The Law, Society, and The Police

Covert surveillance photograph of David Myatt by the BBC

Covert surveillance photograph of David Myatt by the BBC, taken in Spring 2000


Editorial Note: Reproduced here are some quotations by David Myatt about the law and the police, written between 2011 and 2012 which quotations (compiled by JRW in 2012) are, in our view, quite illuminating considering: (a) Myatt’s thirty years (1968-1998) as a violent neo-nazi activist, (b) his convictions for various criminal offences (including violence and running a gang of thieves) resulting in three terms of imprisonment, (c) his conversion to Islam and decade long (1998-2008) activities as a staunch advocate of “Jihad, suicide missions, and an ardent defender of bin Laden” [Source: Wistrich, Robert S, A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad, Random House, 2010. ISBN 978-1-4000-6097-9] and who as a Muslim travelled and spoke in several Arab countries [Source: 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. ISBN 978-1-60750-536-5, (d) the recent anti-police hysteria in America; and, last but not least, (e) persistent (but as yet unsubstantiated) rumors of Myatt being an agent provocateur employed by the British state, which thus might indicate (as someone once wrote) that “the ONA [Order of Nine Angles] may well have been created by a state asset as a means of gathering intelligence and recruiting suitable individuals to undertake acts of subversion, extremism, and terrorism, under the pretext of occult training,” which acts are of course the raison d’être of the agent provocateur.

N.B. In lengthy and interesting essay, published in 2011 and entitled The Uncertitude of Knowing (pdf), Myatt outlines the basis for his ‘numinous way’ – a way he later refined into the philosophy of pathei-mathos – with Myatt remarking that:

“What I written in the past few years derives from my own diverse personal experiences, from my reflexion upon such experiences; from my pathei-mathos, from my experience of diverse ways of life, diverse religions, and by my interaction with individuals of good intentions and with individuals of bad intentions. Given such experiences I feel I understand in some small way something of the nature of suffering – having also personally caused and contributed to suffering – and why I assign myself to the fourth option above, for I find that to overtly condemn the honourable actions (and I stress, the honourable actions) of others requires one to have a belief in some particular abstraction or adhere to some dogmas or to have some faith in some conventional religious perspective. Having no such religious belief, no adherence to some political dogma, no desire now for such abstractions, who am I to condemn, to blame, to judge such honourable actions? I have made enough mistakes in my own life to know my fallibility, as my views have evolved, matured, as a result of my experiences, my pathei-mathos.

So all I have is my own perspective, my own uncertitude of knowing. Which perspective of mine is of feeling suffering, understanding how empathy and compassion and a personal honour in the immediacy of the moment are my answers to the problem of suffering – and yet which perspective also includes a knowing, a feeling, an understanding, of how suffering will continue, for centuries, if not millennia, and why some individuals are motivated, have been motivated, and will be motivated to try in their own way according to their own understanding to do something to alleviate such suffering, here, now. And why I have no right to condemn the actions of such individuals because I have no dogma, no adherence to some conventional faith, to base such a condemnation on. That is, I give them the benefit of the doubt, and only apply the criteria of honour, and which criteria express my own limited understanding of this complex and ethical issue.”

His essay The Uncertitude Of Knowing thus provides the necessary context for the Myatt quotations (on law and the police) presented here.

Myatt On The Law, Society, and The Police

“I have some forty years experience of interaction with the police, from ordinary constables and detectives, to custody sergeants, to officers from specialist branches such as SO12, SO13, and crime squads. During that time, I have known far more good police officers than bad – corrupt – ones. Furthermore, I realized that most of those I came into contact with were good individuals, motivated by the best of intentions, who were trying to do their best, often under difficult circumstances, and often to help victims of dishonourable deeds, catch those responsible for such deeds, and/or prevent such deeds […]

In truth they, those officers, as one of them once said to me, were guided by what ‘was laid down’ and did not presume to or tried hard not to overstep their authority; guided as they were by the law, that accumulated received wisdom of what was and is good in society; a law which (at least in Britain and so far as I know) saught to embody a respect for what was fair and which concept of fairness was and always has been (again, at least in Britain and so far as I know) untainted, uncorrupted, by any political ideology.

Now I know, I understand, I appreciate, that for that reason – of so being mindful of the limits of their authority, of being guided by what had been laid down over decades – those people, those police officers, were far better individuals than the arrogant, the hubriatic, extremist I was; an arrogant extremist who by and for himself presumed ‘to know’ what was right, who presumed to understand, who presumed he possessed the ability, the authority, and the right to judge everyone and everything, and who because of such arrogance, such hubris, most certainly continued to contribute to the cycle of suffering, ignoring thus for so long as he in his unbalance did the wisdom that Aeschylus gave to us in The Oresteia.” Notes on The Politics and Ideology of Hate (2012)

“I have known more good Police officers than bad, and some who were indeed honourable individuals, motivated by the best of intentions, trying to do their best in their own way to help victims of dishonourable deeds and catch those responsible for such deeds, and who strove to make a difference and who in their own way understood what Muslims mean by Amr bil Maroof wa Nahi anil Munkar […]

An honourable Police officer doing their honourable duty in, for example, England or the United States, is certainly (in my fallible opinion) a good example of someone acting in an honourable way who also has the ability, by so acting in accord with the official duty they have sworn to do, to both alleviate at least some suffering and to guide individuals to do what is honourable […]

The Police force in England (or the United States) does [embody] personal honour and does manifest honour in a consistent and practical manner and thus alleviates some suffering and guides some individuals to do what is honourable. Therefore, I give all of them, and have given all of them, the benefit of the doubt and respectfully interact with them on the basis of mutual honour, as I admire them for the work that they do and have done just as I appreciate that they do and have, as a society, as an extended family, presenced something of the numinous. Of course, being human, some members of the Police family may err, make mistakes, or even do something dishonourable; but these few should not detract from the majority, for on balance – as my personal experience reveals – the majority do strive to do what is honourable. Thus in my view the society which is the Police in England (and the United States) is capable of guiding, and does and has guided, honourable individuals to do what is honourable, and thus has the ability to, and does, alleviate at least some of the suffering which blights this world.” The Uncertitude of Knowing (third edition 2011)

“The simple truth of the present and so evident to me now – in respect of the societies of the West, and especially of societies such as those currently existing in America and Britain – is that for all their problems and all their flaws they seem to be much better than those elsewhere, and certainly better than what existed in the past. That is, that there is, within them, a certain tolerance; a certain respect for the individual; a certain duty of care; and certainly still a freedom of life, of expression, as well as a standard of living which, for perhaps the majority, is better than elsewhere in the world and most certainly better than existed there and elsewhere in the past.

In addition, there are within their structures – such as their police forces, their governments, their social and governmental institutions – people of good will, of humanity, of fairness, who strive to do what is good, right. Indeed, far more good people in such places than bad people, so that a certain balance, the balance of goodness, is maintained even though occasionally (but not for long) that balance may seem to waver somewhat.

Furthermore, many or most of the flaws, the problems, within such societies are recognized and openly discussed, with a multitude of people of good will, of humanity, of fairness, dedicating themselves to helping those affected by such flaws, such problems. In addition, there are many others trying to improve those societies, and to trying find or implement solutions to such problems, in tolerant ways which do not cause conflict or involve the harshness, the violence, the hatred, of extremism.” Notes on The Politics and Ideology of Hate (2012)

“There are many honourable individuals in various societies who have strived and who strive to do what is good and who for so being honourable and so striving cannot – at least by me from my mystical airy-fairy ‘above Time’ Ivory Tower – be condemned. Such as an honourable Police officer seeking to find the person who has perpetrated a dishonourable deed, and whose whole professional life centres around such a noble seeking. I understand such a person; I respect and even admire them for their honourable behaviour, even if I personally and philosophically have reservations about The State, and the laws of such a State which give to such a Police officer certain authority. For it is the dishonourable nature of the deeds done by a dishonourable person, and the instinct for honour, for fairness, which motivates such an officer, which are important, which transcend the temporal nature of some law made by some government and the temporal nature of some police organization existing in some temporal State. For what is honourable is what is honourable and right, and what is dishonourable is wrong, Aeon after Aeon. Thus, such honourable individuals transcend their context, their causal Time, the causal form those individuals might personally adhere to, such as the British Police force. But perhaps it is necessary that I here in further explanation add that I have known such people, such honourable Police officers striving to do their honourable duty, and so am writing and talking about that which and those whom I have some practical knowledge of.” The Uncertitude of Knowing (third edition 2011)

“Given that the concern of the philosophy of pathei-mathos is the individual and their interior, their spiritual, life, and given that (due to the nature of empathy and pathei-mathos) there is respect for individual judgement, the philosophy of pathei-mathos is apolitical, and thus not concerned with such matters as the theory and practice of governance, nor with changing or reforming society by political means […]

This means that there is no desire and no need to use any confrontational means to directly challenge and confront the authority of existing States since numinous reform and change is personal, individual, non-political, and not organized beyond a limited local level of people personally known. That is, it is of and involves individuals who are personally known to each other working together based on the understanding that it is inner, personal, change – in individuals, of their nature, their character – that is is the ethical, the numinous, way to solve such personal and social problems as exist and arise. That such inner change of necessity comes before any striving for outer change by whatever means, whether such means be termed or classified as political, social, economic, religious. That the only effective, long-lasting, change and reform is understood as the one that evolves human beings and thus changes what, in them, predisposes them, or inclines them toward, doing or what urges them to do, what is dishonourable, undignified, unfair, and uncompassionate.

In practice, this evolution means, in the individual, the cultivation and use of the faculty of empathy, and acquiring the personal virtues of compassion, honour, and love. Which means the inner reformation of individuals, as individuals.

Hence the basis for numinous social change and reform is aiding, helping, assisting individuals in a direct and personal manner, and in practical ways, with such help, assistance, and aid arising because we personally know or are personally concerned about or involved with those individuals or the situations those individuals find themselves in. In brief, being compassionate, empathic, understanding, sensitive, kind, and showing by personal example.” Society, Politics, Social Reform, and Pathei-Mathos [in The Numinous Way of Pathei-Mathos, ISBN 978-1484096642]

David Myatt – Varför vi måste återvända till landsbygden


Varför vi måste återvända till landsbygden
(Why We Must Return To The Land)

Vi måste återvända till landsbygden, till en mindre materialistisk, och mera jordnära livsstil; därför att det endast är en sådan livsstil, med sin nära och intima kontakt med naturen, och med sitt ofta hårda fysiska arbete, som låter oss leva på ett autentiskt och mänskligt vis. Det moderna levnadssättet – i vidsträckta storstadskomplex med sin kommers, sina industrier och sin lättillgängliga lokaltrafik – är ett disautentiskt och inhumant levnadssätt, som också har uppmuntrat till och faktiskt möjliggjort utvecklingen av en riktigt tyrannisk stat, vars omfattning och lagar är en motsats till allt som är mänskligt.

Mänskligheten är inneboende i förnuftet, i det långsamma förvärvandet av kunskap och visdom genom direkt personlig erfarenhet, och genom den direkta och förståndiga (alltså: vänliga, hedersamma och artiga) kontakten med andra medmänniskor. Bedömandet av andra är därför ett bedömande grundat på personlig erfarenhet och kunskap om dem. Alltså: det mänskliga bedömandet är följden av en långsamt förvärvad erfarenhet, som i första hand är vår egen. Den moderna världens sätt är det ytliga, hastiga sättet, med abstrakta idéer (så som ”ekonomin” med dess ”ekonomiska tillväxt”, eller ett politiskt parti med dess ståndpunkter), med kommers, och med individen som en konsument och medborgare av någon stat. Intresset för majoriteten av individerna i en sådan abstrakt stat är det egna livet, deras egen komfort, deras egna behov; eller i bästa fall intresset för de i dess omedelbara närhet, dvs. familjen.

Medborgarna i en sådan stat införskaffar sin mat i affärer – eller än värre, i ”snabbköp” – liksom deras jobb oftast omfattar kontorsarbete, socialt arbete, kommersiellt arbete eller affärsarbete: med andra ord, arbeten som anknyter till staten, dess kommers, dess industri och dess affärsliv. Det finns därför väldigt liten eller ingen kontakt med landsbygden, med naturen, och definitivt väldigt lite som kan klassas som hårt fysiskt arbete; precis som också dags- och årsrytmen i ett sådant modernt leverne är en abstrakt, hastig rytm, påförd individen genom dess arbete. I tillägg till detta så betraktar och bedömer medborgarna i en sådan stat världen, och andra människor, mest efter det abstrakta ”lärandet”, eller med hjälp av den abstrakta ”kunskapen” de förvärvat vid skolor och kollegium; eller genom en eller flera av de andra ”läroanstalterna” som i sitt överflöd ännu ständigt blir fler och fler.

Så, det har blivit så att dessa medborgare har kommit att använda abstrakta idéer som sin måttstock, precis som deras kunskap för det mesta inte är resultatet av egna erfarenheter, eller deras egna reflektioner av dessa erfarenheter. Och så har det nu också blivit, att det i var och varannan modern stat finns ett ansenligt antal människor som brukar och missbrukar ”droger”, ett ansenligt antal människor som stjäl, bedrar, rånar och utför allsköns fega nidingsdåd, och ett ansenligt antal människor (faktiskt en majoritet) som är ohyfsade och obesvärade över hur deras materialistiska, exploatära livsstil, och deras egen stat, förgör landsbygden och hela naturen som sådan.

I kontrast till detta, står landsbygden – det äkta lantliga levernet – vars hela perspektiv utgår från naturen: från landsbygden som sådan. Detta är levnadssättet där individen lever efter naturens fridfullare tempo, och där den dagliga levnadsrytmen formas efter naturen och årstidernas växlingar.

Ett återvändande till autenticitet

Vi måste återvända till landsbygden, även om det betyder att vi måste avstå från de många lockelserna, bekvämligheterna och ”fördelarna” som det moderna samhället har att erbjuda. För det är det faktiska begäret till sådana lockelser, bekvämligheter och ”fördelar”, som skapat och hjälpt till att forma den disautentiska moderna världen. Den ohöljda sanningen bakom allt detta, är att vår moderna livsstil är omänsklig: faktumet är att den är undervärdig. Den uppmuntrar och har fullt överseende med undervärdigtt beteende, trots all meningslös och abstrakt retorik som politiker och andra spyr ur sig.

Följderna av ett sådant undervärdigt beteende är uppenbart, och möjligt för alla att beskåda i vidsträckta urbana bebyggelser: nedsupna, ohyfsade drägg (både manliga och kvinnliga) som gör vad som faller dem in; ungdomsgäng som driver omkring i bostadsområden och terroriserar folk; gäng och enskilda individer rånar, våldtar och stjäl helt godtyckligt; beväpnade gäng bär handeldvapen, som används i ”gänguppgörelser” om droger; ohyfsade, vårdslösa och aggressiva förare i motorfordon; själviska, ohyfsade och snobbiga ”yuppies” som tror sig vara överlägsna därför att de har gott om pengar… Och så vidare, och så vidare.

Den moderna världen blir mindre och mindre mänsklig: mindre och mindre förnuftig, mindre och mindre fri. Vad är fängelseanstalter om inte inhumana institutioner? Vad är de flesta moderna lagar, om inte ett medel för att förläna staten makt och kontroll? Vad är polisens oerhörda maktresurser, om inte ett redskap för en tyrannisk regering? Vad är ändlösa slakthus, om inte monument över vårt eget omättliga undervärdiga begär? För vi behöver inte föda upp och slakta djur på det sätt den moderna världen gör det, därför att vi inte behöver de ofantliga mängderna kött som en majoritet av oss envisas med att äta; precis som vi knappast behöver alla andra lyxprodukter det moderna samhället erbjuder oss: TV, bilar, eldrivna köksredskap, mobiltelefoner… För att producera sådana produkter, så täcker vi i vår profithunger jorden med fabriker, industriområden och stadskomplex med förorter; precis som vi också girigt utarmar jorden på dess råvaror; och precis som ägarna av sådana fabriker och industrier utnyttjar folket som arbetar för dem, så utnyttjar bankerna – genom sitt inhumana ocker – både fabriksägarna och deras anställda.

Vi människor – och då i synnerhet vi i den utvecklade västvärlden – har blivit till en pest som sveper över jordens yta, efterlämnandes endast död och förödelse i våra spår. Vårt sätt att behandla våra medmänniskor är förskräckligt: inom alla skikt blir folk utnyttjade, människor ses som handelsvaror eller profitverktyg; eller som någon sorts fiende eller ett hot. Var finns anständigheten? Var finns bondförnuftet? Var finns tystnaden, lugnet och tankfullheten som kännetecknar det riktiga lantliga levernet?

Vårt beteende gentemot andra livsformer, som vi lever tillsammans med på denna planet, är lika förskräckligt, om inte än värre. Vi utnyttjar dem hänsynslöst, vi slaktar dem hänsynslöst, och ser dem som ytterligare en handelsvara, som skall prissättas, säljas och konsumeras. Vi behöver inte leva som vi gör nu, och som de flesta av oss vill leva. Vi behöver inte utnyttja andra människor, andra livsformer, eller jorden som sådan. Vi kan behärska oss själva, vi kan vara återhållsamma; vi kan hålla tillbaka vår girighet, våra känslor, vårt begär för materiella varor, lyx och överflöd. Vi kan bete oss på ett förnuftigt och hövligt sätt gentemot andra människor. Sådan självbehärskning, sådan återhållsamhet, sådant hövligt beteende – är det som är mänskligt. Sålunda kan vi välja att leva på ett enkelt lantligt vis, strävsamma i harmoni med naturen för att producera den mat vi behöver för oss själva och för vår familj, precis som andra kan arbeta inom ärlig och hygglig handel för att förse oss med de nödvändigheter vi behöver (så som kläder), som vi själva inte kan tillhandahålla eller producera. Och allt detta kan låta sig göras utan ocker eller exploatering i stora fabriker och industrier. Allt som vi verkligen behöver kan tillverkas småskaligt och på ett naturligt vis, i vår lokala omgivning. Allt som vi inte behöver, kräver industrier,kommers,omfattande affärsverksamhet, fabriker och storskalig exploatering.

Vi har alla ett val, precis som vi alla har förmågan att förändra oss själva till det bättre genom vår egen vilja: genom att behärska våra begär och våra känslor, och genom att vara återhållsamma med våra behov. Vi har alla förmågan att bete oss på ett rationellt, civiliserat sätt gentemot våra medmänniskor, och gentemot andra livsformer med vilka vi delar vår plats på jorden. Den egentliga frågan är: kommer vi att göra detta? Kommer vi att eftersträva att bli mänskliga, och sålunda tygla oss själva? Eller kommer vi bara att fortsätta som vi gör nu, utnyttjandes andra människor, andra livsformer och jorden själv?

David Myatt
1996 ((Revised JD2452043.173)


We must return to the land, to a less materialistic, more rural, way of living, because only such a way of living with its close and intimate contact with Nature and with its often hard manual work enables us to live in an authentic and human way.

The modern way of living – in vast urban sprawls with their commerce, their industry, their easy travel – is an inauthentic and inhuman way of living which has also encouraged, and indeed made possible, the development of a real tyrannical State whose very vastness and laws are a contradiction of everything that is human.

Humanity resides in reason, in the slow accumulation of knowledge and wisdom from direct personal experience, and in the direct and reasoned (that is: hospitable, honourable and well-mannered) contact with fellow human beings. Judgement of others is thus a judgement based on personal knowledge of them. In particular, humanity means a judgement that arises from slowly reflecting upon things that we ourselves have experienced at first hand.

The way of the modern world is the superficial, fast, way of abstract ideas (such as “the economy” with its “economic growth” or the policies of some “political party”), of commerce, of the individual as a consumer and the subject of some State. The perspective of the majority of the individuals of such an abstract State is that of their own lives, their own comforts, their own needs, or at best that of their immediate family.

The denizens of such a modern State get their food from shops, or worse, “supermarkets”, just as their work usually involves office work, or social work, or commercial work, or business work: that is, work connected to the State, or its commerce, its industry, its business. There is therefore little or no contact with the land, with Nature, and certainly little in the way of hard manual toil, just as the daily and yearly rhythm of such a modern living is the abstract, fast, rhythm imposed upon the individual by their modern work. In addition, the denizens of such a modern State view the world, and other human beings, mostly through the abstract “learning” or abstract “knowledge” they acquire in Schools or Colleges, or on one or more of the many “courses of training” which now proliferate in such profusion.

So it is that these denizens come to use abstract ideas as their measure of judgement, just as their knowledge, their learning, is for the most part not the result of their own experience, their own reflection on that experience.  And so it is that we now have, in every single modern nation-State, a considerable number of people using and abusing “drugs”, a considerable number of people stealing, cheating, robbing and doing very cowardly deeds, and a considerable number of people (in fact the majority) who are ill-mannered and unconcerned with how their materialistic, exploitative, way of life, and their own nation-State, are destroying the land and Nature herself.

In contrast, the way of the land – of a real rural living – is the way where the perspective is that of Nature: of the land itself. It is the way where the individual lives in the slower-paced world of Nature, and whose daily rhythm is shaped by Nature and by the changing seasons.

A Return to Authenticity

We must return to the land even if it means that we have to forgo many of the attractions, comforts and conveniences of our modern world. For it is our very desire for such attractions, comforts and conveniences which have created and helped shape the inauthentic modern world.

The stark truth of the matter is that our modern way of living is inhuman: in fact, it is sub-human. It encourages and condones sub-human behaviour, despite all the meaningless abstract political rhetoric spewed forth by politicians and others.

The result of such sub-human behaviour is evident for all to see in the vast urban sprawls: drunken, ill-mannered, louts (both male and female) indulging themselves; gangs of youths roaming urban (and even rural) housing estates, terrorizing people; gangs and individuals robbing, raping and mugging at will; armed gangs carrying guns, and using them, in some “turf war” over drugs; ill-mannered, careless, angry drivers of motor vehicles; selfish, ill-mannered, vainly preening “business-executive” types acting superior because they have money….. And so on, and so on.

The modern world has become less and less human: less and less reasonable, less and less free. What is Prison but an inhuman Institution? What are most modern laws but a means to enforce State-control? What are the enormous powers of the Police but a sign of a tyrannical government? What are the vast animal slaughterhouses but monuments to our own insatiable sub-human desires? For we do not need to breed and slaughter animals in the way the modern world breeds and slaughters them because we do not need the vast quantities of animal flesh the majority of us insist on eating, just as we do not need most if not all of the luxuries of this modern world: TV, cars, fridges, mobile telephones….. To produce such things, we rapaciously cover the Earth in factories, in industries, in urban and rural sprawl, just as we rapaciously consume the raw materials of the Earth itself, and just as the owners of such factories and industries exploit the people who work for them and just as the Banks, through their inhuman usury, exploit both the owners and the workers.

We should know and act upon the truth that every act of bad-manners by us toward another human being is an act of exploitation.

We human beings – and particularly those in the developed Western world – have become like a plague sweeping over the face of this planet, leaving devastation and destruction in our wake. Our treatment of our fellow human beings is appalling: at every level, people are exploited, seen as some sort of commodity, or as some sort of enemy or threat. Where is decency? Where are manners? Where is the slow, quiet, reflection that marks the real rural way of living?

Our treatment of the other life-forms with whom we share this planet is equally appalling, if not more so. We ruthlessly exploit them, as we ruthlessly slaughter them, considering them just another commodity, to be priced and traded and consumed.

We do not have to live as we now live, and as most of us want to live. We do not have to exploit other human beings, and other life-forms, and the Earth itself. We can control ourselves; we can exercise restraint; we can choose to restrain our greed, our emotions, our desire for material goods and luxuries. We can behave in a reasoned and well-mannered way toward other human beings.

Such self-control, such restraint, such well-mannered behaviour, is the human thing to do. Thus, we can choose to live in a simple rural way, toiling in harmony and in rhythm with Nature in order to produce what food we need for ourselves and our family, just as others can work in honest trades supplying the essential things we need (such as clothes) which we ourselves cannot make or produce. And all this without the evil of usury or the exploitation caused by factories and industries. Everything that we really need can be made by hand in a natural way in a natural community in a small area. Everything that we do not need requires industry, commerce, business, factories and exploitation.

We all have a choice, as we all have the capacity to change ourselves for the better by using our will: by restraining our desires, our emotions, our needs. We all have the capacity to behave in a rational, civilized, way toward our fellow human beings, and toward the other life-forms which share this planet which is our home.

The real question is: will we do this? Will we strive to become human and so restrain ourselves? Or will we just carry on as we are, exploiting other human beings, other life-forms, and the Earth itself?

David Myatt
1996 (Revised JD2452043.173)

Undercover Spies

Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt


Editorial note: This is a slightly revised version, by the author (JB), of an item posted on a private O9A FB group on 24 June 2014.


There is an interesting story in The Guardian newspaper about a man who was allegedly recruited, and sent, by a covert police unit to infiltrate an extreme right-wing organization in the 1990s. When, some seven years later, this ‘undercover spy’ decided he had had enough, he said “that his handlers […] suggested he go and infiltrate loyalist groups in Northern Ireland or start growing a beard and convert to Islam”. They asked him: “Can you do the Muslim thing?”. [ Source – ]

No doubt the conspiracy theorists who believe David Myatt was, for most of his adult life, working for MI5 will seize on this case as further proof that Myatt’s decades of extremism – both as a neo-nazi and in support of Islamic terrorism, as well as his conversion to Islam – had an ulterior, and State-sanctioned, motive. The Myatt conspiracy theory makes interesting reading, especially as there is mention made of a Northern Ireland connection. This conspiracy theory regarding Myatt is documented here –

Furthermore, some people also believe that the Order of Nine Angles (O9A) was initially set up by Myatt (aka Anton Long) as an MI5 inspired neo-nazi honeytrap, a belief they derived from what Myatt himself wrote in his 2012 political memoir Ethos of Extremism, Reflexions on Extremism, Politics, and A Fanatical Life:

” 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 […]

[The] organizer and ‘leader’ of this covert group [was] a comrade, a married businessman living near Manchester – being the one who had suggested the outer, the Occult, form of the group.

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.” Source –

Review of Myatt’s ‘Religion, Empathy, and Pathei-Mathos’

David Myatt


A Review of Myatt’s Book ‘Religion, Empathy, and Pathei-Mathos’

In April of 2013, Myatt published Religion, Empathy, and Pathei-Mathos: Essays and Letters Regarding Spirituality, Humility, and A Learning From Grief  [ ISBN 978-1484097984 ] and which work was designed to compliment the collection of his writings about the philosophy of pathei-mathos published in his The Numinous Way of Pathei-Mathos [ ISBN 978-1484096642 ].

While this work is too obscure, too iconoclastic, and too personal, to appeal to a wide audience, it will no doubt be of some interest to those interested in the curious life, and the writings, of David Myatt.

The core, and the most interesting part, of Religion, Empathy, and Pathei-Mathos is the long five part essay Questions of Good, Evil, Honour, and God in which Myatt presents his somewhat iconoclastic understanding of how Christianity, Islam, and the modern State, view and have viewed ‘good and evil’ and how what he terms ‘the culture of pathei-mathos’ has, over centuries, presented an alternative. In presenting his case, he often provides (complete with his own translations) quotations in Ancient Greek and Arabic (and occasionally in Hebrew) as well as detailed footnotes and how he defines certain terms (such as innocence) and all of which, while relevant in an academic text, the general reader (Myatt’s probable audience) may find a distraction from the argument he presents. However, his argument, in a nutshell, is simple and twofold.

Firstly, that the understanding, and the ontology, of revealed religions such as Christianity and Islam – in respect of good and evil – is basically the same as that of the modern State, with such religions and the State making promises that if a person obeys how they define ‘good’ and ‘evil’ (in an abstract way) they may well be rewarded, with – in the case of religions – some afterlife, or – in the case of the State – with ‘life, liberty, and happiness’.

Secondly, that there is an alternative to the understanding of good and evil provided by revealed religions and by the State – and this alternative is what he calls the ‘culture of pathei-mathos ‘, writing that:

“there is in this culture of pathei-mathos a particular ethos: the tone of harmony, ἁρμονίη; of a natural balance, or rather of how certain human actions are hubris – ὕβρις – and not only disrupt this needful harmony but also cause or contribute to suffering. Of the importance, and perhaps the primacy, of human love; of how Eris is the child of Polemos and Hubris, and of how a lovelorn Polemos follows Hubris around, never requited. Of how the truths of religions and spiritual ways are, in their genesis, basically simple, always numinous, and most probably the same: guides to living in such a way that we can rediscover the natural balance, appreciate the numinous, and avoid hubris.

All of which lead to an understanding of (i) how good and bad are not ‘out there’ and cannot be manifest or assumed to be manifest in some form, by some ideation, or in ‘them’ (the others), without causing or contributing to or being the genesis of suffering, but instead are within us as individuals, a part of our nature, our character, our φύσις, and often divergently expressed; and (ii) of how, in my view at least, personal honour and not a codified law, not a jurisprudence, is the best, the most excellent, way to define and manifest this ‘good’, with honour understood, as in my philosophy of pathei-mathos, as an instinct for and an adherence to what is fair, dignified, and valourous. An honourable person is thus someone of manners, fairness, reasoned judgement, and valour; with honour being a means to live, to behave, in order to avoid committing the folly, the error, of ὕβρις; in order try and avoid causing suffering, and in order to rediscover, to acquire, ἁρμονίη, that natural balance that presences the numinous (sans denotatum and sans dogma) and thus reveals what is important about life and about being human.”

Thus, in contrast to revealed religions and the State, this culture of pathei-mathos is

“the ontology of us – we human beings – as a transient affective and effective connexion to other living beings, an emanation of the flux of Life, of ψυχή. That is, of the separation-of-otherness – of I and of ‘them’, the others – being the result of a causal-only perception, and of denotatum: of our propensity to give names to, or to describe by means of terms, that which we observe to be or that which we assume to be is different to and separate from us, whereas, as empathy reveals, ‘we’ are part of, an aspect, of ‘them’ since ‘they’ are also finite, transient, emanations of ψυχή.

There is no abstract ‘good’ and ‘evil’ here; no division or cleaving asunder of φύσις (physis). There is only us in harmony, in balance, with our nature, our φύσις, or us not in harmony with our nature as an affecting and effecting, finite, transient, mortal, aspect of Life. If we are harmony – in balance with Life, with other life – we do not cause or contribute to or are not the genesis of suffering: we do not affect Life in a harmful way, and as I have intimated elsewhere love, compassion, humility, empathy, and honour, are a possible means whereby we, in harmony with our φύσις, can avoid harming Life and its emanations, be such life our fellow human beings or the other life with which we share this planet.”


His conclusion is that:

“this alternative ontology, derived from the culture of pathei-mathos, suggests that the answer to the question regarding the meaning of our existence is simply to be that which we are. To be in balance, in harmony, with Life; the balance that is love, compassion, humility, empathy, honour, tolerance, kindness, and wu-wei.

This, by its nature, is a personal answer and a personal choice; an alternative way that compliments and is respectful of other answers, other choices, and of other ways of dealing with issues such as the suffering that afflicts others, the harm that humans do so often inflict and have for so long inflicted upon others. The personal non-judgemental way, of presumption of innocence and of wu-wei, balanced by, if required, a personal valourous, an honourable, intervention in a personal situation in the immediacy of the moment.

There is, in this alternative, no guidance required; and no-thing – such as an afterlife, or enlightenment, or liberty or happiness – to be attained. No need for dogma or too many words; no need for comparisons; no ‘just cause’ to excuse our behaviour. No mechanisms and no techniques to enable us to progress toward some-thing because there is no need or requirement to progress toward what is not there to be attained. There is only a personal living in such a way that we try to be compassionate, empathic, loving, honourable, kind, tolerant, gentle, and humble. And this is essentially the wisdom, the insight, the way of living – sans denotatum – that thousands upon thousands of people over millennia have contributed to the culture of pathei-mathos, as well as the essence of the message which many if not all spiritual ways and religions, in their genesis, perhaps saught to reveal: the message of the health of love and of our need, as fallible beings often inclined toward the unbalance of hubris, for humility.”

This work, therefore, does indeed complement his writings about his philosophy of pathei-mathos, serving as it does to illuminate that philosophy in a manner his more abstruse writings do not, particularly as Questions of Good, Evil, Honour, and God is framed by more personal musings in which he reflects upon questions such as expiation, his own diverse and strange past, and whether or not we are:

“fated, under Sun, to squabble and bicker and hate and kill and destroy and exploit this planet and its life until we, a failed species, leave only dead detritic traces of our hubris?

Or will we, or some of us, betake ourselves away to colonize faraway non-terran places, taking with us our unreformed paradoxical φύσις to perchance again despoil, destroy, as some of our kind once betook themselves away to forever change parts of this speck of blue reflected starlight which gave us this fortunity of Life?”

A reading of both Religion, Empathy, and Pathei-Mathos and The Numinous Way of Pathei-Mathos not only reveals Myatt’s erudition but also – whether one agrees with his conclusions or not – that his philosophy of pathei-mathos is an original, and possibly an outstanding, contribution to philosophy understood not as a dry academic subject but as an aid to posing and then answering fundamental questions regarding good, evil, suffering, and the meaning – if any – of our existence.

However, given Myatt’s outré past, and the many rumours and allegations about him, his philosophy and contribution will probably only be fully appreciated long after his demise.

R. Parker

Note: Given Myatt’s lifelong support of copyleft, all of the texts in Religion, Empathy, and Pathei-Mathos are available free, on the internet, in either html or pdf format (via his website or blog). The complete text of Questions of Good, Evil, Honour, and God is also available here – (pdf)

On a minor point, it is worth mentioning that Myatt in this published work – as in all his other recently published works – has idiosyncratically chosen a non-standard, and large, book size – of 215.9 mm x 279.4 mm (8.5″ x 11″). While this oversize format does make the book easy to both hold and read, due to the wide margins and large clear typeface compared with conventional printed books, it would make stocking the book on bookshop shelves problematic. Given, however, that bookshops are highly unlikely to stock any of Myatt’s works anyway – given their obscurity, Myatt’s reputation, and the general lack of public interest in both Myatt and his writings – such an idiosyncratic choice of size is understandable, especially given that it makes the work eccentrically distinct from most other modern printed books.