O9A Insight Role
O9A Insight Role


Three months ago, in December 2019, we published an open letter to Nick Lowles {1} challenging him to provide evidence for his claims and correct the errors about the O9A and Myatt made in his articles about the O9A and Myatt in a much publicized 2019 report issued by his political advocacy group. {2} In that letter we stated that:

            “Given your much Media hyped ‘research and security’ departments we expect you to know our e-mail address as supplied to both the author of the Quietus article about the O9A and to the TV production company Expectation Factual.”

As we expected, Lowles neither contacted us nor provided anything probative – any evidence – for his claims. Instead, in March 2020, he in his 2020 report and by means of two videos published on “social media” platforms {3} repeated and added to his claims; made new accusations, committed more logical fallacies and repeated previous ones. {4} Since he provided no evidence whatsoever for his claims and accusations we ourselves, and sagacious others, concluded five things.

First, that he and his political advocacy group were biased and prejudiced and were producing propaganda; that is, expressing preconceived opinion, bias, partiality, hostility. Thus, rather than championing hope they were championing prejudice and hatred; prejudice and hatred against and of the O9A and against and of Mr Myatt.

Second, that he, and his political advocacy group and their supporters, were either ignorant about, lacked knowledge concerning, the true nature of esoteric philosophy of the O9A – as expounded in works such as the 300 page Seofonfeald Paeth – or that they were so prejudiced, so full of an irrational hostility, so enmeshed in a political ideology, that they dismissed or ignored anything that contradicted their beliefs and assumptions about the O9A and about Mr Myatt; ignorant of or refusing to believe, for example, that Myatt was – as evident in his post-2011 writings {5} – a reformed person who had rejected extremism.

Third, that the mainstream media were complicit in spreading the propaganda and the “fake news” of a biased political advocacy group by repeating their claims and accusations without having their journalists do their own research – check the facts, using readily available primary sources {6} – and then make an unbiased assessment based on such research.

Fourth – as evident by the thousands and thousands of people, including members of the British parliament, who signed a petition, organized by that biased political advocacy group, for the British government to ban the O9A – that large numbers of people in our society are or can be swayed by propaganda, by the preconceived opinion, bias, partiality, hostility, and the ignorance, of others. For just like the aforementioned journalists they did not bother, did not have the skepticism, to research the facts, using primary sources, and then make an unbiased assessment based on such research.

Fifth, that the mainstream media is not now – or perhaps never really was – a reliable source of information; and that despite over a century of compulsory education for children, a large section of people, included elected “representatives of democracy”, remain uncultured and thus liable to accept, to believe, the propaganda of a biased political advocacy group; liable to believe without question “fake news” repeated in the mainstream media, and possess no desire, no skeptical curiosity, to research the facts, using primary sources, and then make an unbiased assessment based on such research.

It is therefore no surprise that the O9A champions the principle of καλὸς κἀγαθός {7} and no surprise that Lowles has refused to provide evidence from primary sources for his accusations, claims, and lies about the O9A and about Myatt, not only because there no such evidence, nothing probative, to support those accusations, claims, and lies, but also because it seems to be in his nature, and in the nature of his political advocacy group, to put propaganda – preconceived opinion, bias, partiality, hostility – before truth and hope.

It is also no surprise that when in 1998 Myatt challenged Lowles to a duel with deadly weapons the cowardly Lowles ignored the challenge, with Myatt writing:

           “When Lowles sometime later published his account of our meeting I was unsurprised at his journalistic embellishments. For he saught to portray me in a particular and negative way – as perhaps his adherence to an anti-fascist ideology demanded – while portraying himself in a positive manner, forgetting to mention of course that I had not only invited him to partake in a duel with deadly weapons for publishing misinformation about me but had also invited him to dinner at my then home near Malvern, both of which cordial invitations he declined thus leaving me with my honour intact and he hiding behind a certain ideology.” {8}

Rachael Stirling
March 2020 ev

{1} See https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2019/12/01/open-letter-to-nick-lowles/

{2} We detailed some of his errors in (i) https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/how-to-spread-fake-news/ and (ii) https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2020/03/12/fallacies-of-anti-o9a-propaganda/

{3} One video was published on Facebook, the other on “buzzsprout”.

{4} Refer to https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2020/03/12/fallacies-of-anti-o9a-propaganda/

One particular fallacy Lowles repeatedly commits is secundum quid et simpliciter, using particular individual cases to form a general rule to then use that rule to describe, and thence to blame, or to castigate, or to defame a whole group. Thus, and for example, he uses the cases of some individuals claimed to be influenced by the O9A to make claims about the O9A, such as that the O9A is misogynistic and encourages sexual violence.

Since the O9A is a movement – a sub-culture based on a particular esoteric philosophy – the views or the actions of a few individuals or supporters logically cannot be used to defame that movement. No rational person, for instance, would blame Christianity for the actions of a person such as Anders Breivik or for the fanaticism of Matthew Hopkins.

In addition, as mentioned many times in recent texts and articles, sources – such as https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2020/03/12/fallacies-of-anti-o9a-propaganda/ and https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/how-to-spread-fake-news/ – refute the claim that the O9A is misogynistic and encourages sexual violence.

{5} Refer, for example, to works by Myatt such as Understanding and Rejecting Extremism, and his Extremism And Reformation.

As noted in The Demonizing Of Mr Myatt,

           “If the chief executive of a certain political advocacy group has indeed bothered to read such post-2011 writings by Myatt, is the chief executive in his fanaticism and prejudice under the delusion that such writings are the work of ‘an evil mastermind’ and thus designed to deceive?

Failure by him to provide answers to such questions is not an option. For if he believes such a delusion that such writings are designed to deceive, then surely it expresses something about the psyche of chief executive, about his own physis, about his character, and about his own personal and political agenda.”

{6} In relation to the O9A, primary sources include The Seofonfeald Paeth, Dyssolving: Diary of an Internal Adept, The Deofel Quartet, and Naos (available, as of March 2020 from https://lapisphilosophicus.wordpress.com/naos/ )

In relation to Myatt, primary sources are A Matter Of Honour, and the works available at https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/2018/03/09/david-myatt-opera-omnia/

A study of such primary sources would have exposed the lies, the false accusations, made by Lowles and his political advocacy group about the O9A and about Myatt; lies and false accusations repeated in the mainstream media.

{7} See https://wyrdsister.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/kalos-kagathos-o9a-v1a.pdf

{8} https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/meeting-with-nick-lowles/