An Example of Exeatic and Metaphysical Living

Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

Evola re-interprets the notion of War as a metaphysical duty. At the centre of a traditional society Evola locates a spiritual elite from which warriors derive their ultimate reason of being, their supreme justification of their actions. According to the traditional concept the warrior does not fight as a servile caste, is not a ‘profession’ or a mercenary as in a capitalist system. The warrior caste has its own spiritual and distinct way of living, its own rituals, and the act of fighting becomes a spiritual practice. This can be compared to the cult of Eastern combat which integrates fighting techniques with the Numinous. This is the definition of metaphysical warriorship.

[David] Myatt’s life has been a supreme example of this kind of exeatic and metaphysical living, and the West was clearly not ready to accept such a living as an example of a regeneration of the European man and his Volk. Georges Bataille was also drawn to this kind of living although he would not have supported the choices made by Myatt. Nevertheless the mysticism of Myatt, his Numinous Living, is a grand example of an ongoing Innerer Krieg and an ongoing influence of the sinister forces of the Sphere of Mars. Evola talks about ‘a spiritualized personality’, namely a personality realized according to its supernatural (metaphysical) destiny.



One Man Above Time

Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

David Myatt, Reichsfolk, Esoteric Hitlerism, and Savitri Devi

David Myatt: One Man Above Time


Managing The Chaos?

O9A. One Image, Ten Thousand Words


O9A: Managing The Chaos?

From The Archives: Selected NS Essays

David Myatt

David Myatt: National Socialist Essays
(Volume 1, pdf)

As an academic noted in an article – published in 2013 by the United States Air Force – David Myatt is “arguably England’s principal proponent of contemporary neo-Nazi ideology and theoretician of revolution.” [1]

It seems therefore apposite for us to offer this volume: the first in a projected series of documents containing a few of the hundreds of National Socialist essays of David Myatt dating from the middle to late 1990s, essays which were not included in the recent [April 2016] pdf collection we released titled Selected National Socialist Writings Of David Myatt.

Where that collection concentrated on Myatt’s more philosophical and ideological NS writings – his revisionist vision and evolution of National Socialism – this series will concentrate on his more overtly political writings; the type of writings published for instance in his newsletter The National- Socialist – whose banner was ‘Propaganda Without A Fist To Back It Up Is Useless’ – and which newsletter was initially issued (from 1995 on) in support of Combat 18, and later (from 1997 on) in support of his own political organization The National-Socialist Movement, of which the London nail-bomber David Copeland was a member.

The re-publication of these essays, as with Selected National Socialist Writings Of David Myatt and the Constitution of The National-Socialist Reich, should provide suitable source material for those researching, studying, or interested in, either contemporary neo-nazi ideology and ‘right-wing’ extremism and/or the life and past extremism of Mr Myatt. What is also of interest is how Myatt’s political strategy evolved over time: from supporting covert insurrection and ‘terrorism’ in pursuit of overthrowing the government to – via pathei mathos – the ethical National Socialism of Reichsfolk.

RDM Crew
May 2016

[1] Michael, George. The New Media and the Rise of Exhortatory Terrorism. Strategic Studies Quarterly (USAF), Volume 7 Issue 1, Spring 2013.

With Reference To Islam

Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

Editorial Note:
Below is a link to a pdf version of David Myatt’s 2012 text In Explanation Of Humility and The Need for Tolerance: With Reference to Islam, which text – as he explains – is taken “from a reply sent, in November of 2012, to a personal correspondent living in America who enquired about my peregrinations among various religions; about why – as mentioned in previous correspondence – I still respected the Muslim way of life; and about my response to the particular criticism that Islam encourages terrorism.”

Four years on, the text is even more relevant given the continuing (sometimes violent) anti-Muslim sentiment that pervades certain sections of societies in Europe, Britain, and America. In 2013, Myatt would incorporate a revised version of parts of the text into the Questions of Good, Evil, Honour, and God section of his book Religion, Empathy, and Pathei-Mathos.


A Review of Myatt’s ‘Good, Evil, Honour, and God’

David Myatt
A Review of David Myatt’s ‘Good, Evil, Honour, and God’


Controversial, iconoclastic, and much maligned as David Myatt is, and metaphysical as his philosophy of pathei-mathos appears to be, it is my contention that Myatt’s 2013 text Questions of Good, Evil, Honour, and God {1} can provide some valuable insights regarding – and a new moral perspective in relation to – current events, especially given the comments and dehortations made, for well over a decade, regarding religious extremism and terrorism.

Such comments and dehortations – by government officials, the Media, and others – have intensified following recent attacks on Western interests, and citizens, in Tunisia, France, and elsewhere, with several government officials, and journalists, repeatedly using the word ‘evil’ to describe both such attacks and the individuals responsible for them, and with the consensus being that governments, police forces, intelligence agencies, other government institutions and even the armed forces, need to ‘”do more – and have more resources – to tackle and counter terrorism and extremism and prevent radicalization,” which often means in practice the introduction of more legislation, the arrest and imprisonment of those proven to be or suspected of being “supporters of terrorism”, de-radicalization programmes, mass surveillance by intelligence agencies, and supporting or facilitating or directly engaging in military action against “extremists and terrorists” in certain foreign countries.

A Different Perspective

In his Introduction, Myatt asks a rhetorical question:

“Can we as a species change, sans a belief in some reward or the threat of punishment – be such karmic, eschatological, or deriving from something such as a State – or are we 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?”

He then goes on to offer his own answer, or rather provides a perspective which, as described in Questions of Good, Evil, Honour, and God, is different and possibly unique, for it is – as he admits in his Understanding and Rejecting Extremism: A Very Strange Peregrination – the result of his

“forty years as a practical extremist [and] forty years of practical experience of extremism and of other extremists; a practical experience that began in 1968 and ranged from fascism, and the racism of National-Socialism, to radical Islam and which practical experience included founding and leading a political organization; producing propaganda, organizing activities and demonstrations, some of which ended in violence; speaking in public and participating in marches, demonstrations, and brawls; formulating extremist ideology; imprisonment for racist and other violence; participating in and recruiting for paramilitary activities; inciting hatred, violence and prejudice; engaging in criminal activities to fund extremist causes; encouraging and supporting terrorism; and so on.

My conclusions regarding extremism resulted from some years of moral, personal, and philosophical questioning and reflexion; a questioning whose genesis was a personal tragedy in 2006, and which questioning led me a few years later to reject all forms of extremism and develope my own weltanschauung – the philosophy of pathei-mathos – based on the virtues of empathy, compassion, and humility.” {2}

Given this experience, and given the erudition evident in his Questions of Good, Evil, Honour, and God, his views certainly merit serious consideration.

Thus, in respect of Islam, he writes that

“the problem with jurisprudence, Muslim and Christian, is and was our fallible, human, understanding of the revelation, of the original message; a problem classically understood in Islam by the distinction made by Muslim scholars between fiqh – our fallible understanding and attempts at interpretation – and Shariah, the divine and perfect guidance given by Allah, based as fiqh (classical Islamic jurisprudence) is on the principles of acceptance of diversity (of scholarly opinion), on custom [لعادة محكمة], and on reasoned deductions by individuals that are stated to be fallible and thus not immutable. A distinction that allows for reasoned change, accepts the necessity of diverse opinions, the necessity of individual independent scholarly judgement in trials, arbitrations, and determining penalties, and manifests both the non-hierarchical nature of the religion of Islam and the original understanding of the good and the bad.

In modern times, in the Muslim world, this necessary distinction between fiqh and Shariah, this allowance for reasoned change based on diverse scholarly opinion, and the necessity of individual independent scholarly judgement in trials, arbitrations, and determining penalties, often seems to be overlooked when attempts are made by governments in Muslim lands to introduce ‘Shariah law’ with the result that inflexible penal codes and immutable penalties are introduced backed by the claim, contrary to fiqh, that such governments have a mandate to impose and enforce such dogmatical interpretations as are an inevitable part of such government-sponsored codified law.”

Which presents an informed, a reasoned, view – based on personal experience, and learning – on how to possibly counter the extremism currently evident in groups such as ad-Dawlah al-Islamiyyah fī al-Iraq wa ash-Sham, commonly but incorrectly referred to as ‘Islamic State’. Which informed view is of supporting, in Muslim lands and elsewhere, classical Islamic jurisprudence and thus the independence, the authority, the learning, of the Qadi.

After analysing how Christianity, Islam, and the modern State, and their respective jurisprudence, view and have viewed ‘good and evil’ – an analysis complete with quotations in Ancient Greek and Arabic and occasionally in Hebrew, together with his own translations – Myatt presents his alternative: what he terms ‘the culture of pathei-mathos’, which he defines – in several of his writings, such as his Education And The Culture of Pathei-Mathos – as

“the accumulated pathei-mathos of individuals, world-wide, over thousands of years, as (i) described in memoirs, aural stories, and historical accounts; as (ii) have inspired particular works of literature or poetry or drama; as (iii) expressed via non-verbal mediums such as music and Art, and as (iv) manifest in more recent times by ‘art-forms’ such as films and documentaries. The culture of pathei-mathos thus includes not only traditional accounts of, or accounts inspired by, personal pathei-mathos, old and modern – such as the With The Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa by Eugene Sledge, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and the poetry of people as diverse as Sappho and Sylvia Plath – but also works or art-forms inspired by such pathei-mathos, whether personal or otherwise, and whether factually presented or fictionalized. Hence films such as Monsieur Lazhar and Etz Limon may poignantly express something about our φύσις as human beings and thus form part of the culture of pathei-mathos.” {3}

In a memorable passage from Good, Evil, Honour, and God, he writes that:

“Gandhi, motivated by a desire for communal change and a vision of the future, more recently wrote that civilization, correctly understood, does not mean and does not require cities and centralized government and vast industries – and thus a modern State – but rather means and requires a certain personal moral conduct, a “mastery over our mind and our passions”, non-violence, the simplicity of village life, and communities voluntarily cooperating together in pursuit of collective, and personal, development.”

For he argues that the culture of pathei-mathos – to which Gandhi made a significant contribution – is an alternative to these two influential but similar ontologies of (a) The State, and (b) conventional religions such as Christianity and Islam, both “with their powerful entities, their guidance, their punishments and rewards, and the progression of individuals toward some-thing which the powerful entity asserts or promises it can provide.”

In effect, Myatt suggests that the answer to religious and political extremism and to terrorism lies not with governments and their laws, their police and armed forces, and their institutions, all of which he describes, in the perspective of our human ‘culture of pathei-mathos’, as transient. Rather, that it lies in the wisdom evident in that thousands of years old ‘culture of pathei-mathos’ whose different ontology is:

“the ontology of the illusion of self and of the unity, sans denotatum, of all living beings; of how we – presenced as human beings – can and do affect, and have affected, other life including other humans, often in ways we are not aware of; and of how our perception of I and of ‘them’ (the separation-of-otherness) has often led to us affecting other life in a harmful way, thus causing or contributing to or being the genesis of suffering, for that other life and often for ourselves. The ontology where there is no distinction, in being, between us – the emanations – and what emanates; there is only the appearance of difference due to our use of a causal-only perception and of denotatum.”

This necessitates a moral reformation of ourselves as individuals, for:

“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.

For, in effect, the truths concerning honour and dishonour, and of our propensity for both honour and dishonour, are the essence of what we can learn from the supra-national, the living, and the thousands of years old, human culture of pathei-mathos.”

Importantly, he writes that what he is suggesting is just

“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.”

Personal Honour

In practical terms, the reformation that the culture of pathei-mathos suggests is, according to Myatt, simply an acceptance of personal honour, and thus it 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 […] The answer which is to live in hope – even need – of a personal loyal love; to live with empathy, gentleness, humility, compassion, and yet with strength enough to do what should be done when, within the purvue of our personal space, we meet with one or many causing suffering and harm, no thought then for the fragility of our own mortal life or even for personal consequences beyond the ἁρμονίη we, in such honourable moments, are.”

However, Myatt clearly states that he is only offering his “own fallible answer to the question of how to deal with the suffering that blights this world.”


What Myatt has thoughtfully and from experience proposed here is an alternative way of living, a new philosophy, deriving from ‘the culture of pathei-mathos’. That is, from the wisdom of centuries, and – although Myatt himself has said {4} that he is not expressing anything new “only re-express[ing] what so many others, over millennia, have expressed as result of (i) their own pathei-mathos and/or (ii) their experiences/insights and/or (iii) their particular philosophical musings” – my own view is that it is not only new but also radical.

New, and radical, because at its core – as a way of life, and as what he terms ‘the philosophy of pathei-mathos’ with its own ontology and epistemology {5} – is the virtue of personal honour, defined by a specific code of personal, ethical, behaviour. A practical virtue which – so far as I know – has not occupied a pre-eminent place in the thought of, or been the foundation of the philosophy of, those who, over centuries, contributed to the culture of pathei-mathos.

When Myatt’s Questions of Good, Evil, Honour, and God is considered in the context of his writings about his philosophy of pathei-mathos, and recent essays by him such as Some Conjectures Concerning Our Nexible Physis and Extremism, Terrorism, Culture, And Physis: A Question Of Being {6}, then it is clear that what he is suggesting is that both the problem and the solution lie in us as individuals, in our nature as human beings; and that it is our responsibility as individuals – not, for example, the responsibility of some State – to “do what should be done when, within the purvue of our personal space, we meet with one or many causing suffering and harm.” That the solutions proposed and implemented by temporal States, and by political and religious ideologies and their followers, only – in the perspective of centuries and millennia – contribute to suffering because they do not and cannot change en masse (and have not changed, en masse) our nature as human beings. That an acceptance – by us as individuals – of, and a living by us according to, the virtue of personal honour is such a means to change our nature, and thus to break the cycle of suffering and hubris.

As Myatt wrote in 2014, he believes not only that

“it is the muliebral virtues which evolve us as conscious beings, which presence sustainable millennial change. Virtues such as empathy, compassion, humility, and that loyal shared personal love which humanizes those masculous talking-mammals of the Anthropocene, and which masculous talking-mammals have – thousand year following thousand year – caused so much suffering to, and killed, so many other living beings, human and otherwise,” {7}

but also that it is

“the personal virtue of honour, and the cultivation of wu-wei, [which] are – together – a practical, a living, manifestation of our understanding and appreciation of the numinous; of how to live, to behave, as empathy intimates we can or should in order to avoid committing the folly, the error, of ὕβρις, in order not to cause suffering, and in order to re-present, to acquire, ἁρμονίη. For personal honour is essentially a presencing, a grounding, of ψυχή – of Life, of our φύσις – occurring when the insight (the knowing) of a developed empathy inclines us toward a compassion that is, of necessity, balanced by σωφρονεῖν and in accord with δίκη.” {8}

R. Parker


{1} Myatt’s text is available from his site as a pdf file – Questions of Good, Evil, Honour, and God. It is also included in his book Religion, Empathy, and Pathei-Mathos. 2013. ISBN 978-1484097984.

{2} Understanding and Rejecting Extremism, 2013. It is available in pdf format here – Understanding and Rejecting Extremism – and as a printed book, ISBN 978-1484854266.

{3} The text Education And The Culture of Pathei-Mathos is available here –

{4} The Way Of Pathei-Mathos – A Précis (2014).

{5} Myatt’s philosophy is described in the books, texts, and essays mentioned on his site at with many of the texts and essays freely available there as pdf files.
{6} In Extremism, Terrorism, Culture, And Physis: A Question Of Being, Myatt writes:

“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 […]

[For] 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.”

He then goes on to suggest – as he also does in some other of his recent writings – that a solution to the problem of extremism (whether religious or political) is to balance, in the individual, the masculous with the muliebral by:

“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.”

{7} David Myatt: Some Questions For DWM (2014, e-text). The text is included in a collection of his essays published under the title One Vagabond In Exile From The Gods: Some Personal and Metaphysical Musings, ISBN 978-1502396105.

{8} The Natural Balance of Honour, 2012.  The text is an extract from Myatt’s The Way of Pathei-Mathos – A Philosophical Compendiary.

A pdf version is available here – review-myatt-good-evil.pdf

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]