Is The O9A Satanist?

Order of Nine Angles



Is The O9A Satanist?

For quite some time various self-described ‘satanists’ have questioned whether or not the Order of Nine Angles (ONA, O9A) is a satanist group.

Some are of the opinion that it is but only in a limited way, trumpeting as they do some fairly recent (post-2011) O9A texts which state among other things that satanism, for the O9A, is just a “necessary novitiate pathei-mathos”, a practical experience which the initiate learns from and then moves on from.

Many other self-described ‘satanists’, however, are and have been of the opinion that the O9A is not satanist, basing their opinion as they do on how satanism was described by Howard Stanton Levey (the Yahodi; aka Anton LaVey) and then by his followers and admirers. Which Levey-type satanism is basically labelling as satanism what is egoistic, masculous, plebeian, and mundane, where everything supernatural and occult is seen as just useful psychodrama and/or as theatrical props designed to bolster the egoism, the pretensions, of each and every self-declared ‘satanist’ who arrogantly believe they have or they can develop the ability to master, to control, everything (supernatural and otherwise) and anyone. In addition, Levey-type satanism – like the much-vaunted occultism of both Crowley and Aquino – is awash with Hebraism; with ‘demons’ and entities from medieval Hebraic grimoires; with the Hebrew kabbalah, and of course with myths and legends about a Hebraic Satan.

A Novitiate Pathei Mathos

In respect of the claim that satanism – a satanism described for example in the O9A text The Black Book of Satan, first published in 1983, and as described by Anton Long in texts such as Toward Understanding Satanism – is just a novitiate pathei-mathos, one has to bear in mind the O9A’s Labyrinthos Mythologicus and thus the fact that their Labyrinthos Mythologicus is:

“designed to test and confuse – to perplex – novices, aspirant candidates, and those curious about the O9A. Designed to challenge their assumptions about the O9A and about satanism, sorcery, and esotericism in general. To encourage them to arrive at their own conclusions about – to develop the intuition, the Occult skills, to acquire the pathei-mathos, to discover – what the ONA is, and is not.”

Thus, in regard to satanism, readers will find many ONA texts promoting satanism and stating that satanism is the essence of the ONA, while they will also find some other texts stating that satanism is just “a causal form”, just a noviciate pathei-mathos.

Which certainly has confused many of those – such as self-described Levey-inspired satanists – who have opined about the Order of Nine Angles, although had they the nous to study the O9A corpus in detail they would have understood that what the O9A mean by satanism is quite different – radically different – from what Levey and his followers described, and thus from what most self-described modern satanists accept, as ‘satanism’.

O9A Satanism

To appreciate what the O9A mean by Satanism is to understand why one of the five fundamental principles (traditions) of the Order of Nine Angles is “the way of defiance of and practical opposition to Magian abstractions.” {1}

The O9A in their Glossary of ONA Terms (v. 3.07) state that:

“The term Magian is used to refer to the hybrid ethos of Yahoud and of Western hubriati, and also refers to those individuals who are Magian by either breeding or nature. The essence of what we term the Magian ethos is inherent in Judaism, in Nasrany, and in Islam. To be pedantic, we use the term Magian in preference to the more commonly used term Semitic to describe the ethos underlying these three major, and conventional, religions, since the term Semitic is, in our view, not strictly philologically correct to describe such religions.”

Furthermore, the O9A have their own understanding of Satan, described in their text The Geryne of Satan {2} which states that “as originally used and meant, the term satan refers to some human being or beings who ‘diabolically’ plot or who scheme against or who are ‘diabolically’ opposed to those who consider themselves as ‘chosen’ by their monotheistic God.”

Since those who “consider themselves as ‘chosen’ by their monotheistic God” are the Jews it follows that the O9A consider the archetype of Satan to be the archetype of opposition to Jews, to Jewish influence, and of course opposition to monotheistic and essentially patriarchal religions such as Judaism, Nasrany, and Islam. Which naturally explains why the O9A has its code of kindred honour, why it has always supported National Socialism both in theory and, via Insight Roles, in practice; why they support holocaust revisionism; why they have their Vindex mythos {3}, and why their Mass of Heresy {4} includes the following declaration:

“Adolf Hitler was sent by our gods
To guide us to greatness.
We believe in the inequality of races
And in the right of the Aryan to live
According to the laws of the folk.
We acknowledge that the story of the Jewish ‘holocaust’
Is a lie to keep our race in chains
And express our desire to see the truth revealed.
We believe in justice for our oppressed comrades
And seek an end to the world-wide
Persecution of National-Socialists.”

It is no surprise, therefore, that the O9A has published texts such as The Error of Egoism: Magian Occultism, Satanic Subversion, and The O9A, included as that text is in the seventh edition (2015) of their Definitive Guide To The Order of Nine Angles: Theory and Praxises. {5}

In addition, the O9A with its Rounwytha tradition, its Sapphic nexions, its code of kindred honour, is disdainful of and in ‘satanic’ opposition to the Magian patriarchal, masculous, ethos, which still dominates the Western world.

The Sinister-Numinous Tradition

In recent years – post-2011 and following the retirement of Anton Long from active involvement with the Order of Nine Angles – various O9A texts have been released which detail (i) the aural traditions regarding Internal Adept and the transition to and beyond The Abyss on the Seven Fold Way {6}, and (ii) the hermetic and pagan (Greco-Roman, and Western) antecedents of the Seven Fold Way and of O9A esoteric philosophy {7}.

In essence, the Seven Fold Way of the O9A is – to use terms adopted by Myatt in his Vindex mythos – profoundly Faustian, Promethean, Thorian. That is, embodying the ethos of the West sans any Hebraic influence. But it is also futuristic, or rather Aeonic, given who and what the individuals who go beyond The Abyss are and do, living beyond the Magian, the patriarchal, abstractions of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ just as the mythical Satan did and just as all pagan Magisters – both male and female – have always done.

Thus, as someone relatively recently wrote:

“the O9A is indeed satanic since every O9A person, whatever O9A way they follow or espouse, is a presencing of those forces that would, if left unchecked, lead us in practical ways to that individual apprehension and that way of living which are beyond good and evil, beyond the light and the dark.” {8}


Given their historical understanding of satan – and thence their definition of the term satanism – it is my opinion that the O9A, with their holocaust denial, with their adversity to the Magian ethos, with their Vindex mythos, with their exeatic (Faustian) Seven Fold Way, and with their championing of National Socialism, are most certainly a satanist group.

In addition, O9A satanism – based as it also is on the principle of kindred honour (another of their five core principles) – also debunks, and is opposed to, the egoistic, the materialistic, so-called ‘satanism’ of Howard Stanton Levey, the charlatan, indebted as his ‘satanism’ is to Hebraism and manifesting as it does the Magian patriarchal ethos.

(T.W.S. Nexion)
2017 ev

{1} The principles are stated in their Glossary of ONA Terms (v. 3.07) dated 123 Year of Fayen.

{2} Available from:

{3} qv.

{4} Given its contents, not only is possession and publication of the text of the O9A Mass of Heresy illegal in many European countries (and in some other countries, such as Canada) but performance of it is also illegal in such lands.

{5} This guide to the Seven Fold Way is currently (Jan 2017 ev) available at

{6} Refer, for example, to texts such as Enantiodromia – The Sinister Abyssal Nexion (Second Edition. 2013 ev)

{7} qv. the 2016 pdf compilation The Esoteric Hermeticism Of The Order Of Nine Angles, which contains articles such as the one titled ἀρρενόθηλυς, and which is currently (Jan 2017 ev) available at

{8} R. Parker, The Satanism Of The O9A In Esoteric Context. e-text, 2014. The article is included in Definitive Guide To The Order of Nine Angles: Theory and Praxises, qv {4}.

Article source:


Suffering, Honour, And The Culture Of The West

David Myatt

David Myatt


Suffering, Honour, And The Culture Of The West

A theme of David Myatt’s post-2011 writings – and of his philosophy of pathei-mathos {1} – is the question of human-caused suffering leading him to ask whether we humans have changed significantly, en masse, such that such suffering is less now than in the past three to four thousand years. Which question led him to write

“if we do not or cannot learn from our human culture of pathei-mathos, from the many thousands of years of such suffering as that culture documents and presents and remembers; if we no longer concern ourselves with de studiis humanitatis ac litterarum, then do we as a sentient species deserve to survive?” {2}

A century after the mechanized slaughter of the First World War which killed millions of people and injured millions more, and seventy-three years after the slaughter and suffering of millions more people in the Second World War, human-caused suffering continues around the world. War and armed conflict and destruction in the Middle East and Africa and elsewhere. Terrorist attacks in Europe, America, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and elsewhere. Meanwhile humans, individually and in small groups, continue to kill, rape, and be brutal and violent and oppressive toward and injure and cause suffering to other human beings in hundreds of thousands of attacks every year all around the world.

As Myatt wrote in respect of the suffering caused by war and armed conflict,

“it is as if we, as a sentient species, have learnt nothing from the past four thousand years. Nothing from the accumulated pathei-mathos of those who did such deeds or who experienced such deeds or who suffered because of such deeds. Learnt nothing from four thousand years of the human culture that such pathei-mathos created and which to us is manifest – remembered, celebrated, transcribed – in Art, literature, memoirs, music, poetry, myths, legends, and often in the ethos of a numinous ancestral awareness or in those sometimes mystical allegories that formed the basis for a spiritual way of life.

All we have done is to either (i) change the names of that which or those whom we are loyal to and for which or for whom we fight, kill, and are prepared to die for, or (ii) given names to such new causes as we have invented in order to give us some identity or some excuse to fight, endure, triumph, preen, or die for. Pharaoh, Caesar, Pope, Defender of the Faith, President, General, Prime Minister; Rome, Motherland, Fatherland, The British Empire, Our Great Nation, North, South, our democratic way of life. It makes little difference; the same loyalty; the same swaggering; the same hubris; the same desire, or the same obligation or coercion, to participate and fight.” {3}

While in regard to humans killing, injuring, being violent toward and preying on other humans he asked,

“Must we therefore be resigned to suffering, to misery, to injustices, to the iniquity, to the continuing iniquity, of selfish, hubriatic, individuals who bully, rape, scheme, subjugate, manipulate, injure, maim, and kill? Reassured by judicium divinum or – perhaps – hoping, trusting, in the pending justice of some judge, some government, or some State?” {4}

Myatt writes that his

“fallible answer to the question of how to deal with the suffering that blights this world [is] the answer of a personal honour. That is, for each of us to gently try to carry that necessary harmony, that balance, of δίκη, wordlessly within; to thus restrain ourselves from causing harm while being able, prepared, in the immediacy of the moment, to personally, physically, restrain – prevent – others when we chance upon such harm being done. This, to me, is Life in its wholesome natural fullness – as lived, presenced, by the brief, mortal, consciously aware, emanations we are; mortal emanations capable of restraint, reason, culture, and reforming change; of learning from our pathei-mathos and that of others.” {4}

His “fallible answer” may seem to many to be somewhat idealistic given the reality that those (to use a Myattian term) with a bad or rotten physis are not going to suddenly change their personality or are congenitally incapable of learning from ‘the culture of pathei-mathos’. But understood in the context of his philosophy the answer is logical given Myatt’s analysis of what the actual problem is or might be. An analysis which reveals that his philosophy is far from idealistic and in truth is rather radical, for in respect of the causes of suffering he writes in one memorable essay that

“It is almost as if we – somehow flawed – need something beyond our personal lives to vivify us; to excite us; to test ourselves; to identify with. As if we cannot escape the barbarian who lies in wait, within; ready to subsume us once again so that we sally forth on behalf of some cause, some leader, or some ideal, or some abstraction, or as part of some crusade. As if we human beings, as Sophocles intimated over two thousand years ago, are indeed, by nature, and have remained sometimes honourable and sometimes dishonourable beings, able to sometimes be rational, thinking, beings, but also unable to escape our desire, our need, our propensity, to not only be barbaric but to try to justify to ourselves and to others our need for, and even our enjoyment of, such barbarity.

Or perhaps the stark truth is that it is we men who are flawed or incomplete and who thus need to change. As if we, we men, have not yet evolved enough to be able to temper, to balance, our harsh masculous nature with the muliebral; a balance which would see us become almost a new species; one which has, having finally sloughed off the suffering-causing hubriatic patriarchal attitudes of the past, learnt from the pathei-mathos of our ancestors, from the pathei-mathos of our human culture, born and grown and nurtured as our human culture was, has been, and is by over four thousand years of human-caused suffering. A learning from and of the muliebral, for the wyrdful thread which runs through, which binds, our human pathei-mathos is a muliebral one: the thread of kindness, of gentleness, of love, of compassion; of empathy; of the personal over and above the supra-personal.” {5}

In a later essay he is even more forthright, stating that

“it is men – unbalanced in physis – who have caused and are responsible for wars, invasions, and the deaths and destruction and suffering that results, just as most violent crime and murders are caused by men. And it is they, of course, who have – also for millennia – dominated and manipulated women (or tried to), who have raped women, who have physically abused them, and killed so many of them, and all because some men cannot control themselves lacking as they do the virtue of honour.” {6}

In regard to how he arrived at this conclusion he derived it as he derived most of his philosophy from his own pathei-mathos, from his own practical experiences extending over some four decades.

“As I know from my outré experience of life – especially my forty years of extremism, hubris, and selfishness; my terms of imprisonment, my experience with gangs, with people of bad intentions and with those of good intentions – it really is as if we terran men have, en masse, learnt nothing from the past four or five thousand years.” {7}

He is therefore not being idealistic or academic in an ‘ivory tower’ sort of way or basing his argument on statistics or on theories or ideologies propounded by others. He is instead writing from life having analysed his outré, his exeatic, his diverse experiences using ‘the human culture of pathei-mathos’ as a guide and it is therefore on that basis that his conclusions should be understood, judged and appreciated.

It is on that basis that in 2012 he wrote that

“the uncomfortable truth is that we, we men, are and have been the ones causing, needing, participating in, those wars and conflicts. We – not women – are the cause of most of the suffering, death, destruction, hate, violence, brutality, and killing, that has occurred and which is still occurring, thousand year upon thousand year; just as we are the ones who seek to be – or who often need to be – prideful and ‘in control’; and the ones who through greed or alleged need or because of some ideation have saught to exploit not only other human beings but the Earth itself. We are also masters of deception; of the lie. Cunning with our excuses, cunning in persuasion, and skilled at inciting hatred and violence. And yet we men have also shown ourselves to be, over thousands of years, valourous; capable of noble, selfless, deeds. Capable of doing what is fair and restraining ourselves from doing what is unethical. Capable of a great and a gentle love.

This paradoxy continues to perplex me. And I have no answers as to how we might change, reform, this paradoxical φύσις of ours, and so – perhaps – balance the suffering-causing masculous with the empathic muliebral and yet somehow in some way retain that which is the genesis of the valourous.” {7}

It is clear from his later writings that from 2012 on he pondered upon that paradoxy and arrived at a tentative and, in his words, a fallible answer. Which pondering he describes in some detail in his lengthy five part essay, published in 2013, titled Questions of Good, Evil, Honour, and God, and in which essay he gave voice to his doubts about the current solutions to the problem of personally-caused suffering – such as believing in judicium divinum (divine justice) or “trusting in the pending justice of some judge, some government, or some State.” In a poignant passage he asked in respect of those personally causing suffering whether it was wrong for him

“to still feel the need for someone, some many, somewhere, to somehow in some way forestall, prevent, such deeds by such persons as may unjustly harm some others so that there is no waiting for the divine justice of a deity; no waiting for some Court somewhere to – possibly, and sometimes – requite a grievous wrong. No waiting for that promised idealistic idyllic future society when we humans – having somehow (perhaps miraculously) been changed in nature en masse – have ceased to so grievously, harmfully, selfishly, inflict ourselves on others.” {4}

He then presented his fallible answer, which was that

“of a personal honour. That is, for each of us to gently try to carry that necessary harmony, that balance, of δίκη, wordlessly within; to thus restrain ourselves from causing harm while being able, prepared, in the immediacy of the moment, to personally, physically, restrain – prevent – others when we chance upon such harm being done.” {4}

Myatt thus championed not only personal self-defence and “valorous defence of another in a personal situation” but also “if our personal judgement of the circumstances deem it necessary, lethal force.” {8}

In respect of the question of suffering he therefore advocated something both quite practical, and quite radical at least the lands of the developed nations of the West.

The Practicalities of Personal Honour

As befits his decades of personal experience of the practicalities of life – thirty years as a violent political activist and propagandist, ten years as a Muslim activist, several years leading a criminal gang, among other experiences – Myatt was aware of how the governments of the nations of the West disapproved of individuals using their own judgement in regard to employing lethal force with many outlawing the carrying weapons enabling effective self-defence and the “valorous defence of another in a personal situation.”

In reply to a question asked of him in 2015 he wrote

“how – or even can – societies in the West and around the world promote the virtue of empathy and personal honour, and if they could, would they want to given how most such societies (especially those in the West) are based on law and justice being the prerogative of the State? In respect of empathy at least, there is – as I suggested – the solution of Studia Humanitatis; that is, the solution of educating citizens in what I have termed the culture of pathei- mathos.

But since personal honour means that individuals should have the right to bear and carry weapons, and be lawfully able – in the immediacy of the personal moment – to use such weapons in self-defence and in valorous defence of others dishonourably attacked, it is most unlikely the governments or politicians of modern Western societies would even consider such an honourable solution to the problem of suffering. Indeed, they seem to be moving toward even more restrictions on individuals bearing and carrying weapons; moving toward severely punishing those who use weapons in self-defence or even in valorous defence of others dishonourably attacked.

That is, that there is in many Western societies a desire, by governments and politicians, for more control over their citizens, for more interventions, at home and abroad, in the name of ‘security’, and for the use of force to be lawfully restricted to those – such as the Police or the armed forces – who are appointed and who serve on the basis of a chain of command which stops with some government representative or some politician or some military leader responsible to one of the foregoing.

Thus, while I personally strive to uphold what honour demands in the immediacy of the moment, most people – even if they agreed with the principle – would be wary of doing so, given current laws in a country such as Britain. Or, more probably, they would consider it an unnecessary and possibly a retrograde thing to do.” {9}

Although in the same reply he admits that his “own preoccupation in respect of personal honour may be somewhat misplaced” it is clear that regardless of such and other diplomatic language he personally supports the right of individuals to carry weapons for use in self-defence and in defence of others dishonourably attacked even though many Western governments have, fairly recently (in the last one hundred years), deemed the carrying of such weapons to be illegal despite the fact that the carrying of such weapons for such purposes was for thousands of years an acceptable cultural and ancestral custom among the peoples of the West.

Which perhaps – and yet again – places Myatt on the side of our ancestral Western culture. An ancestral culture whose metaphysics and ethos he has not only described in recent (2017) works of his such as Classical Paganism And The Christian Ethos and Tu Es Diaboli Ianua but also and importantly evolved, beyond mythoi and thus beyond named gods and goddesses.

A Western culture exemplified, according to Myatt, by καλὸς κἀγαθός. That is, by those who “conduct themselves in a gentlemanly or lady-like manner and who thus manifest – because of their innate physis or through pathei-mathos or through a certain type of education or learning – nobility of character,” {10} and which nobility of character is manifest in “the virtues of personal honour and manners” {10} and which Western culture was also – according to Myatt and contra modern ‘political correctness’ – manifest in a natural and necessary aristocracy composed of those who possess nobility of character and who thus exemplify καλὸς κἀγαθός.

Rachael Stirling
February 2018

{1} The book The Mystical Philosophy of David Myatt by Wright & Parker is an informative guide to Myatt’s philosophy. The book is available as a gratis open access pdf document here:
{2} Education And The Culture Of Pathei-Mathos. 2014.
{3} A Slowful Learning, Perhaps. 2012.
{4} Questions of Good, Evil, Honour, and God, Part Five. 2013.
{5} A Slowful Learning, Perhaps. 2012.
{6} Questions For DWM. 2015.
{7} Blue Reflected Starlight. 2012.
{8} qv. The Numinous Balance of Honour section of the chapter The Way of Pathei-Mathos – A Philosophical Compendium in Myatt’s 2013 book The Numinous Way of Pathei-Mathos.
{9} Questions For DWM, 2015.
{10} Tu Es Diaboli Ianua. 2017


Further Reading:
Tu Es Diaboli Ianua
Classical Paganism And The Christian Ethos

Islamic Terrorism: A Voice of Reason

David Myatt

David Myatt

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


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

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

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

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

For the reality – the truth – of our being is that we humans can always find, and have always found – century after century, millennia after millennia – some cause or some ideology or some ideation or some interpretation of some religion or some dogma or some leader to allow us to express, to live, what is solely masculous [3]. For as I know from my own experience and involvements such an expression, such a living, vivifies, excites, and has so often provided us (or a significant portion of us) with a sense of purpose, an identity, and thus given our lives meaning.

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

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

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

How then can that basal physis be changed or evolved? How can the masculous be balanced with the muliebral thus avoiding such unbalance, such bias toward the masculous, as has brought so much suffering recent and otherwise? All I have is a rather philosophical, quite long-term, and quite personal answer. Of, in terms of individuals, the development by individuals of empathy and the cultivation of the virtue of personal honour; and, in terms of society, Studia Humanitatis: that is, education to form, to shape, the manners and the character, of individuals by not only acquainting them with such topics as are, and were traditionally, included in that subject, but also of them being educated in such knowledge concerning our physis as our thousands of years old human culture of pathei-mathos has bequeathed to us [5].

David Myatt
January 2015


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Article source:


The Ignorant Vulgarians And Islam

Regarding Western Paganism And Hermeticism

De Vita Coelitus Comparanda


We present here a selection of recent articles about Western paganism and hermeticism, indebted as those articles are to Myatt’s translations of texts from the ancient Corpus Hermeticism and his post-2013 writings such as his book Classical Paganism And The Christian Ethos. Myatt’s thesis in that book is that Western paganism is essentially the classical paganism of Ancient Greece and Rome and represents the ethos of the culture of the West, which ethos the Hebraic religion of Christianity supplanted.

Regarding Western Paganism And Hermeticism
(pdf) Second Edition



° Preface
° Re-discovering Western Paganism
° An Insight Into Pagan Mysticism
° Regarding Myatt’s Hermetica
° The Divine Pymander
° Myatt’s Monas – A New Translation of Corpus Hermeticum IV
° On Native Egyptian Influence In The Corpus Hermeticum.

Appendix I – Concerning ἀγαθός and νοῦς in the Corpus Hermeticum
Appendix II – A Review Of Myatt’s ‘Classical Paganism And The Christian Ethos’
Appendix III – A New Pagan Metaphysics.

Image credit:

The beginning of the twenty-sixth chapter of the book De Vita Coelitus Comparanda by Marsilii Ficini published in 1489 CE. Quomodo per inferiora superioribus exposita deducantur superiora, et per mundanas materias mundana potissimum dona. [How, when what is lower is touched by what is higher, the higher is cosmically presenced therein and thus gifted because cosmically aligned.]

Concerning Reichsfolk

Editorial Note: Given numerous requests over the years for interviews, for personal meetings, for contact details, and for information about Reichsfolk other than what has already been made publicly available, RS has submitted the following statement to clarify the matter. Until recently Reichsfolk maintained an irregularly monitored contactable e-mail address which was sometimes relayed to those who displayed an interest and which was primarily used to explain the nature of Reichsfolk, as described in the following statement. This e-mail address, however, was suspended by the e-mail provider for ‘violation of their terms of service’ and, in the foreseeable future, Reichsfolk will remain publicly un-contactable.


While Reichsfolk is “a social, educational, cultural, and spiritual, movement based upon and dedicated to disseminating the noble principles of ethical, non-racist, National-Socialism,” {1} it is not a movement – political or otherwise – seeking to publicly recruit members or to continually distribute propaganda or to have a public face. Its commitment is to personally, directly, introduce individuals to the civilized reality of National-Socialism, and to strive to implement the idealism of National-Socialism in practical ways. The former means being clandestine; the latter means individuals and families, on their own or in very small numbers, living in a way consistent with National-Socialist ideals with no outward show of or profession of National-Socialist beliefs, and with this sometimes involving a family, or a few families, living in a usually rural environment as a ‘family community’ or as a kindred of two or more families. In both cases intrusion by ‘outsiders’ – for whatever reason, political or otherwise, and from whatever motive – is considered undesirable.

In regard to Reichsfolk literature, sufficient has been produced {1}{2} for others to understand what has been termed ‘non-racist National-Socialism’ and to, if inspired, form their own ‘family community’ or kindred. Which independent, unconnected, formations and their growth over the years and the generations is how Reichsfolk envisages its ideals – and thus a modern National-Socialism – will be gradually implemented in these times of overt persecution of those publicly espousing National-Socialism and of those who either question the veracity of what has become known as ‘the Shoah’ or who believe it is a myth.

Richard Stirling
September 2017 ev

{1} An Introduction To Reichsfolk (pdf)


A Tale Of Two Reformed Racists

David Myatt

David Myatt


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 2016

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

O9A: Praising Islam

Order of Nine Angles


Order of Nine Angles: Praising Islam