Appreciating The Philosophy Of Pathei-Mathos

Richard Moult: Atu XX

°°°°°°°°°

A pdf version of this article is available here:
https://wyrdsister.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/appreciating-myatt-philosophy-v3.pdf

°°°°°°°°°

Appreciating The Philosophy Of Pathei-Mathos

Abstract

We ask why David Myatt’s mystical philosophy of pathei-mathos is unappreciated and why are old allegations and rumours about him still made and still propagated today.

We suggest it may in part be because in Myatt’s philosophy empathy and personal honour lead us away from the Judeo-Christian illusion of causal abstractions (a naming) and a dialectic of opposites based on such naming with the inevitable apocalyptic eschatology; and partly because his philosophy presents a modern and rational paganism based on Greco-Roman values and is therefore seen as belonging to a new and emerging “right-wing” milieu in which ancestral (native and pagan) European culture and a tradition of personal honour are central.

°°°°°°°°°

That David Myatt’s mystical philosophy of pathei-mathos {1} is unappreciated today except by a few sagacious individuals is understandable given two things. First, Myatt’s extremist past – three decades (1968-1998) as a neo-nazi activist and ideologue, and almost a decade (1998-2008) as a supporter and ideologue of Muslim Jihad – and, second, given the unproven allegations, and the rumours spread, about him over the decades by politically motivated individuals and organizations with an agenda who profess to be “fighting extremism”.

Allegations and rumours that are still made and still propagated today despite Myatt’s voluminous post-2011 writings about his rejection of extremism. Writings such as his 2013 book Understanding and Rejecting Extremism: A Very Strange Peregrination {2} and collections of essays such as his Religion, Empathy, and Pathei-Mathos: Essays and Letters Regarding Spirituality, Humility, and A Learning From Grief {3}.

Why therefore are such allegations and rumours still made and still propagated today?

All his vociferous politically orientated critics say and write are either prejudiced statements such as “it’s hard to take anything Myatt says at face value, so successfully has he enshrouded himself in self-contradictory disinformation”, or make propagandistic claims such as that he has a “history of deception”, none of which statements or claims his critics support with probative evidence based on primary sources.

That is, such critics are merely presenting their personal opinions as well as revealing either their lack of knowledge of Myatt’s voluminous post-2011 writings about extremism and about his philosophy of pathei-mathos, or their prejudiced dismissal of those writings as “disinformation and deceptive”. Have they even read or have they studied in detail those writings?

Good, Evil, Honour, and God

Where, for example, are their reasoned, or their scholarly, critiques of Myatt’s Questions of Good, Evil, Honour, and God, his 29 page monograph included in his book Religion, Empathy, and Pathei-Mathos.

Which monograph is a relevant example of his writings about his philosophy of pathei-mathos, and in which he compares the ontologies of Christianity, Islam, and the modern nation-state with the ontology he proposes for his own philosophy.

For example, after discussing the ontologies of Christianity, Islam, and the modern nation-state, he presents in Parts Four and Five his argument in favour of a personal ontology deriving from pathei mathos, as well as presenting his conclusions regarding the need to lead a tolerant, compassionate, honourable, way of life.

Thus in Part Four he writes:
                  “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 […]
                  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.”

In Part Five he explains the origins of his philosophy:
                  “Twenty years ago, someone whom I loved who loved me died, too young and having harmed no one. Died, leaving me bereft, if only for a while. For too soon my return to those hubriatic, selfish, suffering-causing, and extremist, ways of my pasts. As if, despite the grief, the pain of loss, I personally had learned nothing, except in such moments of such remembering that did not, unfortunately, impact too much upon my practicalities of life; at least until another bereavement, thirteen years later, came to shock, shake, betake me far from my arrogant presumptions about myself, about life, to thus lead, to so slowly lead, to me on a clear cold day yet again interiorly dwelling on what, if anything, is our human purpose of being here and why such bereavements, such early deaths, just seem so unjust, unfair.”

Another relevant example is his In Reply To Some Questions (2012) in which he explains in greater detail the intent of his writings about extremism and about his philosophy of πάθει μάθος – the ‘numinous way’ – and that those writings
                  “have been written as expressions of my own feelings, experiences, and philosophical reflexions, with no particular audience in mind, save in many instance for a few personal friends. In effect, they document my interior struggles, my attempts to find solutions to certain philosophical problems, and my desire to understand the how and the why of my hubris, of my extremist decades, and thus to understand and acknowledge the mistakes of my past – to understand and acknowledge the suffering I caused – and understand the error of extremism itself […]
                  What I hope to achieve by such writings is to communicate – or to attempt to communicate – some of my insights, some of my experiences, some of my solutions, and some of my conclusions, such as they are, and as personal and as fallible as they are, and dealing as they do with extremism, with an extremist life, and with the personal life of the hubriatic man I was […]
                  My concern – and therefore that of the philosophy of πάθει μάθος – is with spiritual (numinous) and personal matters. With our own individual interior change and reformation; with the perspective and insight that empathy and pathei-mathos provide: which is of personal virtues such as compassion, love, humility, empathy, πάθει μάθος, honour, and wu-wei, and thus with treating human beings as individuals […]
                  My writings over the past few years have been personal, ‘mystical’, and philosophical, with the latter documenting the development and refinement of my ‘numinous way’ culminating in my moral philosophy of pathei-mathos which is concerned with individuals and how individuals might discover and learn to appreciate ἁρμονίη and δίκη and so move toward wisdom. So, what I wanted – rather, what I felt compelled to do following a personal tragedy – was to try and understand myself, my suffering-causing past; to try and discover what undermined ἁρμονίη and δίκη, and what ὕβρις was and what it caused and why.”

Is this as his politically orientated critics claim “disinformation and deceptive”, or is it – like his Understanding and Rejecting Extremism, his Questions of Good, Evil, Honour, and God, and other such writings including his autobiography Myngath – a genuine expression of Enantiodromia, of the reformation of an individual? {4}

That Myatt’s politically orientated critics have not penned reasoned, or scholarly, critiques of such Myattian works should be sufficient to answer that question.

A Modern Pagan Philosophy

One other reason why Myatt’s mystical philosophy of pathei-mathos may be unappreciated today, and another possible reason why his politically motivated critics have not penned reasoned, or scholarly, critiques of that philosophy, is that his philosophy is, for many of those who have studied it, a modern pagan philosophy in the tradition of Greco-Roman philosophy.

In his recent (2019) autobiographical essay An Indebtedness To Ancient Greek And Greco-Roman Culture he explained that he uses some non-English terms mostly from Ancient Greek but occasionally from Latin,
                  “in the hope that such terms would not only be able to convey my meaning better than some easily mis-understood English term but also might be assimilated into the English language as philosophical terms either in their transliterated English form or in their Greek and Latin form.
                  Such terms might also reveal my indebtedness to Ancient Greek and Greco-Roman culture and how and why the philosophy of pathei-mathos is both a “transition from mythoi and anthropomorphic deities (theos and theoi) to an appreciation of the numinous sans denotatum and sans religion” and thus a return to individual insight and understanding over impersonal abstractions/ideations, over denotatum, and over religious and political dogma, with the Latin denotatum – used as an Anglicized term and which thus can be used to describe both singular and plural instances of denoting and naming – a useful example of my somewhat idiosyncratic methodology.
                Thus and for example I used and use σοφόν instead of σοφός when the sense implied is not the usual “skilled”, or “learned” or “wise” but rather what lies beyond and what was/is the genesis of what is presenced in a person as skill, or learning, or wisdom. I used and use σωφρονεῖν in preference to σωφροσύνη (sophrosyne) to suggest a fair and balanced personal judgement rather than the fairly modern English interpretation of sophrosyne as soundness of mind, moderation.” {5}

In that essay he asks then answers a rhetorical question about using such Greek and Anglicized terms:
                  “Does my idiosyncratic use of Ancient Greek and Latin terms make this philosophy confusing, difficult to understand and difficult to appreciate? Perhaps. But since philosophia – ϕιλοσοϕία – is, at least according to my fallible understanding, becoming a friend of σοφόν, and since such a personal friendship involves seeking to understand Being, beings, and Time, and since part of the ethos of the culture of the West – heir to Ancient Greek and Greco-Roman culture – is or at least was a personal and rational quest for understanding and knowledge, then perhaps some effort, as befits those of noble physis who appreciate and who may seek to presence καλὸς κἀγαθός, is only to be expected.”

In his recent monograph Classical Paganism And The Christian Ethos he explains the context and meaning of the term καλὸς κἀγαθός, writing that
                  “we are, ontologically, emanations of and presence Being, and are a connexion to the cosmos – to other presencings of Being – through, in terms of epistemology, not only reason (λόγος), perceiverance (νοῦς) and wordless-awareness (συμπάθεια, empathy) but also through τὸ ἀγαθὸν, τὸ καλὸν, and ἀρετὴ, through the beautiful and the well-balanced, the valourous and honourable, and those who possess arête, all of which are combined in one Greek phrase: καλὸς κἀγαθός, which means those who conduct themselves in a gentlemanly or lady-like manner and who thus manifest – because of their innate physis or through pathei-mathos or through a certain type of education or learning – nobility of character. Which Greek phrase expresses the ethics, the high personal standards, of the ancient paganus weltanschauung we have been discussing.”

In his monographs Classical Paganism And The Christian Ethos and Tu Es Diaboli Ianua – both published in 2017 {6} – he writes of the difference between classical paganism and revealed religions such as Christianity. That there is, in his view, a
                  “fundamental difference between a religious apprehension of the numinous – based on received and venerated texts, on exegesis – and the paganus apprehension of the numinous as manifest in Greco-Roman culture, based as it is on an individual, and an intuitive, empathic and thus wordless, apprehension of the numinous.” {7}

This “empathic apprehension of the numinous” is at the core of Myatt’s philosophy of pathei-mathos. In his Numinous Way of Pathei-Mathos he writes that empathy is a means by which we can
                  “understand both φύσις and Πόλεμος, and thus apprehend Being as Being, and the nature of beings – and in particular the nature of our being, as mortals. For empathy reveals to us the acausality of Being and thus how the process of abstraction, involving as it does an imposition of causality and separation upon beings (and the ideation) implicit on opposites and dialectic), is a covering-up of Being.”

In Tu Es Diaboli Ianua, he writes that
                  “Greco-Roman culture is inextricably bound to the culture of the West and formed the basis for the European Renaissance that emerged in the 14th century, one aspect of which was a widespread appreciation of classical Art, of classical literature, and of texts such as the Corpus Hermeticum.”

Which why his translations of eight tractates of the Corpus Hermeticum, and of other Greek texts,
                  “when studied together enable us to appreciate and understand the classical, pagan, ethos and thence the ethos of the West itself […]
                  What Myatt does in his translations [of the Corpus Hermeticum] is paint a picture of classical – and of Hellenic – culture and especially of Hellenic mysticism; a culture and a mysticism which is pagan and based on individuals, on tangible things such as honesty, and not on moralistic and religious and impersonal abstractions. That is, he reveals the Greco-Roman ethos – the pagan ethos – underlying the hermetic texts and which is in contrast to that of Christianity with its later, medieval and Puritanical, impersonal moralizing.” {8}

Which understanding of the ethos of the West, sans Christianity, the politically orientated individuals and organizations who are vociferous critics of Myatt most probably view as heresy, as evidence that Myatt’s philosophy of pathei-mathos undermines the Judeo-Christian culture and tradition that still forms the basis of many Western nation-states, and evidence also of how Myatt’s philosophy may aid those who champion a particular and pagan interpretation of Western culture.

As one commentator noted, Western culture is
                  “exemplified according to Myatt by καλὸς κἀγαθός. That is, by those who “conduct themselves in a gentlemanly or lady-like manner and who thus manifest – because of their innate physis or through pathei-mathos or through a certain type of education or learning – nobility of character,” and which nobility of character is manifest in “the virtues of personal honour and manners” and which Western culture was also – according to Myatt and contra modern ‘political correctness’ – manifest in a natural and necessary aristocracy composed of those who possess nobility of character and who thus exemplify καλὸς κἀγαθός.” {8}

This interpretation of Western culture, as Myatt expresses it in his Tu Es Diaboli Ianua, is also
                   “an (often wordless) awareness of ourselves as a fallible mortal, as a microcosmic connexion to other mortals, to other life, to Nature, and to the Cosmos beyond our world; and a new civitas, and one not based on some abstractive law but on a spiritual and interior (and thus not political) understanding and appreciation of our own Ancestral Culture and that of others; on our ‘civic’ duty to personally presence καλὸς κἀγαθός and thus to act and to live in a noble way.
                  For the virtues of personal honour and manners, with their responsibilities, presence the fairness, the avoidance of hubris, the natural harmonious balance, the gender equality, the awareness and appreciation of the divine, that is the numinous.

Which “new civitas” – new communities, a new understanding of what being part of (a citizen of) such communities means; a new definition of freedom based on honour – strikes at the very foundations of the modern nation-state with its impersonal laws and in which modern nation-states where the ‘law of personal honour’ – one of the foundations of Myatt’s philosophy {9} – if not outlawed is subject to often severe state-sanctioned restrictions.

As Myatt noted in his Questions of Good, Evil, Honour, and God,
                  “My own and only fallible answer to the question of how to deal with the suffering that blights this world therefore seems to be the answer of a personal honour. That is, for each of us to gently try to carry that necessary harmony, that balance, of δίκη, wordlessly within; to thus restrain ourselves from causing harm while being able, prepared, in the immediacy of the moment, to personally, physically, restrain – prevent – others when we chance upon such harm being done. This, to me, is Life in its wholesome natural fullness – as lived, presenced, by the brief, mortal, consciously aware, emanations we are; mortal emanations capable of restraint, reason, culture, and reforming change; of learning from our pathei-mathos and that of others. My personal answer to personal questions, perplexion, and to grief and doubt. 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.”

In an essay written in September 2014 he explained that
                  “personal honour – which presences the virtues of fairness, tolerance, compassion, humility, and εὐταξία – [is] (i) a natural intuitive (wordless) expression of the numinous (‘the good’, δίκη, συμπάθεια) and (ii) of both what the culture of pathei-mathos and the acausal-knowing of empathy reveal we should do (or incline us toward doing) in the immediacy of the personal moment when personally confronted by what is unfair, unjust, and extreme.
                  Of how such honour – by its and our φύσις – is and can only ever be personal, and thus cannot be extracted out from the ‘living moment’ and our participation in the moment.” {10}

By expressing a new civitas based on the concept of personal honour and on the noble virtues of καλὸς κἀγαθός, Myatt’s rather unique philosophy, evolved as it has been by his Classical Paganism And The Christian Ethos and his Tu Es Diaboli Ianua monographs – might well be seen to be, according to the standards of the political status quo, as somewhat radical.

It might also become seen to be, or may already be seen to be, by some politically orientated individuals and organizations who profess to be “fighting extremism” – and who are still swayed by the Judeo-Christian illusion of causal abstractions and the dialectic of opposites – part of a new and emerging “right-wing” milieu in which ancestral (native and pagan) European culture and a tradition of personal honour are central. {11}

According to Myatt’s philosophy, empathy and personal honour lead us away from the Judeo-Christian illusion of causal abstractions (a naming) and a dialectic of opposites based on such naming with the inevitable apocalyptic eschatology which engenders a real-world struggle or a war between a posited and a supra-personal, abstract, ‘good’ and ‘evil’. An eschatology – struggle between a posited ‘good’ (us) and a posited ‘evil’ (our enemies) – which the modern nation-state has appropriated, as witness the propaganda against National Socialist Germany with its portrayal of The Third Reich as the ‘evil’ enemy who must be fought and defeated.

Myatt’s philosophy leads us away from such abstractions, back toward the pagan insight of Greeks such as Heraclitus:
                  “Although this naming and expression [which I explain] exists, human beings tend to ignore it, both before and after they have become aware of it. Yet even though, regarding such naming and expression, I have revealed details of how Physis has been cleaved asunder, some human beings are inexperienced concerning it, fumbling about with words and deeds, just as other human beings, be they interested or just forgetful, are unaware of what they have done.” {12}

In chapter three of his The Numinous Way of Pathei-Mathos Myatt provides not only the Greek text of two other fragments by or attributed to Heraclitus but also his own translations:
                  “Polemos our genesis, governing us all to bring forth some gods, some mortal beings with some unfettered yet others kept bound.” Fragment 53
                  “All by genesis is appropriately apportioned [separated into portions] with beings bound together again by enantiodromia.” Diogenes Laërtius, ix. 7.

In that chapter he writes that
                  “Empathy also reveals why the assumption that abstracted, ideated, opposites apply to or should apply to living beings – and that they thus can supply us with knowledge and understanding of living being – disrupts the natural balance, resulting in a loss of ἁρμονίη [harmony] and συμπάθεια and is therefore a manifestation of the error of ὕβρις.”

In place of such abstracted, ideated, Judeo-Christian conflicting opposites there is in both Greco-Roman paganism, and in Myatt’s philosophy, Summum Bonum. As Myatt notes in his Tu Es Diaboli Ianua, quoting the Roman philosopher Seneca,
                  "What is injurious to such a [pagan] harmonious balance is what is dishonourable, with τὸ ἀγαθὸν – Summum Bonum – thus understood as honestum, as what is honourable, noble:
                  summum bonum est quod honestum est; et quod magis admireris: unum bonum est, quod honestum est, cetera falsa et adulterina bona sunt. Seneca, Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales, LXXI, 4. [“the greatest good is that which is honourable. Also – and you may wonder at this – only that which is honourable is good, with all other 'goods' simply false and deceitful."]
                  For honestum is how hubris can be avoided and balance maintained, and is the essence of καλὸς κἀγαθός which presences the numinous, the divine, in and among mortals."

This rational pagan understanding is worlds away from the abstractions of the modern nation-state and makes the unproven allegations, and the rumours spread, about Myatt now and over the decades by politically orientated individuals and organizations with an agenda who profess to be "fighting extremism" seem to belong to a medieval world of heretics, hateful preachers, and zealous fanatics inspired by the prevalent Judeo-Christian culture and who sought to track down, publicly shame, and accuse "witches" and "wizards" of heresy.

Three Wyrd Sisters
Oxonia
June 2019
v.1.03

{1} For an overview of Myatt's philosophy refer to The Mystic Philosophy Of David Myatt. The second edition is available at https://wyrdsister.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/myatt-mystic-philosophy-second-edition.pdf

{2} ISBN 978-1484854266. A gratis open access pdf version is available at https://davidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/dwm-rejecting-extremism-v3.pdf

{3} ISBN 978-1484097984. A gratis open access pdf version is available at https://davidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/religion-and-empathy.pdf

{4} Myatt explains what he means by Enantiodromia in the Enantiodromia and The Reformation of The Individual and The Change of Enantiodromia chapters of his book the The Numinous Way of Pathei-Mathos (ISBN 978-1484096642) which is also available in a gratis open access pdf version at https://davidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/numinous-way-v5c-print.pdf

His autobiography Myngath is also available both as a printed book, ISBN 978-1484110744, and in a gratis open access pdf version at https://davidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/david-myatt-myngath.pdf{5}

{5} https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/2019/04/23/an-indebtedness-to-ancient-greek-and-greco-roman-culture/

{6} (i) Classical Paganism And The Christian Ethos, ISBN 978-1979599023. A gratis open access pdf version is available at https://davidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/classical-paganism-v2-print.pdf and (ii) Tu Es Diaboli Ianua, ISBN 978-1982010935. A gratis open access pdf version is available at https://davidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/tua-es-diaboli-ianua.pdf

{7} Tu Es Diaboli Ianua.

{8} Western Paganism And Hermeticism: Myatt And The Renaissance of Western Culture. Available from https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/2019/06/03/western-paganism-and-hermeticism/

{9} See, for example the chapter Honour In The Philosophy Of Pathei-Mathos in The Mystic Philosophy Of David Myatt.

{10} The Way Of Pathei-Mathos – A Précis. The essay is included in One Vagabond In Exile From The Gods: Some Personal and Metaphysical Musings.

{11} In regard to the European – the Western – tradition of personal honour see, for example, William Segar, Booke of Honor & Armes, published in 1590. The book is currently – June 2019 – available at https://books.google.com/books?id=LlI_AQAAMAAJ

{12} The translation of fragment 1 is by Myatt who in his Questions of Good, Evil, Honour, and God provides the Greek text.

°°°°°°°

Image credit:
Richard Moult: Atu XX from Non Est Secundus Quia Unus Est,
a book of Tarot archetypes

°°°°°°°

Article source:
https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/2019/06/30/appreciating-the-philosophy-of-pathei-mathos/


Analysing Anti-Fascist Prejudice

Order Of Nine Angles
O9A

°°°°°°°°°

Analysing Anti-Fascist Prejudice And Propaganda
In Relation To The O9A

Prejudice is “preconceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience; bias, partiality; unreasoned dislike, hostility; an unreasoning preference or objection; a preliminary or anticipatory judgement.”

Propaganda is “the systematic dissemination of information, especially in a biased or misleading way, in order to promote a political cause or point of view.” {1}

In respect of the O9A (Order of Nine Angles), a reading of the “O9A” section of a 2019 report issued by a particular anti-fascist organisation is sufficient to (i) reveal that they are spreading disinformation and propaganda, and/or (ii) reveal their ignorance about the O9A, and/or (iii) reveal their prejudice. A revealing evident in their subsequent writings about the O9A.

Why prejudiced? To write or to speak about a matter or about a person or about a group in a reasonable, non-prejudiced way, is to have actual experience of the matter, person or group, or to be probative regarding the matter, person or group: that is, to have actual proof or evidence which validates what is written or said. Valid evidence would be evidence from primary O9A source material {2} and placed into the context of the O9A corpus thus avoiding the common errors of the fallacy of secundum quid et simpliciter, the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, and the fallacy of Incomplete Evidence, fallacies which some academics commit {3}{4} and which propagandists invariably commit either deliberately or out of ignorance.

In the matter of the O9A, the anti-fascists in question have no actual proof or evidence from primary sources which validates what they have written about the O9A. When they do quote O9A material or alleged O9A material they provide no references to the text, printed or on-line; do not give the author of the original material; often misattribute the quote, and fail to provide context (vis-a-vis the O9A corpus) and thus, either propagandistically or due to ignorance, commit the fallacy of illicit transference. {5}

In respect of their Prejudice and their Propaganda they for example, wrote:

§ In the 1990s the leadership of the O9A was taken over by Richard Moult

This reveals a bias because there is no evidence to support the claim that the O9A has or had a “leader” with voluminous O9A texts from the 1980s onwards clearly stating that the O9A has no leader – and thus is a leaderless, non-hierarchical, Occult movement or sub-culture {6} – with the author of most O9A texts, the pseudonymous “Anton Long”, never making any claim regarding his authority and power, and even writing to Michael Aquino of the Temple of Set that in the O9A there is “no acceptance of someone else’s authority” and that “I claim no authority.” {7}

Furthermore, one of the foundational principles of the O9A sub-culture is the anarchist “principle of the authority of individual judgment”, which means that anyone, associating or identifying themselves with the Occult sub-culture that is the O9A, is free to interpret and to manifest O9A Occult philosophy in whatever way they choose. {8} This principle in practice also means:

(i) that no author, no individual, no nexion, can present or represent the view or the opinion of the entity termed the Order of Nine Angles,
(ii) that the O9A does not have, never has had, and never will have an “official policy” about anything, and never has, and never will make “official statements” about anything; and
(iii) that the only authority which is meaningful for the O9A is the individual one which results from the exoteric and esoteric pathei mathos of each individual who is part of or who associates themselves with the O9A.

In effect, the anti-fascists in question were (i) producing and spreading disinformation – deliberately false information – or (ii) they were revealing their ignorance regarding the Occult philosophy and the praxises of the O9A, or (iii) expressing their prejudice, their partiality, their unreasoned dislike, their hostility, about and regarding the O9A.

If they were spreading disinformation, it reveals their prejudice, their bias. If they were revealing in public their ignorance about the O9A then they were also revealing their prejudice, their unreasoned, ill-informed dislike of the O9A.

In another example they wrote, in respect of Moult and Myatt:

§ Rather than true conversions, they were following what they themselves describe as “insight” – a deliberate ploy to infiltrate, explore and subvert other organisations and religions, especially those that offer recruits the chance to learn violent skills

This reveals prejudice, a bias, for three reasons. First, because the anti-fascists provide no evidence for their claim that those “conversions” were not genuine; second, because they provide no evidence for their claim that either Moult or Myatt, in respect of the O9A, named and described something termed “insight”; and third, because the use of the term “insight” by such anti-fascists either (i) reveals that they were spreading disinformation about the O9A or (ii) reveals their ignorance about the O9A.

For what O9A texts repeatedly mention are Insight Rôles, not “insight”, and which rôles form part of the tasks of an External Adept and only last for between one year and eighteen months, after which the person moves on to other tasks. {9}.

Thus, the claim that the decades later “conversions” of Moult and Myatt were “insight” – that is, Insight Rôles – is nonsensical in the context of the O9A, since no one O9A undertakes Insight Rôles in their later years, as a study of O9A texts would have revealed.

In another example, the anti-fascists wrote:

§ Myatt has also publicly left the O9A

This reveals prejudice, a bias, for several reasons. First, they provide no evidence for their claim that Myatt publicly left the O9A. Where are the public texts written by Myatt where he states he has publicly left the O9A? Where are the public texts written by Myatt where he claims to have been O9A? There are no such texts.

Second, even if their defence is the claim that Myatt was the pseudonymous “Anton Long” then neither they nor anyone else has provided any evidence – any facts based on primary sources or documents – to substantiate such a claim, such a malicious allegation. It is thus a preconceived opinion, or disinformation, or the unreasonable repetition of rumours; in all of which cases it amounts to bias, to prejudice, to being unfair.

In addition, they conveniently did not balance their unproven claims about Myatt by mentioning that three academics have expressed doubts about Myatt being the pseudonymous “Anton Long”, with (i) George Sieg writing that he considered it to be “implausible and untenable based on the extent of variance in writing style, personality, and tone” between Myatt and Long’s writings,{10} with (ii) Jeffrey Kaplan stating that Myatt and Long are separate people, {11} and with (iii) Connell Monette writing that it was quite possible that ‘Anton Long’ was a pseudonym used by multiple individuals over the last 30 years. {12}

All people who have claimed or who claim that Myatt was the pseudonymous “Anton Long” present and rely on are two things: (i) forgeries such as the two manuscripts titled Diablerie and Bealuwes Gast {13} and (ii) the analysis by Senholt in a Master’s thesis, later updated and included as a chapter in the book The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity {14} with Myatt in a section of his essay A Matter Of Honour sub-titled The Logical Fallacy of Incomplete Evidence – A Case Study, {15} having analysed in some detail the claims made by Senholt, concluding that the claims are not tenable. As in the matter of the O9A, no one in the case of Myatt has studied and provided as evidence of involvement primary sources relating to his life {16}.

In another example the anti-fascists wrote:

§ but again this is highly suspect as Moult recently admitted that the two remain in regular contact

This is not a rational statement because they provide no evidence for their claim as to why it is “highly suspect”. Does the fact that two friends are in “regular contact” mean something suspicious or sinister is going on? No, it only means that two friends are in regular contact unless and until there are facts – evidence – to the contrary. Until there are such facts the statement remains either disinformation or prejudicial. In either case it causes or can cause prejudice.

In yet another example they wrote:

§ the presumption must be that he is still actively involved in the nazi occult organisation he has spent almost 50 years supporting and leading.

Their bias is obvious in three things. First, that their presumption “must be”. It is unreasonable to claim that a presumption “must be” since a presumption is just a presumption, and thus is “the action of taking for granted or presuming something; assumption, supposition.” This statement that their supposition “must be” is therefore either wilful propaganda or ignorance.

Second, obvious bias in the statement “still actively involved”, because no evidence, no facts based on primary sources, are or have been presented, by that anti-fascist group or by anyone else, that he – Myatt – was ever involved with the O9A in the first place.

Third, obvious bias in the claim that “he has spent almost 50 years supporting and leading” since yet again no evidence, no facts based on primary sources, are or have been presented regarding such supporting and such leading.

On balance, therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the entire statement is biased and misleading propaganda.

While many more examples of their bias and/or of their ignorance could be presented, sufficient have been presented here, and elsewhere {17}, for us to arrive at a reasonable conclusion in the matter of the pronouncements made about the O9A by a particular anti-fascist group.

Conclusion

It seems reasonable to conclude that the anti-fascist group in question is, in regard to the O9A, either deliberately spreading disinformation or is making statements and assumptions which are unreasonable because they are not evidential, that is, not based on a knowledge of the facts, on an unbiased study of primary O9A sources {2} and thus reveal either a basic ignorance of the nature of the O9A sub-culture or an unreasoned, an unethical, dislike; that is, a prejudice.

For a group which prides itself on offering “hope” rather than “hate”, their ignorance about or their bias, their prejudice against the O9A, and their ignorance about or their bias in respect of Mr Moult and Mr Myatt, contradicts their claim to champion “hope”. For ignorance, prejudice and disinformation, are often the genesis of hate.

Morena Kapiris
June 2019

°°°°°

{1} The definitions are taken from the complete Oxford English Dictionary, second edition (20 volumes), Oxford University Press, 1989.

{2} In regard to O9A primary sources, these consist of the O9A corpus – written by “Anton Long” from the 1970s to 2011, and later (2011-2019) by the “inner ONA” – and thus range from the 1980s Black Book of Satan to Naos, and The Deofel Quartet, to post-2011 works such as (i) The Pagan O9A, 2015, (ii) The Esoteric Hermeticism Of The Order Of Nine Angles, 2016, and (iii) A Compilation Of Some Recent O9A Texts: 2017 – 2019.

The O9A corpus amounts to over 5,000 pages of written material. As noted in an academic paper presented at the international conference, Satanism in the Modern World, held at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim on the 19-20th of November, 2009,

           “the ONA has produced more material on both the practical and theoretical aspects of magic, as well as more ideological texts on Satanism and the Left-Hand Path in general, than larger groups such as the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set has produced in combination [which] makes the ONA an important player in the theoretical discussion of what the Left-Hand Path and Satanism is and should be according to the practitioners.” Archive source: https://regardingdavidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/senholt-the-sinister-tradition.pdf

{3} A classic example of the fallacy of illicit transference is the 2017 essay about the O9A by Della E. Campion of the University of Washington. See https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2018/04/24/another-academic-misinterpretation-of-the-o9a/

{4} A classic example of argumentum ad verecundiam – the fallacy of appeal to authority – is the section on the O9A by Massimo Introvigne in his Satanism: A Social History published in 2016. He relies on the opinions about the O9A by other authors, such as Goodrick-Clarke and Senholt.

He also commits another common fallacy, that of illicit transference, by arguing from the particular to the general, referencing one O9A item and then claiming that the opinion of the author in that item represents the opinion of the O9A. As we note later on in respect of the principle of the authority of individual judgment, no author, no individual, no nexion, can present or represent the view or the opinion of the entity termed the Order of Nine Angles.

{5} Examples of their misattribution and their committal of logical fallacies are given in https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/how-to-spread-fake-news

{6} A fact confirmed by Professor Monette in his book Mysticism in the 21st Century. 2013. Sirius Academic Press. p.89

{7} Satanic Letters of Stephen Brown, letter to Michael Aquino, dated 20th October 1990 ev.

{8} In respect of the principle of the authority of individual judgment refer to such texts as (i) https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/individual-judgement/ and (ii) https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/o9a-authority/

{9} See for example A Modern Practical Guide To The O9A Seven Fold Way, available from https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/7fw-a-modern-guide/

{10} George Sieg. Angular Momentum: From Traditional to Progressive Satanism in the Order of Nine Angles. International Journal for the Study of New Religions, volume 4, number 2. 2013. p.257.

{11} Jeffrey Kaplan. Religiosity and the Radical Right: Toward the Creation of a New Ethnic Identity, in Jeffrey Kaplan and Tore Bjørgo (editors), Nation and Race: The Developing Euro-American Racist Subculture. Northeastern University Press. 1998. p.115.

{12} Connell Monette. Mysticism in the 21st Century. 2013. Sirius Academic Press. p.92.

{13} Refer to (i) A Skeptic Reviews Diablerie by R. Parker, a copy of which is available at https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/a-sceptics-review-of-diablerie/ and (ii) Bealuwes Gast: A Study in Forgery, available at https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/bealuwes-gast/

{14} Secret Identities in the Sinister Tradition: Political Esotericism and the Convergence of Radical Islam, Satanism, and National Socialism in the Order of Nine Angles. “The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity”. Per Faxneld and Jesper Aagaard Petersen (editors). Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 250–274

{15} https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/about/a-matter-of-honour-2/

{16} Primary sources in regard to Myatt’s life would include original documentation relating to his neo-nazi decades (such as criminal proceedings, police interviews), and documentation relating to his decade as a Muslim and his time as a Christian monk.

Primary currently accessible sources regarding both his life and writings include the following post-2011 published works:
° The Numinous Way of Pathei-Mathos.
° Understanding and Rejecting Extremism: A Very Strange Peregrination.
° Religion, Empathy, and Pathei-Mathos.
° Myngath.
° One Vagabond In Exile From The Gods.
° Sarigthersa.
° One Exquisite Silence: Some Autobiographical Poems.
° Such Respectful Wordful Offerings: Selected Essays Of David Myatt.

{17} Refer to https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/how-to-spread-fake-news

°°°°°°°°°


Amesbury Incident Latest: Extradition

°°°°°°°°°

An anticipated anti-Russian development in the nerve agent (Novichok) attacks in Amesbury and Salisbury has now been made public. It is an extradition request to Moscow for the two Russians suspected of carrying out the attacks, with an unnamed security source saying that “the attack on the Skripals was ordered by the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence service.” {1}

The facts which have probative value in this matter of such an extradition request – and in the claim that the GRU ordered the attack – have not been made public, and will not be made public. Instead, and yet again, we the people are expected to trust “police and security sources” who say that they have investigated the movements of the two Russians from their entry into Britain to their departure to Russia, and that the nerve agent
                  “used to attack the Skripals on 4 March was applied from a perfume bottle sprayed or smeared on to their front doorknob,” and that “the bottle was dropped somewhere in the city, where it was later picked up by Rowley, who gave it to Sturgess.” {1}

Yet this bland statement contradicts what one of the victims – Charlie Rowley – initially said following his recovery. He said that the perfume bottle was in a sealed box of a well-known perfume manufacturer and wrapped up, with one newspaper writing that his statement “may undermine the line of inquiry that the novichok that he and Sturgess came into contact with had been discarded by the attackers of the Skripals.” {2}

So now we the people are expected to believe that the two Russians suspects, after the using the bottle in the Salisbury attack, took the time and trouble to neatly box it in a perfume box and then sealed and wrapped the box and then just threw the box away.

        At first Rowley said he found the bottle behind some shops in Salisbury city centre and then later on – since his initial, clear, and quite detailed account of a sealed box casts doubt on the accusations against the Russian suspects made by police and security sources – he back-tracked and said he “couldn’t remember” where he found the sealed box and that his memory of events is “vague”. {3}

To muddy the waters still further – since the accusation that Rowley had found the bottle used in the Salisbury attack, which bottle was neatly wrapped up, is ludicrous – it has now been reported that “Investigators have not ruled out the possibility that another bottle of novichok may have been dumped by the culprits.” {3}

So we now have the “vague memory” story and also the “two bottle” theory. The first bottle – never found – was used in the first attack, and the second – apparently never used and neatly wrapped in a box – was just thrown away somewhere in Salisbury where Rowley found it.

       Confused by all the twists and turns? We the people are expected to be and hence expected to simply trust what our government and security sources say. For neither the government – nor, apparently, the security services – believe that we the people should see and hear, have access to, all the facts which have probative value in order to, like jurors in a criminal trial, consider for ourselves whether there is sufficient evidence to return a guilty verdict.

In this matter, as in so many others, it has been decided by the government that it is “not in the public interest” for we the people to have access to all the facts which have probative value, with the added excuse here – as again, so often – of such access being “detrimental to the security of the country.”

So much for democracy, of open and honest government by the people for the people.

That the extradition request – with the inevitable refusal by Russia to extradite the suspects – will be used by the government and others for anti-Putin and anti-Russian propaganda purposes, as well demands for more sanctions against Russia, is also inevitable, revealing the real purpose behind such a request.

°°°

{1} https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/aug/06/uk-poised-to-ask-russia-to-extradite-salisbury-attack-suspects

{2} https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/24/novichok-victim-ill-within-15-minutes-says-partner-charlie-rowley

{3} https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/salisbury-poisoning-latest-charlie-rowley-amesbury-novichok-spy-bins-a8475071.html

°°°°°

Related:

° https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2018/07/09/amesbury-incident-update/
° https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2018/07/04/the-amesbury-incident/


The Amesbury Incident

°°°°°°°

The Amesbury Incident
More Unanswered Questions

The revelation that two – apparently ordinary – British citizens are critically ill as a result of contact with the same nerve agent (Novichok) that seriously affected a former Soviet double-agent and his daughter in nearby Salisbury raises serious and interesting questions that the mainstream British and overseas Media have so far failed to mention.

As in the case of the Salisbury incident there is no mention of the financial and work background of the person or persons involved.

For instance in the case of the double-agent living in Salisbury, did he (as some sources seem to indicate) have recent meetings with MI6 and other security services and if so was the information he passed to the security services about Russian criminal oligarchs or about Russian organized crime or about the government of Mr Putin?

As we noted in a previous article:

                  “The nerve gas used – Novichok – was produced in Soviet era Russia and given the chaos that resulted from, and continued for some time after, the demise of the Soviet Union it is possible that small quantities of it might have been obtained by “rogue operators” belonging to or affiliated with either organized Russian crime syndicates and/or corrupt Russian oligarchs. Second, that details of the activities of the former British spy over the past five and more years – for instance his possible association with organized Russian crime, or with exiled oligarchs, or even with various Intelligence services – are either not known, or if known to the British Intelligence services, have not been made public by them or by any member of the British government briefed by the British Intelligence services.” {1}

In the case of the apparently “ordinary” citizens, the obvious questions to ask are: what were they up to recently or in the past few years; how did the man involved managed to support himself and buy a new and expensive property when he apparently was not working; what recent trips had he recently taken – in Britain or abroad – in recent months and years and who did he meet; were the pair drug addicts who needed money to fuel their habit?

Instead of asking such rational questions – questions germane to any police inquiry involving a serious offence – about the background of the apparently “ordinary” citizens living in Amesbury, journalists and Media commentators are already diverting attention away from such obvious questions by making statements such as that “the most likely hypothesis is that this is leftover Novichok from the attack on the Skripals back in March. Perhaps this is some of the Novichok prepared for the attack and discarded: maybe somewhere like a park, a house, and maybe these two [accidentally] came across it.”

In addition, according to Dr Vil Sultanovich Mirzayano, a Russian scientist who was part of the team that developed the nerve agent, it could not have survived in the open given both the time between the Salisbury incident and the Amesbury incident and the weather conditions in that part of England. He also said that the new incident must have involved a new batch of the agent.

Thus the most obvious explanation is that those apparently “ordinary” citizens may (i) have been responsible for or in some way involved with the Salisbury incident, or (ii) that the man had some connection to the players involved in the Salisbury incident, whomsoever those players were employed by, be such employers a Russian criminal oligarch or a Russian organized crime syndicate.

For as with the double-agent involved with the Salisbury incident, those involved in the Amesbury incident may well have had some connection to a Russian criminal oligarch, or to a Russian organized crime syndicate, or had fallen foul of such people by passing information about such people to the security services, with it being such people who are the obvious suspects in both incidents and with it being standard procedure for the security services to usually deny any connection between victims or perpetrators of a crime and the intelligence services.

Yet again, as with the Salisbury incident, the British government pointed the finger at Russia and at Mr Putin accusing Russia “of using Britain as a dumping ground for poison,” with the Media more than willing to avoid asking obvious questions and more than willing to parrot whatever (anti-Putin) propaganda the government deigns to manufacture about the Amesbury incident. One part of which propaganda is undoubtedly comments such as “there was nothing in the couple’s background to suggest the pair had been targeted” and which comments the people are expected to take on trust since the evidence allegedly behind such a comment is not made public. Just like the alleged evidence about Iraq having “weapons of mass destruction” – a pretext for invasion and war – was never made public at the time.

We can expect, yet again, that most of the population will either believe such government propaganda or be indifferent to the ignoble machinations and the sheer hypocrisy of their governments, machinations obvious in the lack of probative evidence for governmental anti-Putin claims and the desire by governments to hide from public scrutiny the answers to the aforementioned obvious questions that the security services already have or will undoubtedly find.

That “the public” en masse do not seem to have the nous to ask – and demand answers from their governments to – obvious rational questions about both incidents reveals just how little we as a species have evolved in the past few centuries.

In addition, as we noted in another article, in relation to Russia:

                  “It might well be the most truly Western nation of all, with those now arraigned against it just lackeys of a materialistic America led by a Vulgarian who will, as described the former CIA chief John Brennan who resigned rather than take orders from a draft-dodger, take his “rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history” once the full extent of his “venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known.”

After all, who is the leader most reminiscent of the forthright men of Greece and Rome, of the European Renaissance? Vladimir Putin, law graduate, former military officer, and Judo expert, who brought order to Russia after the chaos that followed the fall of the Soviet Union? Or the draft-dodging, vain, pompous, irrational, vulgarian with tinted false hair?” {2}

T.W.S.
July 2018 ev
N.B. This article – published on the 4th July – has been and will be updated as and when new information becomes available. Last updated 6th July 2018 ev.

°°°°°°°

{1} https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2018/03/14/russophobia-an-aeonic-perspective/
{2} https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2018/04/04/a-repeat-performance/

°°°°°°°

Related:
https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2018/04/10/the-propaganda-campaign-against-russia-intensifies/