Understanding A Myatt
Humorously, one might write that to understand a myatt is to strive to apply reason, to be dignified, and to renounce the prejudice inherent in all abstractions. For I am a myatt – one of a class of beings adjudged by others on the basis of hearsay, rumour, the disinformation, lies, propaganda and misinformation that abounds in modern mediums such as that one which has been termed the Internet.
Being David Myatt
Perhaps more seriously, in my own far from uncommon case, the misapprehension of my diverse life by others is perhaps a modern allegory of our current human nature: of our propensity to use modern means of communication to act in an undignified and dishonourable manner, and an allegory of how people are still in their majority swayed by an appeal to their emotions and/or are in thrall to un-numinous abstractions, manifest as these abstractions are, for example, in politics, in dogma, and in social theories.
Thus, the majority of people who come to know or hear or learn about my own past judge me – and make assumptions about my motives – on the basis of some category, or on the basis of what others have told them or on what someone else has written or said about me.
Being David Myatt means that in my life I have acquired practical, years-long, experience of Buddhism, Taoism, Catholicism, National Socialism, and Islam. It means I have been imprisoned for violence in the pursuit of a political cause; have been arrested and convicted in connection with organizing a criminal gang; and was once arrested because Police officers from Scotland Yard were investigating me (as part of Operation Periphery) for ‘incitement to murder’ (among other things). It means I have founded and led several violent political organizations, and also spent many years working with my hands, as a farm labourer and as a gardener.
Being David Myatt means that David Myatt has, in the words of Professor Kaplan, “undertaken a global odyssey which took him on extended stays in the Middle East and East Asia, accompanied by studies of religions ranging from Christianity to Islam in the Western tradition and Taoism and Buddhism in the Eastern path. In the course of this Siddhartha-like search for truth, Myatt sampled the life of the monastery in both its Christian and Buddhist forms.”
It means that David Myatt has “arguably done more than any other theorist to develop a synthesis of the extreme right and Islam.” It also means that David Myatt has been accused (without any evidence ever having been provided) of being the Grand Master – the leader, the organizer – of a subversive, world-wide, Satanic, group; accused of being a terrorist, of inciting some people to commit terrorist acts; and accused of being “the man who shaped mind of a bomber […] the mentor who drove David Copeland to kill…”
It is perhaps no wonder then – given this précis and such accusations – that many individuals, lacking certain stalwart personal qualities, on first hearing or reading about me are often shocked and often readily make some assumption about me and my beliefs. For they do not seem to be able to, or do not want to, see the real person behind the lifeless abstract labels and terms that others have used to categorise me and my practical Siddhartha-like quest to answer the question Quid Est Veritas.
For instance, only a few weeks ago, a female artist – who was at the time professionally working with an artist friend of mine – wrote:
“We’ve been contacted by people regarding your lengthy association with David Myatt – we’d never heard of him so looked him up [on the Internet] and were both deeply shocked. Whilst I enjoyed working with you and […] enjoyed your company we don’t want to be associated with this guy and his appalling beliefs and actions in any way whatsoever (even indirectly).”
I mention this female artist not because she was subsumed by some political agenda or by hatred or was possessed of a prejudiced nature. On the contrary, I mention her because she is (according to my information) a gentle inherently good person who just happened to let herself be led astray by biased information supplied by someone who was indeed subsumed with hatred, jealousy, pride, and who indeed did possess a prejudiced nature. A female artist perhaps too trusting and totally unfamiliar with the barbaric and cunning scheming nature that blatantly exists in many modern human beings and which nature, experience reveals, lurks within so many others. And a good-natured person who immediately – as seems now to be the common practice at least in the West – turned to the Internet as a source of information regarding an individual.
Thus this particular otherwise good human being – like so many others over so many decades – was easily persuaded that I personally have “appalling beliefs” and that I am someone whom ‘good people’ should distance themselves from and indeed someone whom ‘good people’ should castigate in public and in private.
There was thus another victory for the mundane, the vulgar, ones – for those lacking honour, reason, and dignity. A victory for those seeking to replace honour and reason with prejudice and presumption.
For what this female artist – like so many many others, decade after decade – did not do was to: (1) at the very least objectively, rationally, consider ‘my side of the story’ evident in my ethical, compassionate, philosophy of The Numinous Way, in my autobiography Myngath, in my many now published personal letters, in my poetry, and so on; or (2) do the honourable, the decent, the dignified, the civilized, thing and give me the benefit of the doubt – apply the noble Muslim principle of Husn al-Dhan – and then ask me in person for my story, and which story is one of πάθει μάθος (pathei-mathos), of a slow and painful learning from my diversity of experiences, and of a change deriving from a very interior reflexion.
Instead of doing one or both of these things, and thus formulating their own reasoned judgement of me, I am and I have been adjudged by others to be – on the basis of hearsay, rumours, lies, and allegations spread by prejudiced hate-filled people with their own personal or political agenda – to be a terrorist, a sinister person, a weirdo, a wacko, a fanatical nazi, a satanist, a fantasist, and so on ad nauseam.
Only a few days ago, for instance, I was adjudged to be “a clinically diagnosable psychopath” by someone called ‘Robert Spencer’, a zionist who specializes in anti-Islamic rants and who has given lectures to the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the U.S. intelligence community. Adjudged in public to so be, even though, of course, this person has never met me, or asked me for my side of my story, or even bothered to read my autobiography, my many published personal letters, my poetry, or slowly study in detail my philosophy of The Numinous Way, and which philosophy represents the results of my πάθει μάθος and of a decade-long interior reflexion.
Instead, this person – as so many many others, decade after decade – just reads items about me by others, then in a cursory rather arrogant manner reads perhaps one or two items by me, and proceeds to hastily formulate his own opinion of me to agree with his existing prejudices and/or his agenda, political, personal or otherwise. Thus the aforementioned person in addition to publicly labelling me a psychopath, had the chutzpah to state that my Numinous Way was “based on rather bizarre readings of the fragments of pre-Socratic philosophers like Heraclitus,” when (so far as I know) this person does not read Ancient Greek, and when anyone of any sagacity, taking the trouble to be reasonable and apply reason and actually study my work in detail (as a scholar would), would know that the Numinous Way is, on the contrary, based on the faculty of empathy and the principle of personal honour, and that references to Heraclitus are purely comparative and for the purpose of elucidation in respect of principles such as ὕβρις and δίκη.
Thus, here we have one more victory for those who gush forth their person opinion, their prejudices, by modern means of rapid communication. Yet one more victory for the vulgar ones – for those for whom sustained interior reflexion is a distant forbidding still undiscovered land, and who are lacking in honour, reason, and dignity.
Dignity, Honour, and Wisdom
Dignity is self-restraint and self-reliance, both of which are codified by means of personal honour. In living cultures – possessed of ancestral traditions – and in Ways of numinous living (such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Islam), dignity is a virtue to be cultivated and aspired to. Many such cultures, and many such Ways, regard dignity as one of the qualities which distinguish us from animals, and from the animals (the barbarians) among our own human kind.
A dignified person possesses a natural balance within themselves – a self-knowledge and a self-honesty – born from their πάθει μάθος, and thus is someone unswayed by appeals to their vanity and their emotions; that is, they are wary of words, spoken or written by others, and instead apply the principle of honour.
Honour means we strive to treat other human beings in a fair, a reasonable, manner – giving them, for example, the benefit of the doubt unless and until direct personal experience, direct knowledge of them, reveals them to be dishonourable. That is, an honourable person only judges others on the basis of a personal knowledge of them, and their behaviour, over a period of causal Time – not on what others have said or written about them.
Dignity and honour combine to elicit within an individual a certain personal humility – that is a respect for the numinous, a knowing of their own fallibility (born from πάθει μάθος) and a desire not to overstep the natural limits which honour and their ancestral culture (or their Way of numinous living) reveals.
Modern means of communication, however, and the rapid and massive flow and production of information, rumour, misinformation, propaganda and lies, which such mediums encourage and present to individuals, militate against dignity and honour and living ancestral traditions. For such means of communication lead to and encourage the formulation of, or the reinforcement of, and the propagation of, opinion and prejudice and abstract ideas instead of a reasoned judgement based on a direct personal knowing and upon interior reflexion.
Thus, such rapid modern means of communication – and the information so communicated and presented – are not conducive to wisdom. For in essence wisdom is personal, individual, and unique, and derives from πάθει μάθος – from one’s own personal experience, from reflexion upon that experience, and from the learning that such reflexion and such πάθει μάθος brings.
This is a slow often scholarly process, over long durations of causal Time, and almost always involves direct and reasoned (that is, hospitable, dignified, honourable and well-mannered) contact with fellow human beings, as well as a judgement of others based only on a personal knowledge of them over durations of causal Time. A judgement in the present that moreover is entirely independent of the other person’s past or alleged or assumed beliefs, whether these be deemed to be political or religious or whatever. And a judgement that is balanced because there is the accumulated wisdom of a living ancestral tradition (or of a Way of numinous living) for comparison, to give gravitas.
For me, there seems a certain sadness in the knowledge that my situation vis-a-vis assumptions made by others regarding my past, my experiences, my intent, is fairly common, and indeed possibly the rule for others, despite – in the societies of the West – over a hundred years of State-sponsored education, despite the accumulated πάθει μάθος, spanning over a thousand years, of Western culture, and despite the wisdom, accumulated over thousands of years, manifest in both other non-Western ancestral cultural traditions and in diverse numinous ways of life such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Islam.
A sadness deepened by my intuition that such rapid means of communication we have devised – from newspapers to broadcast media to the Internet – have led us away not only from the slow interior reflexion, and the ethos of the scholar, which are the genesis of wisdom, but also from the cultivation of dignity and honourable behaviour toward others. It seems no coincidence to me that these means of communication arose from and depend upon the industry, the commerce, the usury, of the metropoleis, and that these means allow for and encourage the ideation, the haste, and the profaneness, implicit both in urban living and in the now all-pervasive un-numinous State.
July 2011 CE