaps?” Nine Angles of Separation, 2005.

An overview of the theory of Myatt as agent provocateur is given in the 2009 text David Myatt: Agent Provocateur?

[6] As one exponent of the Myatt is a satanist scenario states in respect of Myatt himself and some of Myatt’s writings: “[The article] appears to be part of the game that Myatt is playing with the media […] His conversion to Islam was probably nothing more than a game of make-believe […] It is my claim that Myatt’s move to Islam is part of a sinister strategy that has its roots in the insight roles and idea of sinister dialectics within the ONA […] Myatt’s life-long devotion to various extreme ideologies has been part of a sinister game that is at the heart of the ONA.” Senholt, Jacob. Secret Identities in The Sinister Tradition: Political Esotericism and the Convergence of Radical Islam, Satanism and National Socialism in the Order of Nine Angles, in Per Faxneld & Jesper Petersen (eds) The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity, Oxford University Press (2012), pp. 266, 267, 269.

The relevant expressions in the above quotation are ‘appears to be’, ‘probably nothing more than’, and ‘my claim’. For no evidence is adduced. Is it tendentious to claim, as Senholt does, that Myatt’s years as a Muslim were ‘nothing more than a game of make-believe’ given that Myatt put himself at risk of arrest, interrogation, extradition, and imprisonment, by preaching Jihad, meeting with Islamists, and penning texts supporting suicide attacks and bin Laden, and thus merited a mention at NATO conferences on terrorism in 2005, in 2006, and again in 2010?

It would be interesting to know how the exponents of the Myatt is a satanist and Myatt is Anton Long scenarios explain the contents of the two volumes of Myatt’s personal letters that have been published, since these letters – just like Myatt’s poetry – portray a person very different from a satanist playing ‘sinister games’. Would they claim these letters were ‘nothing more than make-believe’ and thus part of the sinister game they allege Myatt is playing? The two volumes in question are Selected Letters, 2002-2008 (pdf) and Extracts from Letters to Friends, 2008-2011 (pdf).

[7] In A Matter of Honour Myatt wrote:

Since at least 1997 I have no doubt been under regular covert surveillance by Special Branch and MI5 – and especially so since 9/11 given some statements I made while a Muslim – with all my communications (internet, telephonic) monitored via GCHQ. Indeed, following my conversion to Islam and during the time I seemed to be, for the security services and the Police, ‘a significant person of interest’, I recall many meetings and friendly conversations with one of the Special Branch officers on attachment to the city near where I was then living.

Given such surveillance and interest, no doubt there are records somewhere of my activities as a neo-nazi extremist; of my subsequent life as a radical Muslim supporting Jihad, and finally of my life as a reclusive philosopher, a friend of σοφόν who seeks, throughλόγος, to uncover – to understand – Being and beings, and who thus suggests or proposes an ontology of Being. What there will not be, will be any records of ‘Myatt as Satanist’.

As I mentioned in my article Polemos Our Genesis in respect of such surveillance:

‘I have [since at least 1997] worked on the assumption that my communications are monitored, so I have restricted my internet and telephonic communications to friends, family, and to people I personally know or who are personally known to someone I trust. This means two things. That all I communicate is personal, open, transparent, and honest; and that if someone not belonging to this small circle of contacts claims to have had some communication from me – either sent with my name or sent using some pseudonym – then it is bogus.’

[8] q.v. David Myatt: A Matter of Honour (e-text 2012).

[9] These writings include The Pursuit of Wisdom (2011), Just My Fallible Views, Again, and the collection Pathei-Mathos – A Path To Humility (2010-2012).

[10] According to Myatt his poetry “was composed between the years 1971-2012, and is of varying quality. Having undertaken the onerous task of re-reading those poems that I still have copies of, there are in my fallible view only around a dozen that I consider may possibly be good enough to be read by others. This collection [‘Relict’] contains these few poems, and most are autobiographical in nature.”

[11] These writings about his rejection of extremism include (i) A Rejection of Extremism (pdf), (ii) Meditations on Extremism, Remorse, and The Numinosity of Love, (iii) De Novo Caelo (pdf).

A selection of quotations about extremism taken from Myatt’s recent writings are given in the e-text Concerning Extremism.

For Myatt’s analysis of extremism as hubris see (i) Some Personal Musings On Empathy, in relation to the philosophy of πάθει μάθος [Part Two of Myatt’s Recuyle Of The Philosophy Of Pathei-Mathos] and (ii) Enantiodromia and The Reformation of The Individual [Part Three of Recuyle Of The Philosophy Of Pathei-Mathos].

[12] Some of his letters from this period are included in the collection Extracts from Letters to Friends. Selected Letters of David Myatt, 2008-2011.


This work is issued under the Creative Commons (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0) License
and can be freely copied and distributed, under the terms of that license.

David Myatt

A Matter of Honour by David Myatt

” There are no excuses for my extremist past, for the suffering I caused to loved ones, to family, to friends, to those many more, those far more, ‘unknown others’ who were or who became the ‘enemies’ posited by some extremist ideology. No excuses because the extremism, the intolerance, the hatred, the violence, the inhumanity, the prejudice were mine; my responsibility, born from and expressive of my character; and because the discovery of, the learning of, the need to live, to regain, my humanity arose because of and from others and not because of me […]

I quite understand why, in the past, certain individuals disliked – even hated – me, given my decades of extremism: my advocacy of racism, fascism, holocaust denial, and National-Socialism, followed (after my conversion to Islam) by my support of bin Laden, the Taliban, and advocacy of ‘suicide attacks’.

I also understand why – given my subversive agenda and my amoral willingness to use any tactic, from Occult honeytraps to terrorism, to undermine the society of the time as prelude to revolution – certain people have saught to discredit me by distributing and publishing items alleging I am or was a ‘satanist’.

Furthermore, given my somewhat Promethean peregrinations – which included being a Catholic monk, a vagabond, a fanatical violent neo-nazi, a theoretician of terror, running a gang of thieves, studying Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism; being a nurse, a farm worker, and supporter of Jihad – I expect many or most of those interested in or curious about my ‘numinous way’ and my recent mystical writings to be naturally suspicious of or doubtful about my reformation and my rejection of extremism.

Thus I harbour no resentment against individuals, or organizations, or groups, who over the past forty or so years have publicly and/or privately made negative or derogatory comments about me or published items making claims about me. Indeed, I now find myself in the rather curious situation of not only agreeing with some of my former political opponents on many matters, but also (perhaps) of understanding (and empathizing with) their motivation; a situation which led and which leads me to appreciate even more just how lamentable my extremism was and just how arrogant, selfish, wrong, and reprehensible, I as a person was, and how in many ways many of those former opponents were and are (ex concesso) better people than I ever was or am.

Which is one reason why I have written what I have recently written about extremism and my extremist past: so that perchance someone or some many may understand extremism, and its causes, better and thus be able to avoid the mistakes I made, avoid causing the suffering I caused; or be able to in some way more effectively counter or prevent such extremism in the future. And one reason – only one – why I henceforward must live in reclusion and in silencio.”  Pathei-Mathos – Genesis of My Unknowing


Journalists, Allegations, and Propaganda

For many years – in fact up to and including the present – rumours and allegations concerning my involvement with practical occultism and satanism have been in circulation, and regularly referred to and repeated by journalists, and others, in newspapers, magazines, articles and, latterly, on that new medium – greatly susceptible to the spreading of dishonourable allegations and rumours – that has been termed the Internet. One of these allegations is that I am a certain person known as Anton Long.

In the past thirty-seven years only four people, on hearing or learning about such rumours and allegations, have had the decency to ask me, in person, “for my side of the story”. The first was Colin Jordan, the second was John Tyndall, the third was Steve Sargent, and the fourth was a Muslim whom I came to greatly admire and to whom I gave a personal pledge of loyalty.

I have, when asked in person, or via impersonal means of communication such as letters, always denied such allegations of such involvement, as I have, on numerous occasions, challenged anyone to provide evidence of such accusations. No such evidence has ever been forthcoming [1].

For instance, I was for several days, in early 2000, covertly filmed, photographed, and followed by an investigative team working for the BBC as part of their research for a Panorama programme about David Copeland and the London nail-bombings [2]. Prior to that surveillance, and for an ever longer period, I was also the subject of covert surveillance by a private investigator hired to undertake preliminary research for that BBC investigation. What did all this covert surveillance and investigation reveal? A satanist? No. Someone living an ordinary, rather boring, life with his wife and family in a small village near Malvern who went to work everyday on a bicycle to a nearby farm.

 Covert surveillance photograph of David Myatt by the BBC

Covert surveillance photograph of me on my way back from work
Taken by the BBC, 2000

In addition, since at least 1997 I have no doubt been under regular covert surveillance by Special Branch and MI5 – and especially so since 9/11 given some statements I made while a Muslim – with all my communications (internet, telephonic) monitored via GCHQ. Indeed, following my conversion to Islam and during the time I seemed to be, for the security services and the Police, ‘a significant person of interest’, I recall many meetings and friendly conversations with one of the Special Branch officers on attachment to the city near where I was then living.

Given such surveillance and interest, no doubt there are records somewhere of my activities as a neo-nazi extremist; of my subsequent life as a radical Muslim supporting Jihad, and finally of my life as a reclusive philosopher, a friend of σοφόν who seeks, through λόγος, to uncover – to understand – Being and beings, and who thus suggests or proposes an ontology of Being. What there will not be, will be any records of ‘Myatt as Satanist’.

As I mentioned in my article Polemos Our Genesis in respect of such surveillance:

“I have [since at least 1997] worked on the assumption that my communications are monitored, so I have restricted my internet and telephonic communications to friends, family, and to people I personally know or who are personally known to someone I trust. This means two things. That all I communicate is personal, open, transparent, and honest; and that if someone not belonging to this small circle of contacts claims to have had some communication from me – either sent with my name or sent using some pseudonym – then it is bogus.”

In respect of rumours and allegations, I have, on a few occasions, challenged some individuals to a duel with deadly weapons, according to the etiquette of duelling. Not one of the individuals so challenged to a duel had the honour to accept, or issue a public apology in lieu of fighting such a duel.

As I wrote some thirteen or more years ago:

” I have never bothered to have recourse to civil law, and established Courts, to sue those making libellous allegations about me quite simply because the only law I believe in and strive to uphold is the law of personal honour. Given that I have challenged two journalists, according to the law of personal honour, to a duel with deadly weapons for making such malicious allegations, and given that they did not have the honour to accept this challenge or issue an apology in lieu of fighting a duel, I consider my honour vindicated.”

Such challenges, the lack of evidence to support the allegations and rumours, and the refusal of those so challenged to a duel of honour to either fight that duel of honour or issue an apology, reveals the truth of this particular matter – at least to those possessed of arête.

However, I quite understand why many people – journalists included – did in the past (and possibly still do) impersonally dislike or hate me, given my past and unethical support for, and my past propagation of neo-nazism, and my previous lamentable public incitement of hatred, intolerance, and violence. I was only reaping what I had sown. Thus I believe I also understand the motivation of those journalists and those authors who used rumours and allegations of involvement with Satanism to discredit me, for they were most probably only doing what they thought was necessary in the struggle against racism, extremism, and bigotry. But does that struggle – for what is ethical – justify their (in my view) unethical use of rumours and unproven allegations?

My own rather old-fashioned view is and was that a personal knowing of someone, extending over a period of many months if not a year or more, is the only honourable way to form a reasoned opinion about someone. For honour means the cultivation of traditional gentlemanly and ladylike virtues and one of which virtues is that we strive to treat other human beings in a fair way; ignoring what others have said or written about them; ignoring their past (real or alleged); and giving them the benefit of the doubt unless and until direct personal experience, direct knowledge of them, reveals them to be dishonourable.

Instead of penning material based on such a personal knowing, it occurs to me that some journalists who wrote and published stories about me might knowingly or unknowingly have or had a somewhat prejudiced view, having put some political or personal agenda before veracity, and thence use their position and/or their influence (use the power of the Media) to propagate their opinion, their version of events, and belittle or otherwise denigrate persons they disliked or did not approve of because they viewed that person not in an empathic, non-judgemental way – as an individual human being whom they had taken the trouble to get to know – but in an impersonal abstract way according to some label or category they had assigned to that individual because of the alleged political or religious views of that individual. Thus, in my own case, they prejudged me – categorized me – as a ‘fascist’ or a ‘nazi’ or a ‘satanist’ – and since they disliked or hated fascists and nazis and considered satanists were immoral and ‘evil’, they adjudged me a reprehensible person whom they did not like.

Furthermore, in place of a personal knowing – and/or a scholarly research into the life and times of the person they intend to write about and lasting many months if not a year or more – they rely on certain journalistic practices in order to gather information. Practices such as: (1) bribing or persuading corrupt Police officers and government officials and others in order to obtain confidential information about individuals; (2) hacking/intercepting people’s private telephonic/internet communications; (3) hiring private investigators to follow individuals and gather information about them; (4) hypocritically attempting to excuse such unethical conduct by making the spurious claim that what they write or say is ‘in the public interest’ when not only is this so-called ‘public interest’ an unethical abstraction but also when they as individuals would be offended if someone used such hack journalistic practices against them and their own family. Thus, and for example, a well-known anti-fascist organization could unethically obtain confidential information about its opponents by getting someone sympathetic to their cause in the civil service to obtain national insurance numbers, dates of birth, places of residence, and employment history; as they could employ the services of an unethical private investigator to obtain that and other information via corrupt officials and by covert surveillance.

The result of such journalistic practices, of such a lack of personal knowing, of such a lack of scholarly research, and of such prejudgement of a person, is a hasty piece of work that – to paraphrase what a friend of mine once wrote – possibly says more about the journalist, more about our society, and more about the modern Media, that it does about the person who is the subject of such a piece of work.

In addition, and importantly, are those who in the past have prejudged me – who have written about me as a violent extremist – accepting of individual change, of the virtues of reformation and pardonance? Are they aware of my voluminous recent writings regarding my philosophy of pathei-mathos and those regarding my extremist past and my rejection of extremism? [3] Are they open to the possibility of my change and reformation? Or will they continue with ‘the party line’ and thus continue to insist that I am some sinister person whose recent mystical writings are just some sort of diabolical ploy?

More interestingly (perhaps) could my career as an extremist have been brought to an earlier end had one or some of my opponents taken the trouble to get to know me personally and rationally revealed to me the error of my suffering-causing, unethical, extremist ways? Perhaps; perhaps not – I admit I do not know. I do know, however, how my personal interaction with, and the ethical behaviour behaviour of, the Police I interacted with from the time of my arrest by officers from SO12 in 1998, permanently changed (for the better) my attitude toward the Police.


The Logical Fallacy of Incomplete Evidence – A Case Study

In a doctoral thesis entitled Political Esotericism & the convergence of Radical Islam, Satanism and National Socialism in the Order of the Nine Angles a post-graduate student named Senholt made certain claims, and drew certain conclusions, in respect of myself and alleged involvement with the Occult group the ‘order of nine angles’. One of his claims is that “the role of David Myatt is paramount to the whole creation and existence of the ONA.”

Given that this thesis is often cited as having ‘proved’ my involvement, I believe a brief overview of the claims, and proofs offered, seems to be in order, especially as – to my knowledge – it has not so far been subjected to a critical analysis.

A reading of the thesis reveals two interesting things. First, the use of and reliance upon secondary and tertiary sources, many of which are anonymous and many of which are derived from ‘the world wide web’, that most unreliable source of information. For example, he relies on the book Black Sun by Goodrick-Clarke even after admitting it contains errors and that the author offers no proof for the assumptions made in respect of me and the ONA [4].

Second, that Senholt, undoubtedly inadvertently, commits the logical fallacy of incomplete evidence [5]. That is, the multitude of facts and circumstances which do not support his contention about me and the ONA are omitted.

Thus, and in my view, the Senholt thesis, while interesting, does not meet the requirement, the criteria, of scholarship.

This criteria is essentially two-fold: (i) of detailed, meticulous, unbiased research on and concerning a specific topic or topics or subject undertaken over a period of some considerable time, usually a year or more in duration, and of necessity involving primary source material; and (ii) a rational assessment of the knowledge acquired by such research, with such conclusions about the topic, topics, or subject therefore being not only the logical result of the cumulative scholarly learning so acquired but also possessing a certain gravitas, just like genuine scholars.
His lack of primary research is evident in several factual errors. A few examples:

(1) He repeats Searchlight’s claim that their ‘expose’ of me in the April 1998 issue of their magazine caused internal strife in the National Socialist groups I was then involved with, whereas it had no effect at all, other than to make people laugh, since few if anyone in such groups ever took seriously anything stated in Searchlight. Instead, as their name for it indicated – Searchlies – they regarded it as “just more Jewish propaganda” and indeed as something of a badge of honour to be mentioned in it, with the general feeling being that ‘if you get mentioned in Searchlies you must be doing something right!’

(2) He asserts that in 1998 the Police raided my home and arrested me. Which is correct. He then asserts that I was arrested again two years later, after the London nailbomb attacks, together with some other Combat 18 members. Which is incorrect. The facts being that I was not arrested in 2000, and that the 1998 raids were the ones that also involved some C18 and NSM members.

(3) He writes that: “His conversion did not escape the mainstream media, and most English newspapers and media-outlets wrote about the incident, including the BBC.” In fact, as a search of media archives would have revealed, my conversion in 1998 was never mentioned until two years after the fact, and most of the media publicity in 2000 linking me with Copeland made no mention of it. But perhaps Senholt just meant to write something along the lines of ‘the fact that Myatt was, at the time of Copeland’s trial, a Muslim did not escape some of the mainstream media…’

Moving on to his claims that there are several things which link me with the ONA. All of these alleged links can be shown not only to be unsupported by the facts but also that they do not even amount, as Senholt states, to circumstantial evidence in support of the claim made that I am Anton Long. The claims are:

(1) The use of alternative dating systems, such as yf, by both me and the ONA.

The fact that group A and group B use the same or a similar alternative dating system is not proof that B is a subset of A, only of borrowing, imitation, adaptation, and possibly of plagiarism.

(2) Some occult texts with my name on them.

See the first part of ‘omitted facts and circumstances’, below – regarding using the occult as a neo-nazi honeytrap.

(3) That ONA insight roles included supporting neo-nazi groups and terrorism (neo-nazi and Islamic), things which I was openly involved with.

As with alternative dating systems and some ideas (such as acausality – see item (5) below) there is only a possible borrowing, imitation, adaptation, plagiarism.

Also, what is not mentioned are the other ONA insight roles which do not fit in with my life. Such as a police officer, assassin, and joining an anarchist group.

(4) That there is linguistic evidence linking my writings and those of ‘Anton Long’.

No evidence from forensic linguistics is presented, so that this claim is just claim about two people using similar concepts and ideas and sometimes the same words.

That is, there is no direct evidence of a link, so that once again this is probably just others borrowing, imitating and adapting already existing ideas and concepts, something that, like plagiarism, happens all the time.

(5) That my departure from Islam (in 2009) coincided with ‘Anton Long’ writing a plethora of new ONA items.

Since Senholt does not give dates, and does not list the items, before and after this date, this is a rather vague assumption which also ignores two important facts. First, the vast quantity of literature I produced from 2006 onwards (following the suicide of my fiancée) in the form of essays about my Numinous Way/philosophy of pathei-mathos, letters, poetry, and so on. Second, Senholt does not discuss the fact that there were and are several self-confessed satanists (such as the pseudonymous Jason King) who are of opinion that most if not all of the newer, recent, items attributed to Anton Long were written by someone quite different from the ‘original Anton Long’ associated with the original ONA (or ONA 1.0 as King described it).

(6) That some of my ideas and concepts – such as acausality and Aeons and Homo Galactica – are and have been used by the ONA.

These concepts date to the early to middle 1970’s, evident in such non-occult writings as Emanations of Urania, and, later on, in my Vindex – Destiny of the West.

As an early advocate of copyleft, I have never been bothered by plagiarism or by others using and adapting my ideas and my ‘inventions’, such as The Star Game. Thus there is use and adaptation by others, and possibly plagiarism, but no proof of a direct link.

In most of the above cases there is also the established and the admitted fact up until 1998 I knew, as friends, some of the people involved with various occult groups, although – as mentioned to Professor Kaplan [6] and others – I did not share their views with us therefore agreeing to disagree on many things. Thus some allowed borrowing of ideas, concepts, and inventions, by such friends is hardly surprising.
Finally, the omitted facts and circumstances that do not support Senholt’s claims and conclusions include:

(1) My publicly stated admission, made in the 1990’s in correspondence with Professor Kaplan and others – and publicly repeated by me many times in the past ten and more years – that my occult involvement, such as it was in the 1970’s and later, was for the singular purpose of subversion and infiltration in the cause of National-Socialism, with part of this being to spread racist ideas and denial of the holocaust. Thus one such occult group I associated with was a honeytrap, and the whole intent was political, revolutionary, not occult and not to with ‘satanism’. It was a matter of using, or trying to use, such occult groups for a specific neo-nazi purpose without any interest in or personal involvement with the occult.

As I wrote in part two (1973-1975) of Ethos of Extremism:

” In respect of covert action, I came to the conclusion, following some discussions with some C88 members, that two different types of covert groups, with different strategy and tactics, might be very useful in our struggle and thus aid us directly or aid whatever right-wing political party might serve as a cover for introducing NS policies or which could be used to advance our cause. These covert groups would not be paramilitary and thus would not resort to using armed force since that option was already covered, so far as I was then concerned, by C88.

The first type of covert group would essentially be a honeytrap, to attract non-political people who might be or who had the potential to be useful to the cause even if, or especially if, they had to be ‘blackmailed’ or persuaded into doing so at some future time. The second type of covert group would be devoted to establishing a small cadre of NS fanatics, of ‘sleepers’, to – when the time was right – be disruptive or generally subversive.

Nothing came of this second idea, and the few people I recruited during 1974 for the second group, migrated to help the first group, established the previous year. However, from the outset this first group was beset with problems for – in retrospect – two quite simple reasons, both down to me. First, my lack of leadership skills, and, second, the outer nature chosen for the group which was of a secret Occult group with the ‘offer’, the temptation, of sexual favours from female members in a ritualized Occult setting, with some of these female members being ‘on the game’ and associated with someone who was associated with my small gang of thieves […]

But what happened was that, over time and under the guidance of its mentor, the Occult and especially the hedonistic aspects came to dominate over the political and subversive intent, with the raisons d’etat of blackmail and persuasion, of recruiting useful, respectable, people thus lost. Hence, while I still considered, then and for quite some time afterwards, that the basic idea of such a subversive group, such a honeytrap, was sound, I gradually lost interest in this particular immoral honeytrap project until another spell in prison for an assortment of offences took me away from Leeds and my life as a violent neo-nazi activist […]

I had occasion, during the 1980’s, to renew my association not only with some old C88 comrades but also with the mentor of that Occult honeytrap when, after of lapse of many years, I became involved again in neo-nazi politics and revived my project of using clandestine recruitment for ‘the cause’. By this time, that Occult group had developed some useful contacts, especially in the academic world, so some friendly co-operation between us was agreed; a co-operation which continued, sporadically, until just before my conversion to Islam in 1998.

This clandestine recruitment of mine was for a small National-Socialist cadre which went by a variety of names, beginning with ‘G7’ (soon abandoned), then The White Wolves (c. 1993), and finally the Aryan Resistance Movement aka Aryan Liberation Army [qv. Part Five for details].

However, while some of these Occult contacts were, given their professions, occasionally useful ‘to the cause’ and to ‘our people’, by 1997 I had come to the conclusion that the problems such association with Occultism and occultists caused far outweighed the subversive advantages; a conclusion which led me to re-write and re-issue a much earlier article of mine entitled Occultism and National-Socialism, and which revised article was subsequently published in the compilation Cosmic Reich by Renaissance Press of New Zealand. As I wrote in that article – “National-Socialism and Occultism are fundamentally, and irretrievably, incompatible and opposed to each other.”

By the Summer of 1998 I had abandoned not only such co-operation and contacts with such Occult groups but also such clandestine recruitment on behalf of National-Socialism, concentrating instead on my Reichsfolk group and my ‘revised’ non-racist version of National-Socialism which I called ‘ethical National-Socialism’. Later still, following my conversion to Islam, I was to reject even this version of National-Socialism.”

This explains many things, including early occult articles with my name – not the name ‘Anton Long’ – in zines such as The Lamp of Thoth, and the early version of Copula cum Daemone (which in fact was about the birth of Adolf Hitler). One question Senholt does not ask is why both my name and the name Anton Long occur on the same early texts, with the simple answer being that there were two different people, one of whom (me) ceased all involvement with such occult honeytraps in 1998.

(2) My time as a Christian monk and my writings praising Catholicism in particular and Christianity in general.

This does not fit in with the claim of me being a life-long ‘devotee of extreme ideologies’ or being a satanist, so it is ignored. No attempt was made to use primary sources – to talk to people who knew me as monk and who could recount my life then, and my autobiography Myngath where I recount my time as a monk.

No mention is made of my many articles in which I praise Catholicism or refer to it in a positive way. For example, my mention of the numinosity of the Latin Tridentine Mass [qv. Concerning The Nature of Religion and The Nature of The Numinous Way] and of the sacrament of confession. As I wrote in Soli Deo Gloria:

“It is my personal opinion that traditional Catholicism, with its Tridentine Mass and its particular conservative traditions, was a somewhat better, more harmonious, expression of the numinous (a necessary and relevant expression of the numinous), than both Protestantism and the reforms introduced by the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, and which reforms served only to undermine the numinous, to untwist the threads that held together its ‘hidden soul of harmony’.”

There is also the small matter of me being married in Church in accordance with the Christian ceremony of marriage. And the small matter of writings of mine such as Pathei-Mathos – A Path To Humility.

(3) My article Occultism and National-Socialism – written in the 1980’s and republished in the 1990’s and again around 2006 – and in which I denounced occultism, is ignored.

(4) My writings about National Socialism and Islam – spanning some three decades – are for the most part ignored, except when they are adduced to show I, as a nazi or as a Muslim, incited violence and possibly terrorism. Are they ignored because they in their quantity and content reveal they were written by someone who was at the time of their writing a dedicated neo-nazi and then a dedicated Muslim, and which dedication to such causes most certainly precludes being some sort of sinister person who was just using those causes for his own satanic ends?

In addition, and importantly, what are also overlooked are:

(a) The very real threat of being imprisoned for some of those writings – something surely only a genuine fanatic, a believer, would be prepared to do.

(b) My decades of political activism on behalf of National-Socialism, my two terms of imprisonment resulting from such activities, and my involvement with the paramilitary group Column 88. Which long-term activities over some thirty years, which imprisonment, and which paramilitary involvement surely indicate an inner – a rather fanatical – dedication to that cause.

(c) My travels, as a Muslim, to certain lands, the talks I gave to and the discussions I had with Muslims [7], and my regular attendance at Mosques to pray with other Muslims, which would indicate someone who was, during those years, committed to that Way of Life.

(5) My semi-autobiographical poetry[8], my published correspondence, and my ethical philosophy of The Numinous Way/philosophy of pathei-mathos, are completely ignored. Why are these voluminous writings and these ideas of mine ignored? Because they honestly reveal the thoughts and feelings and ideas and experiences and (importantly) the failings of someone so different from a satanist that they have to be ignored.

(6) My years of interior ethical and philosophical struggle to reform, to change, myself – documented in hundreds of letters, essays, poems, especially after the suicide of my fiancée in 2006 – are completely ignored. Why? Because they do not fit in with the idea, with the theory, of me being ‘a deceitful, manipulative, sinister trickster’, the archetypal satanist.[9]
It seems, therefore, that some of the facts of my life have been interpreted in order to fit a theory regarding some posited and ideal ONA member, with this interpreted ONA life – with inconvenient facts and circumstances conveniently omitted or ignored – then being held up as proof that I am Anton Long, since this truncated, re-interpreted, life of mine allegedly seems to fit in with the person Anton Long is alleged to be or is said to be according to his satanist writings or according to what some anonymous person has written on the World Wide Web.

In essence, there are no proofs presented in the thesis, with many aspects of my life omitted and with no mention, let alone analysis, of those voluminous writings of mine which portray a person almost the exact opposite of a satanist.

As one person wrote in respect of the rumour, allegations, and claim, that I am the pseudonymous Anton Long,

“We basically have a choice between: (i) believing Myatt is an astonishingly diabolical, duplicitous, creative, polymathical genius who over four decades has been playing ‘sinister games’ and who has not deviated from his youthful sinister cunning plan, and which diabolical genius makes the likes of Crowley and LaVey (and everyone else associated with modern Satanism and the ‘left hand path’) seem pathetic and mundane; or (ii) assuming Myatt has spent most of his adult life as a covert servant of the British state; or (iii) accepting that Myatt has lived a quite adventurous (but not an exceptionally amazing) life, has made mistakes, has suffered a personal tragedy, and has learned from and been changed by his experiences and by that tragedy […]

Which of [these] three scenarios is therefore the most plausible? Which offers the most simple, the most rational, explanation for Myatt’s peregrinations? Which require the pomp of conspiracy theory, and which involve superfluous causes, and (sometimes bizarre, sometimes astonishing) ad hoc assumptions and claims?” [10]


Conclusion

In respect of allegations about involvement with satanism and ‘being Anton Long’ – and in respect of those who manufacture and propagate them – my own experience, my pathei-mathos, manifest in my philosophy of Pathei-Mathos, leads me to two conclusions. My first conclusion is that the research done by some modern authors and even some academics – whose works are published by reputable publishers or quoted by others engaged in academic research – is inadequate and does not meet the taxing criteria of scholarship. Thus these works are unreliable; they have no gravitas, no worth – in terms of learning – for the sagacious.

My second conclusion is that most if not all modern Media that concern themselves with the deeds and lives of individuals – from un-scholarly books and essays, to newspapers, to television news programs and political documentaries, to magazines, to the World Wide Web – are by their very impersonal and mass-media nature unethical. Why? Because they are un-numinous, and encourage and often embody hubris, being as they are the realm of personal opinions, hasty judgement, and misapprehension, and the abode of those for whom ‘a story’ or some personal/political agenda/prejudice or ‘their career’ or some unethical un-numinous abstraction (such as ‘the public interest’) come before honour, empathy, and the reasoned judgement of a personal knowing that has extended over a lengthy period of causal Time and/or been based on an extended period of scholarly research.

A corollary is that those who use such Media, and/or unscholarly books/essays, as sources of allegedly reliable information, as a guide, as a or as the basis for their judgement about and knowledge of someone or some many, are being unfair and uncultured because lacking in the following necessary virtues: (1) a reasoned, balanced, and thus ethical, judgement; (2) the empathy of manifold direct personal contacts; and (3) a scholarly research and/or a personal knowing extending over many years. Virtues which are the genesis of a genuine understanding of, and thence an unbiased knowledge of, another human being; and virtues which rapid, impersonal, mass means of modern communication actively discourage and which virtues are seldom, it seems, cultivated and employed by those involved with and who use and who rely on such modern means for information.
Quite simply it is matter of honour. Of personal knowing. As I mentioned above, the traditional gentlemanly and ladylike virtues and their cultivation are no longer the standard which individuals are expected to aspire to and to uphold. Thus I do not expect the plethora of rumours and allegations about me to suddenly cease, although I admit I do and perhaps naively nurture a vague hope that what I have written here may cause a few individuals to reconsider the veracity of such rumours and allegations.

As for who and what I really am, I can only suggest the curious read such writings of mine as the following: (a) Conspectus of the Philosophy of Pathei-Mathos; (b) Recuyle of the Philosophy of Pathei-Mathos; (c) The Development of The Numinous Way; (d) De Novo Caelo et Nova Terra; (e) A Rejection of Extremism; (f) Pathei-Mathos – A Path To Humility; (g) Meditations on Extremism, Remorse, and The Numinosity of Love.

David Myatt
March 5th, 2012
(Revised November 2012)


This is a much revised and updated (and more balanced) version of the somewhat polemical article included in early editions ( ≤ 9 ) of Myngath.

 


Notes:
[1] Many people seem to rely on four items in respect of accusations of occult involvement. These items are: (1) an article published in 1998 in the Searchlight magazine entitled The Most Evil Nazi in Britain; (2) a 2009 thesis by Senholt entitled Political Esotericism & the convergence of Radical Islam, Satanism and National Socialism in the Order of the Nine Angles; (3) a chapter in Nicholas Goodrick-Clarkes book Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of Identity (published in 2001); and (4) a 1974 interview I allegedly gave to a reporter.

(a) In respect of the Senholt, see the section in this article subtitled The Logical Fallacy of Incomplete Evidence – A Case Study.

(b) In respect of Goodrick-Clarke, his identification of me, in his book, as ‘Anton Long’ is solely based on his claim that I was the author of a manuscript entitled Diablerie, Revelations of a Satanist the only known copy of which is in the British Library. No evidence, no sources, are provided for this claim – this assumption. Neither are any evidences or sources given for his other claims about me, such as that “the ONA was founded by David Myatt” or that I was “a long time devotee of satanism.”

In addition, Goodrick-Clarke never bothered to contact me regarding these claims of his, and the first thing I knew about them was when the book was published. Had he contacted me, then, I would have been in a position to supply him with the unpublished autobiographical MS that the plagiarist had purloined and used as the source for that fanciful work of fiction entitled Diablerie. An unpublished autobiographical MS that I circulated to a few friends, and a few ‘interested parties’, in the 1980’s when I was engaged in writing The Logic of History from which the text Vindex, The Destiny of the West (published in 1984) derived. One of ‘the interested parties’ was the publisher of Vindex, The Destiny of the West who subsequently published some other pro-NS works of mine. An interesting overview of Diablerie is given in the 2012 e-text A Sceptics Review of Diablerie, by R. Parker.

It is interesting and – to me – relevant that among the many errors of Goodrick-Clarke are the following:
i) I was not born in 1952, as he claimed.
ii) I first met Colin Jordan in 1968, not 1969 as he claimed.
iii) My two terms of imprisonment for political offences were not both for six months, as he claimed.
iv) Morrison was never ‘my follower’ as Goodrick-Clarke claimed (Eddy was never anyone’s follower).
v) Morrison’s first name is Eddy, not Eddie as Goodrick-Clarke claimed.
vi) The Occult lady that ‘Anton Long’ met in the early 1970’s did not ‘lead the ONA’ as Goodrick-Clark claimed, but rather the Camlad association, with the ONA being founded and then led by Anton Long himself following his meeting with that lady.
vii) He mentions a certain Wulstram Tedder whom he claims was a former aide of Colin Jordan during the old NSM days, whereas ‘W Tedder’ was one of the noms-de-plume I used, for instance when writing for John Tyndall’s Spearhead magazine in the 1980’s.

It also interesting that Goodrick-Clarke was ignorant of – or did not bother to discover – many documented things about me during the late 1960’s and the early 1970’s, such as my arrest by the Yorkshire Regional Crime Squad for organizing a gang of thieves. Instead, the often fictitious account he gives of ‘my life’ during that time is almost entirely taken from the fictional Diablerie manuscript

Such errors, and the lack of evidence to support his assumptions about me, really say all that needs to be said about this particular ‘source’.

Interestingly (perhaps) another fanciful work of fiction, similar to Diablerie, and purporting to be yet another autobiography by ‘Anton Long’ seems to have been recently written by someone, possibly for financial gain resulting from selling it at some silly price to collectors of rare Occult memorabilia. The bulk of this new fictional ‘autobiography’ consists of an early (now out of date) edition of Myngath to which various fictional autobiographical stories and ‘sinister’ incidents and diatribes have been added in line with what might be expected from a mythical ‘Anton Long’. Given that the majority of these autobiographical stories in this so-called Bealuwes Gast are quite risible and fanciful (and not fundamentally satanic at all), and given that the ‘sinister diatribes’ seem to have been cut-and-pasted from various internet articles attributed to those who over the years have used the nom-de-plume Anton Long, it seems unlikely that this forgery will ever be taken seriously by anyone. I mean – and to name just one risible example – who can take seriously a ‘clockwork orange cult’ and the wearing of white lab coats to boot…

Since this Bealuwes Gast also contains certain autobiographical information contained in private correspondence (e-mails) sent by me to a certain correspondent in 2009, I believe I know the identity of the author, or at least the identity of the person who supplied that private information to the author.

(c) In respect of the 1974 ‘interview’, I reproduce a comment I made in part one of my Autobiographical Notes, first published in 2001:

” The journalist promised to let me read his final copy before it was published – a condition I had specified before giving the interview – and several photographs of me were taken, with him suggesting I hold something to do with the Occult, since he had noticed I had a collection of horror, and Occult, fiction (most of which in fact were given or loaned to me by Eddy Morrison). Perhaps foolishly, I agreed, holding up some Occult thingy which Joe Short had given to me a few days before. Our conversation lasted for about half an hour, during which the journalist took a few notes (it was not recorded).

I assumed that he would simply recount what I had said. Of course he neither showed me the article before publication, nor printed what I said, except for one short sentence about causing chaos. The journalist also made some rather silly allegations about animal sacrifice, which were investigated at the time by both the Police and the RSPCA whose conclusion was that they were fabrications concocted by the journalist, and perhaps, as I concluded, to get his name on the front page of the newspaper and sell more copies.

What surprised me (and to be honest, upset me, for a while), after this interview, was how so many people believed everything the journalist had written, without bothering to ask me for my side of the story. As if just because something was printed in some newspaper or other then “it must be true” or – as the cliché of mundanes goes: “there is no smoke without fire.” And it was then that I learnt several valuable lessons: just how easily people can be manipulated, just how dishonest and conniving (and thus dishonourable) some journalists seemed to be, by nature; and just how powerful the established Media was, able make or break a person’s reputation.”

(d) In respect of the 1998 Searchlight item, I reproduce here a rather polemical item written by me, the fanatic, in 1998 (during my extremist decades) just before my conversion to Islam and privately circulated to the few members of Reichsfolk. The item was subsequently re-issued – with some amendments and alterations made by Richard Stirling – in 2003 as a confidential supplement to the Reichsfolk Situation Report of that year.

” Not once, in the past thirty years, has anyone provided any evidence of my alleged involvement with the Order of Nine Angles or with Satanism in general […]

All Searchlight has ever done is make unsubstantiated allegations […]

One of the unsubstantiated allegations of the Searchlight crowd is that I was a friend of someone called Vik Norris – something they blandly stated in their alleged ‘expose’ of me, under the headline The Most Evil Nazi in Britain, in the April 1998 issue of Searchlight magazine. No evidence for this allegation was presented then, or subsequently.

Indeed, the article simply contains bland assertions by them about me and Satanism with no evidence presented to support such assertions. For example: (1) they stated that the ONA was “formed by Myatt himself in the early 1980′s” but offer no proof for this claim of theirs; (2) they write about “Myatt and his satanic friends” yet never name these alleged ‘satanic’ friends or provide any proof of involvement by any of my friends with Satanism; (3) they claim that “within days of being investigated”, the ONA withdrew its material from the Internet and that I had shaved off my beard in an attempt to disguise myself, with yet again no evidence being provided for these allegations, which were patently untrue, as anyone could have verified at the time by searching the Internet, calling on me at my home or place of work or asking those with whom I worked.

Unsurprisingly, many people over the years have – for personal or political reasons – referenced this Searchlight article as ‘proof’ of my alleged involvement, when anyone of any sagacity on reading that and similar articles about me can rationally deduce that it and other such articles are merely malicious propaganda designed to discredit, but worded in such a dishonourable way that even were one to sue the authors for libel in a British civil court (assuming one had the money to do so) there would be no guarantee of success – a legalistic tactic such dishonourable journalists often rely on when they peddle their lies and make their malicious accusations.

As for me, I have never bothered to have recourse to civil law, and established Courts, to sue those making libellous allegations about me quite simply because the only law I believe in and strive to uphold is the law of personal honour. Given that I have challenged two journalists, according to the law of personal honour, to a duel with deadly weapons for making such malicious allegations, and given that they did not have the honour to accept this challenge or issue an apology in lieu of fighting a duel, I consider my honour vindicated and their own dishonourable character proven.”

[2] The completed BBC programme was broadcast, as a ‘Panorama Special’ entitled The Nailbomber, on the 30th June, 2000. Nick Lowles, who at the time was working for Searchlight, was listed as the associate producer.

[3] The recent writings of mine include the compilations (a) A Rejection of Extremism, and (b) Meditations on Extremism, Remorse, and The Numinosity of Love, as well as voluminous essays about The Numinous Way/The Way of Pathei-Mathos, and which mystical Way of Life is one of compassion, empathy, humility, gentleness, and love.

As I wrote in Letter To My Undiscovered Self,

” The honest, the obvious, truth was that I – and people like me or those who supported, followed, or were incited, inspired, by people like me – were and are the problem. That my, that our, alleged ‘problems’ (political/religious), were phantasmagoriacal; unreal; imagined; only projections based on, caused by, invented ideas that had no basis in reality, no basis in the simple reality of human beings. For the simple reality of most human beings is the need for simple, human, things: for personal love, for friendship, for a family, for a personal freedom, a security, a stability – a home, food, playfulness, a lack of danger – and for the dignity, the self-respect, that work provides.

But instead of love we, our selfish, our obsessed, our extremist kind, engendered hate. Instead of peace, we engendered struggle, conflict, killing. Instead of tolerance we engendered intolerance. Instead fairness and equality we engendered dishonour and discrimination. Instead of security we produced, we encouraged, revolution, violence, change.

The problem, the problems, lay inside us, in our kind, not in ‘the world’, not in others. We, our kind – we the pursuers of, the inventors of, abstractions, of ideals, of ideologies; we the selfish, the arrogant, the hubriatic, the fanatics, the obsessed – were and are the main causes of hate, of conflict, of suffering, of inhumanity, of violence. Century after century, millennia after millennia […]

That it took me four decades, and the tragic death of two loved ones, to discover these simple truths surely reveals something about the person I was and about the extremisms I championed and fought for.

Now, I – with Sappho – not only say that,

I love delicate softness:
For me, love has brought the brightness
And the beauty of the Sun ….

but also that a personal, mutual, love between two human beings is the most beautiful, the most sacred, the most important, the most human, thing in the world; and that the peace that most of us hope for, desire in our hearts, only requires us to be, to become, loving, kind, fair, empathic, compassionate, human beings. For that we just have to renounce our extremism, both inner and outer.”

As I wrote in Pathei-Mathos, Genesis of My Unknowing:

“There are no excuses for my extremist past, for the suffering I caused to loved ones, to family, to friends, to those many more, those far more, ‘unknown others’ who were or who became the ‘enemies’ posited by some extremist ideology. No excuses because the extremism, the intolerance, the hatred, the violence, the inhumanity, the prejudice were mine; my responsibility, born from and expressive of my character; and because the discovery of, the learning of, the need to live, to regain, my humanity arose because of and from others and not because of me.

Thus what exposed my hubris – what for me broke down that certitude-of-knowing which extremism breeds and re-presents – was not something I did; not something I achieved; not something related to my character, my nature, at all. Instead, it was a gift offered to me by two others – the legacy left by their tragic early dying. That it took not one but two personal tragedies – some thirteen years apart – for me to accept and appreciate the gift of their love, their living, most surely reveals my failure, the hubris that for so long suffused me, and the strength and depth of my so lamentable extremism.

But the stark and uneasy truth is that I have no real, no definitive, answers for anyone, including myself. All I have now is a definite uncertitude of knowing, and certain feelings, some intuitions, some reflexions, a few certainly fallible suggestions arising mostly from reflexions concerning that, my lamentable, past, and thus – perhaps – just a scent, just a scent, of some understanding concerning some-things, perfumed as this understanding is with ineffable sadness. “

[4] For my view on Goodrick-Clarke, see footnote 1.

[5] The logical fallacy of incomplete evidence is when material concerning or assumptions about a particular matter are selected and presented to support a particular argument or conclusion, while other material or assumptions which do not support, which contradict, the chosen argument or conclusion are withheld or not discussed. In effect, selective evidence and/or selective argument are used in order to ‘prove’ a particular point, with such selectively being deliberate, or the result of fallacious reasoning or unscholarly research.

A revised and updated version of Senholt’s thesis is included in Per Faxneld & Jesper Petersen: The Devil’s Party – Satanism in Modernity, Oxford University Press, 2012. ISBN 9780199779246

[6] Refer to footnote #51 of Kaplan’s book Nation and Race.

[7] Refer to Mark Weitzmann, Anti-Semitism and Terrorism, in Dienel, Hans-Liudger (ed), Terrorism and the Internet: Threats, Target Groups, Deradicalisation Strategies. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series, vol. 67. IOS Press, 2010. pp.16-17.

[8] The compilation Relict contains my selection of most of those poems, written between 1971 and 2012, that I feel are worth reading.

[9] Mention perhaps should also be made of my many writings about extremism, my extremist past, and my rejection of extremism, which post-date Senholt’s thesis, and in which writings I have endeavoured to explore and understand the roots of both my extremism and of extremism itself. These writings include The Development of The Numinous Way (2012) and
Recuyle of the Philosophy of Pathei-Mathos (2012).

Other such writings are included in the two compilations A Rejection of Extremism, and Meditations on Extremism, Remorse, and The Numinosity of Love.

Also of interest should be my seven-part retrospective and autobiographical text The Ethos of Extremism, Some Reflexions on Politics and A Fanatical Life, and which “personal reflexions on my forty years of extremism may be of interest to a few people, especially given that, as a result of experience, a pathei-mathos, I have come to reject racism, National-Socialism, hatred, and all forms of extremism, having developed a personal weltanschauung, a non-religious numinous way, centred around empathy, compassion, fairness, and love.”

[10] Wright, Julie. David Myatt, Satanism, and the Order of Nine Angles e-text, 2012.


Order of Nine Angles

ω9α

A Skeptic Reviews Diablerie

Overview

Since the publication in 2002 by New York University Press of the book Black Sun by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, the text entitled Diablerie: Revelations of a Satanist – a purported autobiography by Anton Long – has often been mentioned by those curious about or critical of both the Order of Nine Angles and David Myatt, for Goodrick-Clarke not only brought the existence of Diablerie to a wider audience but also extensively quoted from it {1}.

Some academics, like Goodrick-Clarke himself, and Senholt {2}, accept without question that Diablerie was written by Myatt, and the work has often been referred to in printed books about Satanism – for example, it is mentioned in the 2009 book Modern Satanism: Anatomy of a Radical Subculture by Chris Mathews. Others, from journalists writing about Myatt to fans of the ONA, have used Diablerie or mentioned it as ‘proof’ that Myatt is (or was) Anton Long; as proof that Myatt is both the founder of the ONA and a Satanist (and a nasty piece of work, a man of extreme and calculated hatred, etcetera), and as evidence that the ONA is amoral and “represent a dangerous and extreme form of Satanism”.

As for the book itself, the only public copy is in the British Library, and is a slim, spiral bound, volume with card covers whose pages are xeroxed copies of a typewritten text and which text contains many typos, and many misspellings (deliberate or otherwise) {3}. The text is marked ‘printed and published’ by Thormynd Press, Shrewsbury, and dated 1991.

As for Myatt himself, he has written several times that Diablerie is fake, most recently in his 2012 essay A Matter of Honour where he writes:

“Goodrick-Clarke never bothered to contact me regarding these claims of his, and the first thing I knew about them was when the book was published. Had he contacted me, then, I would have been in a position to supply him with the unpublished autobiographical MS that the plagiarist had purloined and used as the source for that fanciful work of fiction entitled Diablerie.”

The ‘unpublished autobiographical MS’ he refers to being the one Myatt wrote in 1984 and which was

” [a] brief autobiographical memoir which was sent to several friends and many political contacts, including to George Dietz in Virginia who had just published, under the imprint of his Liberty Bell Publications, my pamphlet Vindex, Destiny of the West and who was at the time interested in publishing the book, The Logic of History, which I was then engaged in writing, with such a memoir planned to be a part of that book.” {4}

The question therefore is whether or not Diablerie is authentic. If it is not authentic, then who its is author and for what reason was it published and circulated?

Content and Style

In terms of content, Diablerie is unremarkable. The narrative is one of an arrogant, self-opinionated, pompous young man who professes to “posses the pride of Satan”; who takes an interest in Satanism; who hilariously sets out to do “evil deeds”; who smirks that he “would have to be ruthless”; who gloats that he “knew more about the Occult and magick than these people who performed ceremonial rituals after the Golden Dawn”; and whose “evil deeds” are lame or laughable or sound like the adventures of a frat boy.

In terms of style, a lot of Diablerie differs quite markedly from the writings of Myatt dating from the 1980’s and the 1990’s, and which writings from that period include his well-known text Vindex, Destiny of the West (published in 1984) and his many articles about National Socialism, such as National-Socialism: Principles and Ideals (published in 1991 and part of his fourteen volume Thormynd Press NS Series).

Reading texts such as Vindex and National-Socialism: Principles and Ideals gives an appreciation of Myatt’s early style; and this style is often detailed (some might say convoluted) and sometimes expressively direct, especially when he is writing about National Socialism. Consider the following, from his Vindex:

“If an understanding of history implies an understanding of the present and a feeling for the future, then the work of the historian Arnold Toynbee is of great importance, for from his study of civilizations – and with the help of some of Oswald Spengler’s insights – it is possible to construct a model of history that is fully in accord with scientific methodology and which predicts the future of the West.”

and this, from National-Socialism: Principles and Ideals:

“One of the most fundamental principles of National-Socialism – expressing thus the wisdom of civilization – is that each individual is a part of, and has duties and obligations to, their folk or race. That is, that the individual is not an isolated being, concerned only with their own self-centred desires and feelings (including their own ‘happiness’ and material well-being), but rather belongs – and that this belonging, involving as it does duties and obligations toward their folk and thus the civilization that folk has created, is necessary for a healthy existence: of the individual, the folk and their civilization….

One of the most important truths that expresses the reality of civilization is that of race. Race is a representation of the natural order – of how evolution works, and how Nature, or the gods/God, are expressed, manifested or presenced on Earth.”

Contrast these with the following, from Diablerie:

“Which boy could resist? So I went with him – to a brothel. Actually, it just looked like an ordinary house down an ordinary Singapore alley. The ladies were rather nice – and wore elegant silk sarongs…. I had both a light and a dark side. The dark side wanted to find its limits. I thought what it would be like to kill, to do dark deeds…. But always a Promethean fire, a Satanic spirit drove me on – toward something. What, I often did not know. But I had a belief in myself, an arrogance which I knew no one or anything could break. I possessed the pride of Satan…. The world was mine – if I chose to take it….. London called. There, it seemed, I might find the forbidden.”

The difference is obvious. The former are the words of an intellectual; the latter are the clipped sentences of the type often found in first-person ‘action’ novels or comic strips of the Dick Tracey type. It is as if Diablerie is pulp fiction, a first-person narrative of fictional anti-hero and evil Satanist, Anton Long, with – and importantly – some quotes from the writings of the real person who the author wants people to believe is the inspiration for his fictional Anton Long. Quotes inserted as ‘background’ for credibility, as the author of a crime novel inserts material gleaned from real crimes and real police investigations for credibility. In the case of Diablerie, some of the inserted material is most probably taken from Myatt’s 1984 autobiographical memoir or from remembered conversations with Myatt himself, or from both. The rest of the inserted material being plagiarized from Myatt’s political writings which already, by 1991, were quite extensive and widely distributed.

All of which brings us to the question of authorship and the question of motive.

Errors and Omissions

Myatt’s early years – for example his childhood in Africa and Asia – were first recounted by him in his 1984 autobiographical memoir, a memoir which he used as the basis for part one of his Autobiographical Notes: Towards Identity and the Galactic Empire, written in 1990, first openly published in 1993 and mentioned and used as a source in Cosmic Reich: The Life and Thoughts of David Myatt, published by Renaissance Press, New Zealand, in 1995. If one compares these Notes with Anton Long’s early years, as related in Diablerie, then it would appear as if the narrator of Diablerie is Myatt, or at least someone with a knowledge of Myatt’s early life, a knowledge obtained from that memoir, those Notes, or remembered from a reading of that memoir or those Notes or from conversations with Myatt himself or remembered from all three.

However, if the narrator was Myatt, then it is curious as to how many errors and omissions occur in the section of Diablerie devoted to Anton Long’s early years. For instance, in the Notes Myatt writes that from around the age of thirteen, while abroad, he “studied ancient Greek, Latin, Chinese and Sanskrit”, while Diablerie has Anton Long learning Greek and Latin in England at the age of fifteen (or maybe sixteen).

Comparing Diablerie with Myngath – Myatt’s official autobiography – the error and omissions regarding those early years are even more apparent, which leads to three possible conclusions. Firstly, that if Myatt was the narrator of Diablerie then in that work he lied about or falsified many facts and also invented stories about himself. Secondly, that the narrator of Diablerie was not Myatt but someone who knew him and co-operated with him in producing the pulp fiction narrative that is Diablerie. Thirdly, that the narrator of Diablerie was not Myatt but either someone who knew him (politically, or otherwise) or who had access to or had read the memoir or the Notes or both, and who produced the pulp fiction narrative that is Diablerie in order to create Anton Long, the myth, but who made mistakes when recalling material once read, and incorrectly remembered, or who was attempting from memory to describe parts of conversations of months or even years gone by.

Motive and Author

In terms of motive, I cannot conceive of Myatt, intellectual and poet {5}, a married man aged 41 at the time, depicting himself in the way Anton Long is depicted in that 1991 text Diablerie – as an arrogant, self-opinionated, pompous man who talks like some character in a Dick Tracey comic strip: “the world was mine – if I chose to take it”. “London called.” Not to mention using words straight out of a Star Wars movie – “the dark side”. Neither can I conceive of Myatt creating such a two-dimensional wooden B-movie villain as the Anton Long of Diablerie is (or comes across as), as part of some elaborate ploy to create ‘the Anton Long myth’ and thus bolster the credentials of the Order of Nine Angles. The “perfection of evil” as Anton Long pompously claims to be in Diablerie? Certainly not.

Surely the author of Breaking The Silence Down (written 1985) – with its depiction of Sapphic love and its believable main character Diane – could have come up with a better characterization of ‘Anton Long’.

Given all this, and what I have mentioned above about style, content, errors and omissions, my conjecture is that Diablerie was written by Beesty Boy, aka ‘Christos Beest’, who at the time – 1991 – was a young man in his early 20’s, a fan of Star Wars, had been involved with the ONA for several years, was working on his Sinister Tarot, was editor of Fenrir, and whose ONA booklet Antares: The Dark Rites of Venus, Coxland Press would publish two years later. In addition, he was at the time a personal friend of Myatt who encouraged his talent as a musician and painter. {6}

The Many Faces of Anton Long

In the past three years there was been much speculation, on occult, Satanist, and O9A, forums and blogs, about the many faces of Anton Long. As one person put it recently on a Satanist forum:

“It seems that someone has been writing under the name AL…. The real question is if Myatt is pretending to be AL. Or if Myatt is feeding AL (or the AL committee) material to write. Or if Myatt told some folks to take the AL pen name and do what you want with it.”

There is also the view that the ‘original Anton Long’ of the original ONA – of ONA 1.0 as Jason King labelled it – ceased to write ONA material in the 1990’s, and of, as someone else, said

“[t]he story of ‘Anton Long’ [being] the story of several different individuals using that pseudonym in the last 40 years. Beginning with Myatt himself in 1972, then a year later with a married businessman living near Manchester, then around 1998 with ‘Beesty Boy’ (aka Christos Beest aka Moult), and finally around 2003 with one or two anonymous young writers who tried to keep the myth going by posting their stuff on the internet and who created websites, blogs and e-groups to create the illusion of a real, expanding, influential, hardcore Satanist group led by ‘Anton Long’, the myth.”

There is also the rumour of Myatt as agent provocateur for the state {7} and the fact that Myatt has openly said that in the early 1970’s he created an occult group as a ‘neo-nazi honeytrap’ in order to propagate holocaust denial and neo-nazism and recruit “respectable people who could be useful to the Cause”. {8} Or, as someone else suggested, “as a means of gathering intelligence and recruiting suitable individuals to undertake acts of subversion, extremism, and terrorism, under the pretext of occult training”.{7}

Sinister Jape or Genuine Work?

If CB, as I conjecture, wrote Diablerie, then why, and was it with Myatt’s knowledge or even approval given that at the time – 1991 – Myatt was according to his own admission still occasionally cooperating with his occult contacts as part of his strategy to recruit people for his clandestine neo-nazi terrorist groups such as the Aryan Liberation Army? {8}

Was Diablerie some kind of sinister jape that the ONA are known to have enjoyed playing at people’s expense? Or part of their Labyrinthos Mythologicus which the Order of Nine Angles describe as “a modern and an amoral version of a technique often historically employed, world-wide among diverse cultures and traditions both esoteric and otherwise, to test and select candidates, and a mischievous, japing, and sly, part of our sinister dialectic.” {9}

My conjecture is that Beesty Boy wrote it as part of the ONA’s Labyrinthos Mythologicus, without Myatt’s initial approval but then later nonchalance about such matters {10}, and at the time Beesty Boy himself began penning ONA material using the name Anton Long.

R. Parker
2012 ev
(Revised Jan 2013 ev)

Footnotes

{1}The first mention of Diablerie in a mainstream book seems to be Lure of the Sinister: The Unnatural History of Satanism by Gareth J. Medway published by New York University Press, first edition April 2001.

{2} Senholt, Jacob. Secret Identities in The Sinister Tradition: Political Esotericism and the Convergence of Radical Islam, Satanism and National Socialism in the Order of Nine Angles, in Per Faxneld & Jesper Petersen (eds) The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity, Oxford University Press, 2012.

{3} Some early – and even later – ONA material contain deliberate spelling mistakes, designed to provoke an instinctive and judgemental reaction in the reader. For example, in the 2009 text Defending the ONA? it is stated that

“in the days of typewritten letters, sometimes letters might be sent out with a word spelt in an unusual way, or containing deliberate spelling mistakes. Sometimes, the grammar was also unusual. Those who could not see beyond the outer form (the words; the syntax, and so on) to the essence (always contained quite clearly in such letters) so obviously failed, restricted as their apprehension was by the norms of their own times, by their own preconceptions, by society, or whatever.”

This particular sly ONA tactic is also mentioned in several older ONA texts, including The Satanic Letters of Stephen Brown, published around the same time as Diablerie.

{4} Myatt, David. Polemos Our Genesis. e-text, 2012. Included in the pdf compilation Remembering Wyrd.

According to Myatt, this 1980’s memoir formed the basis for his Autobiographical Notes: Towards Identity and the Galactic Empire, the first part of which was published in the 1990’s and mentioned in Cosmic Reich: The Life and Thoughts of David Myatt, published by Renaissance Press, New Zealand, in 1995. The second and third parts were published following his conversion to Islam in 1998, and which parts were subsequently and substantially revised during the naughties.

{5} Myatt’s early poetry – from the 1970’s and 1980’s – included compilations such as Gentleman of the Road, and To Forgotten Gods. His early poetry included notable poems such as Wine (1972) and No Sun To Warm (1974) and Only Time Has Stopped (1978).

{6} CB played a minor role in the 1990’s in Myatt’s National-Socialist Movement and, for a while, took over the leadership of Myatt’s Reichsfolk organization when Myatt converted to Islam in 1998. Their friendship floundered (never to be renewed) when Myatt – as Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt – aligned himself with Al-Qaeda.

The fact that both CB and Myatt used Thormynd Press to publish their own works, and that Thormynd also published works by the ONA, is not as interesting or evidential as it might at first appear, for publishers often publish diverse works by various authors for purely commercial reasons. Thus the fact that Thormynd published Diablerie as well as items by Myatt is not proof of a link between that work and Myatt.

{7} https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/david-myatt-agent-provocateur/

{8} Myatt, David. Ethos of Extremism. e-text (in seven parts), 2012.

{9} http://lapisphilosophicus.wordpress.com/about-2/labyrinthos-mythologicus/

{10} Myatt writes, in his A Matter of Honour: “As an early advocate of copyleft, I have never been bothered by plagiarism or by others using and adapting my ideas and my ‘inventions’, such as The Star Game.”