odal3

Some individuals, from what personal motive or because of whatever supra-personal agenda, have for decades made derogatory remarks about David Myatt. A case in point being some anonymous self-described Polish Catholic who has for years made hundreds of posts on various self-described satanic and occult internet forums about Myatt and about the Order of Nine Angles.

This anonymous person keeps going on and on about a “Myatt mythos” and about ONA people hyping Myatt and, in their words, about “making him into a demigod.” When asked to provide actual evidence of actual ONA people so hyping Myatt they were strangely silent.

For if that anonymous person had read what actual ONA folk have written about Myatt they would find that everything ONA folk say about Myatt is referenced to what has already been published about him by academics and by others.

For example, there is the 84 page book The Radical Occult Philosophy of Anton Long, published in 2015, part two of which has several chapters about Myatt. In regard to Myatt’s life, references are made to what various academics have written about Myatt (for example, Raine, Monette, Kaplan, Weitzmann, Goodrick-Clarke, Michael, Senholt). References are also made to comments about Myatt by journalists nearly all of which comments are somewhat negative and derogatory. None of the comments or statements about Myatt, referenced in the book, “hype” him or make him out to be some sort of super-duper villain, or some assassin, or (one of the favourite rumours) to be working for MI5 (or MI6 in a variant rumour), or (another favourite) an actual terrorist.

In respect of that book there are only three possible points of contention. The first is what Mr Parker concludes – following, it should be noted, the likes of Senholt – that Myatt’s life is an example of the ONA Seven Fold Way. The second is when Mr Parker (in that context) describes Myatt as a Mage; as having reached a certain stage on that Seven Fold Way. The third is the comparison made between the lives of Myatt, Aquino, and Levey, with Mr Parker concluding that “in terms of life and practical experience [Myatt is] not only the most satanic, the most sinister, but also the one who has most embodied and manifested the numinous.”

Now, we and such anonymous internet persons as that self-described Polish Catholic, could quibble for days, perhaps weeks, about what – in terms of life and practical experience – being ‘satanic’ and ‘sinister’ means, even though a reasonable person would conclude that Myatt’s documented life is very different from the documented lives of Levey and Aquino.

For example, if for the sake of argument we equate satanic/sinister with being antinomian then it’s obvious that Myatt has been antinomian in a greater variety of ways than either Levey and Aquino, given that antinomianism has been described as “nonconformity through the concept of transgression,” (qv. Jesper Aagaard Petersen, Smite Him Hip and Thigh: Satanism, Violence, and Transgression, in Violence and New Religious Movements, Oxford University Press, 2011. p. 353).

Myatt in a practical way transgressed the law through violence and crime (spending time in prison for some of those transgressions) and through being part of an illegal paramilitary group (Column 88) which trained with weapons used by the British army. Myatt was being ‘nonconformist’ and transgressive when publicly supporting bin Laden and suicide attacks, and when publicly supporting holocaust denial and National Socialism. In contrast, Levey’s only transgression – and a mild transgression at that, since it was not against the law – was forming a ‘satanic’ group which didn’t preach or incite violence or murder or crime. When the Church of Satan is compared to Myatt’s violent NDFM and his later NSM, Levey’s Church looks positively tame. The NDFM, it should be noted, held several violent public meetings and demonstrations in Leeds in the 1970s, the most violent of which was on the steps of Leeds Town Hall which demonstration descended into a riot, with several police officers injured and with Myatt arrested and later found guilty of “inciting the violence.”

That the anonymous person, with their apparent anti-ONA agenda, even now goes on and on about “pseudo-scholars and tabloid newspapers and unverified gossip” is perhaps the most indicative thing of all. For apparently they just can’t accept that Myatt’s documented life makes Levey seem like a wuss. For they, anonymous they, yet again try to discredit any and all sources who depict Myatt as antinomian and who contradict their disparaging myth about Myatt.

That he/she even now goes on and on, ad nauseam, about “pseudo-scholars and tabloid newspapers and unverified gossip” – to compliment their previous comments about “tabloid bloggers and shitty journalists and gullible academics” – is perhaps indicative for he/she apparently just can’t accept (for what reason or because of whatever motive) that Myatt’s documented life makes Levey seem like a wuss. In other words, such an anonymous person yet again tries to discredit any and all sources who depict Myatt as antinomian and who contradict his/her propagandistic myth about Myatt.

That he/she also deemed it necessary, in respect of Myatt, to try and redefine such terms as “extremist” and “interview” is not only most amusing but also indicative of their physis and of their anti-ONA and their anti-Myatt, propagandistic, agenda.

JB
2017 ev


Advertisements