Ignorant Vulgarians, Islam And Terrorism

odal3

°°°°°°°

Editorial Note: Republished here is an interesting, heretical, and timely article about ignorance of Islam, about National Socialism and honor, and about vulgarians being ignorant about the true causes of terrorism.

°°°°°

The Ignorant Vulgarians And Islam

There are two things that I find of particular interest about David Myatt. The first thing is the range and the depth of his practical experience, which included thirty years experience of street-level often violent political activism, several years as a Christian monk, and ten years as a practising Muslim. The second thing is his erudition, evident as that erudition is in his familiarity with the culture – and especially the literature – of the West from the time of Homer to Cicero to TS Eliot and beyond. Having “fluency in the classical languages (Greek and Latin), as well as Arabic and possibly Persian” {1} he is thus erudite, a scholar, as those terms were understood by English speakers from before the time of Shakespeare to the time of Ralph Waldo Emerson.

When, therefore, he in his mature – post-2011 – years writes about ancient Greek culture, about Christianity, about the culture of the West, and about Islam, he is writing not only from personal experience but also as a scholar able to read primary sources – such as Homer, the New Testament, and the Koran – in their original language.

What Myatt in recent years has written about Islam and Muslims directly contradicts the anti-Muslim rhetoric of “the vulgarians”, such as The Master Vulgarian who currently occupies a position of power and influence in America and the hordes of minor, anti-Muslim, vulgarians who style themselves as defenders of ‘civilization’. {2}

Regarding such people Myatt asks:

     “Have [they] read the Quran in Arabic? Have they studied the Sunnah – at the very least the collections of Bukhari and Muslim? Have they studied Al-Adab Al-Mufrad? Have they studied Islamic jurisprudence and discussed Shariah with a Qadi? How many conversations about Islam have they had with learned Imaams? Have they lived in a land where the majority of people are Muslim? How many times have they been guests of Muslim families and so shared meals and personal conversations and thus empathised with Muslims? How many Muslim women have they interviewed or asked about Hijab – about why they wear it and how it makes them feel?

      If they have not done all those things then they are, in my view, fundamentally ignorant concerning Islam and the Muslim way of life, and thus they speak and write and demonstrate in public about what they personally are uneducated about and about those whom they have not personally interacted with in a courteous way. Thus their opinions, their views, are those of bigots, and their behaviour is uncivilized – that is, the behaviour of people who are unlearned, ill-informed, uncultured, uncourteous, hubriatic. They are also hypocritical, for these leaders and organizers – and those who bankroll them – are virulent in their praise of ‘Western civilization and Western values’ without, it seems to me, realizing that they themselves with their ignorance, their hubris, their intolerance, their prejudice – their bigotry – are excellent examples of the new barbarians assailing Western culture.” {3}

In another article he writes:

     “My personal view of Islam, of the Muslim way of life, and which view I have expressed in recent correspondence with others, is a very positive and tolerant one; of respect born from experience, a scholarly study, and a comparative assessment with other religions and spiritual ways also personally experienced.

      Perhaps the bad opinion many people in the West have of Islam would be changed if they spent time with Muslim families in places as diverse as Egypt, Somalia, Turkey, Morocco, Pakistan, Senegal, Malaysia, and Birmingham. Until they have, who are they to pass judgement on the Muslim way of life, and on the Quran, the Sunnah, and the Shariah, that inspires and informs that way of life?” {4}

National Socialism And Honour

Even during his time with Reichsfolk in the late 1990s Myatt was writing about the need to treat other races with honour and thus respect their way of life. In a letter to an imprisoned Comrade {5} dated JD2452013.275 (that is, 13 April 2001) and which letter he expanded into an article published under the title The Question of National-Socialism, Racism and Tolerance, {6} Myatt rhetorically asked important questions such as:

     “Should we strive to attain our freedom through certain tactics, one of which is a fanatical intolerance? Is our situation that desperate that we should see those who uphold other ways of life – and those of other races – as our enemies? This is the means that has been mostly followed in the past fifty years or so, albeit that it has been followed and employed on a mostly instinctive level. This is the means of “racism”, whether called by that Zionist-invented term or not.

      Or, should we strive to be idealistic, and follow the ethic of honour to its logical conclusion? This means that we always strive to do what is honourable, which means that we should strive to be both strong, yet tolerant in a warrior way: proud of our people, our culture, but accepting of other ways, other people, if those other people respect us.”

After considering the options, he concluded:

     “I assert that what is good is what is beneficial to our folk, but also honourable, and that if something – some deed or action – benefits or may benefit our folk but is also dishonourable, then that deed or action is something which a National-Socialist should not do […]

      We must use our own values of honour, of loyalty, of duty to the folk as the criteria, the standard, to judge what is right, what is wrong, and what is necessary. Furthermore, we must use these values to determine our own behaviour toward others. This is the National-Socialist way: the way of honour, of loyalty, of duty to our folk.

      I firmly believe that we can return our people to their own way of life by setting them a personal example, and to do this we must be prepared to live by, and if necessary die for, our ideals of honour, loyalty and duty.”

His words seem even more relevant now as the vulgarians among us gain more and more influence.

R. Stirling
29 November, 2017
(Revised 30 November 2017)

°°°°°

{1} Connell Monette. Mysticism in the 21st Century, Sirius Academic Press, 2013. pp. 86.

{2} While The Master Vulgarian barks about “Islamic terrorism” he in his ignorance forgets – or ignores – two things. First, that America in the last twenty years has directly and indirectly (through its policies) killed far more civilians than all Muslim terrorists combined; directly, in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and indirectly in places like Yemen and Syria. Second, that it is not a question of “Islamic terrorism” – as if the religion of Islam is responsible – but rather of some individuals doing what is dishonourable and using something such as a religion as an excuse for their dishonourable deeds: see for example Extremism, Terrorism, Culture and Physis.

{3} Source: https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/just-my-fallible-views-again/

{4} Source: https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/let-us-then-try-what-love-can-do/the-need-for-tolerance/

{5} Although the Comrade is not publicly named, aural tradition names him as Richard Scutari, of Brüder Schweigen, with whom Myatt corresponded for some years beginning in the 1990s.

{6} A copy of the article is available here:

Click to access ns-and-tolerance.pdf

The article was included in the Reichsfolk publication National-Socialism and Islam: The Case for Co-operation, first distributed in 2003 as part of Myatt’s plan to bring National Socialists and Muslims together to fight “their common enemy.” A copy of the publication is available here: https://wyrdsister.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/ns-islam.pdf


Related:

The Vulgarian


Concerning The Vulgarian

odal3

°°°°°°°°°

In a 2016 election a majority of people in the United States voted for The Vulgarian {1} to be their next President. Their choice – of a vulgar, uncultured, arrogant, misogynist, ignorant, draft-dodging {2}, Zionist-loving, bully, obsessed with money and power – says much about that majority, about our times, about America, about democracy, and also possibly about our future as a sentient species.

           What it says about that majority, about our times, is that people – even in a prosperous country such as America with its millions of well-educated citizens – are still easily persuaded by rhetoric and still follow and approve of some demagogue who gives voice to those fears about ‘the other’ that lurk within us all; and that appeals to jingoistic ‘patriotism’ – even when made by a duplicitous draft-dodger – still work.

When caught out – about his lies or about his lack of knowledge – The Vulgarian invariably indulges in argumentum ad hominem and argumentum ad nauseam. That is, he attacks and derides and makes personal accusations about his critics and opponents; denies everything, and repeatedly denounces allegations as “fake news” or lies, and – in order to try and deflect attention away from himself and his culpability – resorts (i) to populist cliches such as “witch hunt” and that such allegations about him “are unpatriotic” and a “threat to the nation,” and (ii) to pontificating about and attempting to glorify himself by making statements such as “I’ve made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard. I’ve had tremendous success.”

That democracy allows such men as The Vulgarian and The Proxy Rapist – who joked about the gang-rape of a White woman by natives of his Filipino country – to assume positions of power and influence makes one understand the rationale behind the new type of “semi-fascist” government that Heinlein outlined in his novel Starship Troopers.

           As for our future as a sentient species, with the bellicose Vulgarian now Commander in Chief of the most powerful military forces in the world, it is as if we as a species have failed to learn anything from the past five thousand years of almost continual warfare; failed to learn from the killing, the destruction, the hatred, and the trauma that war causes. For it’s as if we’re trapped in an inexorable cycle of brutality and savagery in which there are only brief periods – in millennial terms – of relative peace, civilization, and prosperity, undermined and eventually destroyed as those brief periods always are by conflict, by hatred, by war; by the savagery, the uncultured instincts, which always and somewhere burst forth again. For our history shows that we’re the most savage, the most destructive, species on this planet even if the majority of us refuse to believe it.

In our majority, and across millennia, we humans – we terrans – have failed to achieve a balance; a balance between our inherent savage, destructive, nature and what successive civilizations, and their rise and fall, can teach us. What they teach is self-restraint and the importance of civility and honour; a teaching which was eloquently expressed in the past in the writings of Cicero and more recently, I believe, in the still little known ‘ethical National Socialism’ which Myatt developed and which is manifest in Reichsfolk.{3} For in that evolution of National Socialism there is not only an honourable balance between men and women but also a natural balance between us defending and fighting for our family, our homeland, and us living a cultured, a civilized, life. As Heinlein wrote in his novel, “the noblest fate that a man can endure is to place his own mortal body between his loved home and war’s desolation.” A sentiment which echoes what the Greek poet Kallinos wrote thousands of years before:

[begin quote]

Noble and glorious is he who fights
For his folk and family against the foe.
Since death comes when chosen by Fate –
Bringing to an end the thread of life –
Go forward with spears held high and shields shielding brave hearts
When battle is joined:
There is no flight from death, for that Destiny comes to all mortals
Even they claiming descent from the gods.
Many from the battle-fury of roaring javelins have fled to their home.
But even there, their fate of death awaits;
And they die unloved and unmourned by their folk
While both chiefs and the clan lament for the brave.
All of a community weep for the courageous who die:
And if they live, they are hailed like a god,
Exalted by those who behold them
For the deeds of the many, they did alone. {4}

[end quote]

For it is the self-restraint and the ethical guidelines which honour provide which we as a sentient species require. A point made by Myatt in many of his idealist National Socialist writings of the 1990s and which he carried over into his later philosophy of pathei mathos writing that honour is “the numinous balance”. {5}

Rachael Stirling
Armistice Day, 11th November 2016
(Revised 20th July 2018)

{1} The Oxford English Dictionary [Second edition, 20 volumes, Oxford University Press, 1989] defines a vulgarian as “a vulgar person; frequently, a well-to-do or rich person of vulgar manners.” Which is a rather apt description of a certain ill-mannered person elected not that long ago to a certain public office in a former British colony.

Among the personality traits of a vulgarian are their egoism, vanity, and arrogance, one manifestation of which arrogance is that they personally hate criticism, and thus attack and try to demean and publicly smear anyone who draws attention to their vulgar behaviour. A vulgarian often uses their wealth, and/or their influence, to have some flunkeys try to find “some dirt” on whomsoever dares to criticize them while delegating other flunkeys to accuse such critics of all manner of things.

While most vulgarians have a certain animal-like cunning, their lack of intelligence, their inability to restrain themselves, and their inability to think logically, means they commit logical fallacy after logical fallacy, from argumentum ad hominem to argumentum ad nauseam to consensus gentium to a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter.

{2} Vulgarians are also, by nature, cowards and bullies, and thus lack any sense of honour. Hence why the person now described by many of the intelligentsia as The Vulgarian In Chief managed to avoid being drafted to serve in the military during the Vietnam war by using his wealth to have a doctor sign a certificate stating that The Vulgarian had “bone spurs” on his feet, despite the fact that The Vulgarian at the time was a 22 year-old fit young man who played football, tennis, and golf, without any problem.

Hence one of his nicknames: Draft Dodger In Chief, for wealth has and had its privileges. When asked recently by a reporter from the New York Times about this convenient medical deferment, The Vulgarian refused to name the doctor and refused to provide a copy of the medical certificate. qv. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/us/politics/donald-trump-draft-record.html

{3} Refer to https://wyrdsister.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/intro-reichsfolk.pdf.

{4} The translation (c.1980) is attributed to David Myatt and was included in his 1990s text Guide to the Aryan Way of Life. That Guide is included in the pdf compilation of his NS writings available at https://wyrdsister.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/myatt-selected-ns-writings1.pdf

{5} https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-numinous-balance-of-honour/


Original Source: Reichsfolk Times, November 127yf.