Archive for David Myatt

Some Notes on Mythos and Methodology

Posted in Perspectives from Anton Long with tags , , , , on August 30, 2009 by cosmion


I have read somewhere that the ONA has now entered the third phase, or stage, of its century-long sinister plan to destroy the Old Order of the mundanes. Can you go into more detail?

The essence of the first two stages was (to use new ONA-speak) basically: (1) manufacturing a variety of sinister viruses; manufacturing different strands, or mutations, of each sinister ONA virus, imbuing them with acausal energy, and then releasing these sinister and esoteric viral infections out into the world so that they might infect the psyche of susceptible individuals; and (2) creating the ONA itself as a living evolving nexion, imbued with the defiant individuality of the true LHP; independent of any one individual (including myself); and unfettered by the causal forms of the Old Aeon (such as dogma; ideology; hierarchies; copyright, and so on).

Expressed in old, traditional, ONA-speak, certain causal and esoteric forms were manufactured, and these were imbued with acausal energies. That is, certain nexions were created, and acausal energy accessed to flow through them, with the ONA itself becoming a type of sinister acausal being, presenced – living – in the causal.

One of the most successful exoteric forms proved to be the mythos of the ONA itself; another was our ONA methodology. In mundane-speak, these particular viruses inspired some creative individuals, already possessed of a latent sinister character, leading them to make their own contributions in their own valuable and necessary way. That is, because of, and through these talented individuals, there was another mutation of our sinister ONA viruses, as they contributed to – extended; evolved; represenced – that mythos, that methodology, and so gave birth to their own new causal sinister forms, their own living nexions. Thus did these gifted individuals evolve the ONA itself.

The third stage of our current long-term sinister strategy will last some four, or five, decades. As mentioned in the MS Toward The Dark Formless Acausal:

Outwardly, or externally, the third stage involves continuing to presence The Dark Forces, via nexions, through supporting, and creating, various causal “forms”; through practical de-stabilization, through supporting and championing various “heretical” causes and ideas, and so on: to the greater glory of Baphomet, one might, with correctness, say, and write.

One such causal form – and a most important one, for this particular stage – is that of sinister tribes, as briefly outlined in MSS such as (1) The Sinister Tribes of the ONA; (2) Whose Gonna Run This Town Tonight?; and (3) Heresy, Sinister Tribes, Nexions and The Methodology of the ONA.

Thus, during this third stage we should begin to see the establishment of some sinister tribes in urban areas. Initially, these will be small, local, groups, most of whose members (or all of whose members) will and should earn their living outside the laws of the mundanes, which mundanes are their prey, their resource. For it is not the function of our sinister tribes to have their members “earn a respectable living” according to the rules, the standards, the norms, of the mundanes. Rather, it their function – their character, their aim – to be sinister; to live the sinister; to presence the sinister in practical ways.

Once established in their own areas, they may seek to co-operate – for their mutual benefit – with other sinister groups in other areas, and, eventually, in other lands, so that a large sinister network (eventually extending overseas) is created purely on a practical and very business-like basis. Supply and demand; the economics of organization; the obtaining of wealth; the trading of goods; the building of respect, and the emergence of leadership, through practical deeds and by establishing in a practical way our law of personal honour, which law importantly applies to and which binds only us, our sinister kind, our feral kindred, and which we do not extend to the mundanes or anyone, unless they join us and so become part of our sinister kind, with the duty and loyalty this involves, and with them subject to our penalties should they go, or act, against us.

In practical terms, the third stage is where our forces begin to directly challenge The System on a scale beyond that of a few sinister individuals, with this challenge being especially of the so-called authority and laws of The System, of the societies created for and maintained for the benefit of the mundanes, those servants and allies of the Magian. Thus, we will be “the law” in the areas where we dwell; where our tribes have their base. We will be the ones our neighbours first turn to for practical help; we will become the ones aiding our communities by using some of our profits, some of our skills, to aid them.

It may well be from one of the new urban tribes that Vindex emerges, possibly in America. [See Footnote 1]

Another causal form important during this third stage is the emergence of more “traditional” nexions, where individuals outwardly concern themselves with following the Seven Fold Sinister Way according to ONA tradition as manifest in works such as NAOS, and where they esoterically undertake esoteric rituals to presence The Dark Forces, disrupt the Magian, and to aid and strengthen other sinister forms, such as our sinister tribes. One quite important role of such (often hidden) traditional nexions is to magickally aid Vindex and his or her forces of insurrection when Vindex emerges. Another important role is to train a few suitable sinister Adepts, and then send them out into the world to do practical sinister deeds.

In several recent articles you have made mention of sinister empaths, the breeding, the manufacture, of an entirely new type of human being who has a very developed faculty of empathy. Will you go into more detail about them?

No. Except to mention that it is empathy with living beings, and with the acausal itself, which is the fundamental basis for the successful presencing of powerful acausal energies and the creation of long-lived nexions, such as those associated with a New Aeon and its associated outer, causal, sinister forms. Here, what may be termed the sinister numen (the numen of the sinister) is important.

I read in a recent ONA MS, that you consider film should be used as a sinister art-form. What exactly did you mean?

As the ONA grows, evolves, changes, and as more and more people become affected and infected by our mythos and our methodology, there should be some gifted, creative, individuals, of sinister character, who can meld together various art-forms, possibly using modern technology, to create new presencings of the sinister.

Thus, we need new and deeply sinister music, of and in whatever genre (modern or otherwise), as we also need a whole new genre of music – a whole new type of music – to manifest the sinister. So far, no one – it seems to me – has really presenced the sinister in music.

That is, no one has yet produced an original piece of music which directly affects individuals and imbues them with sinister feeling; which may inspire some susceptible individuals to do sinister deeds; and which is dangerous: which the mundanes find disturbing and which they might seek to make illegal.

Thus, such music is far more than mere entertainment; far more than a momentary thrill; or a momentary feeling. It is real sinister inspiration, which is capable of transporting the listener elsewhere, to other realms; which affects them in a significant way and which can lead them to do practical sinister deeds.

One way to do this is through musically invoking archetypal sinister energies; evoking acausal energies, and acausal entities. Thus, such music becomes a sinister ritual of itself.

Another way to do this is to deal with genuine heresy – for the music and/or the words to concern themselves with what the mundanes fear; what they have outlawed in most if not all of their tyrannical societies.

This music can then be combined with video; with moving, colourful images and/or action that “tell a story” or which add to or which even create the sinister ambience.

In addition, there should an extension of this “story telling” and/or action so that a genuine sinister film – or many such films – are produced.

Importantly, there are no limits. That is, as mentioned previously, any type of music, any genre, can be used, from classical to hip-hop; just as the story can be anything we like or desire to presence. If we are not satisfied with some existing genre, we ourselves should create a new one. We are only limited by our creative genius, by our imagination, by our sinister desire.

Thus, there could and should be music, films, animations – whatever – about real outlaws, past and present, who inspire us; about our urban sinister tribes (real or our hopeful intimations of what they should be); about Vindex (fictional accounts or hopeful intimations); about our Dark future Imperium; about our sinister dreams and the sinister deeds we might desire to do; about individuals the mundanes fear and whom they revile and hate.

We should also be thinking of using modern technology to create new art-forms, to use such technology as a new means of presencing the sinister. The only limits, the only limitations, are those we might wrongly impose upon ourselves.

Someone has brought to my attention what appears to be a basic grammatical mistake in the chant Agios o Baphomet, since Baphomet is female. Is it a mistake?

Although this question of alleged “mistakes” in some ONA MSS, or in some ONA traditions, has been mentioned several times before, in some other mostly older ONA MSS, it does perhaps merit some further explanation, particularly since the ONA mythos and the ONA methodology has now seeded itself among thousands and thousands of people worldwide, some of who may well be pouring over various ONS MSS in the hope of sinister enlightenment.

In this matter, one must apply the fundamental esoteric principle of there possibly being an outer, exoteric (or dhir) meaning and/or intent, and there being an inner, esoteric (or batin) meaning and/or intent.

Thus, is what is first perceived as a mistake or an error, really so? Is it a real error, or a typo in the MS; or might it be a test designed to (1) encourage those possessed of our character, our ethos, to reflect further upon the matter and/or to research further, or (2) to encourage the mundanes the make the mistaken conclusion they make by virtue of their mundane personal character? Or, might it indeed be a mistake?

Our ethos is that of the individual of strong personal character who strives to learn by experience, by doing. Such a person questions; they seek to find their own answers; they challenge everything, and do not merely accept something just because it is in some MS or in some book or because someone has told them something. The author of a particular MS may indeed have made an error – no human entity is infallible, and no one in the ONA claims to be so infallible, or claims their work is divinely or diabolically inspired by some “higher entity”. I, personally, have made many mistakes, and some of my MSS may indeed contain contain some undeliberate errors.

Thus, it is for each individual to ascertain, if they can, where the truth may (or may not) lie. If a particular matter concerns them and they cannot be bothered to so ascertain the direction in which “the truth” (or the error) may lie, then they are not “of us”; but rather more akin to a mundane. Several ONA MSS – especially some “older” ones – may have some traps for the unwary; may lead some mundane who reads them to make certain false conclusions; and may, just may, inspire a few individuals of sinister character to discover certain matters for themselves.

Thus, and in respect of the particular example you cite, someone possessed of our sinister character, our ethos, might – after reflexion upon and/or further research into the matter – conclude that it is not an error because the entities being mentioned and “invoked” by such a vibration/chant are beyond the limited causal category – our limited dichotomy – of male and female. That is, our rather limited classification of sentient beings into just two categories, male and female, is or may not be strictly applicable to such acausal entities. A really talented individual might go even further, and be inspired to seek to invent some type of language – or some collocation of symbols – which goes beyond such limited causal categories. And so on.

Anton Long
Order of Nine Angles
120 Year of Fayen


(1) For a basic exoteric account of Vindex, refer to Myatt’s book, The Mythos of Vindex, of which extracts from the first two parts (Vindex and The Defeat of The Magian and The Ethos of Vindex In Historical Context) have so far been published.

As stated in A Brief ONA Glossary:

Vindex is the name of the exoteric  (or “outer”) nexion through which powerful acausal energies are presenced on Earth in order to destroy the current status quo (the Old Aeon, now manifest in the so-called New World Order) and prepare the way for – and inaugurate the practical beginnings of – the New Aeon.  Like Falcifer (q.v.), Vindex can be presenced (”manifest”) in an individual (who may be male or female). If an individual, Vindex is the embodiment of The Law of the New Aeon, which is personal honour [See the ONA MSS The Law of the New Aeon and Tyrannies End: Anarchy, Magick and the Law of Personal Honour].

As mentioned in Myatt’s The Mythos of Vindex, Vindex can be a person of any ethnicity, and may – or may not – arise in what is called The West (America, Europe, Australasia). Myatt goes so far as to suggest that Vindex could arise in Asia.

Further Reading: 

Intimations of The New Aeon

Toward The Dark Formless Acausal

ONA Esoteric Notes 103a

The Sinister Tribes of the ONA

Stephen Brown…

Posted in The Satanic Letters of Stephen Brown with tags , , , , on July 23, 2009 by cosmion


In Praise of War

Posted in Perspectives from David Myatt with tags , on July 16, 2009 by cosmion

War is necessary – it ensures the health of a people, and it encourages those warrior virtues which are essential to civilization. When a people, nation or race goes for decades without engaging in a war which involves all or most of the communities of that people, nation or race, then that people, nation or race tends toward decadence – with cowardly scum coming to the surface, the young becoming feckless and undisciplined, and society generally declining. War breeds and reveals character – in combat, there is no where to hide. One either does one’s duty, with courage and perhaps heroism – ot one does not. War is the test of the man. War is natural selection in action – Fate decrees who survives, who is uninjured and who becomes revered as heroic. War makes individuals respect Fate, and thus gives real wisdom – an awareness of duty and responsibility.

Pacifism, and the pursuit of peace as an objective, are decadent – manifestations of cowards and decadents, and of a people and society ruled by cowards and decadents. Of course war creates and brings suffering, injury and hardship – but the hard reality is that such things are necessary. Without such things there is no real wisdom, no real individual character, no real understanding – no awareness of Fate, of those forces which are beyond the individual and which the individual cannot control. Without such things there is no perspective – and what is really important about life and living gets lost in selfishness and a crass pursuit of materialism. Above all else, war breeds nobility. It makes the values of nobility – honour, loyalty and duty – ideals to be strived for and thus encourages civilized conduct among individuals and a civilized society for individuals to live in. A noble individual is someone prepared to fight, and if necessary die, for their folk, race or nation. A peaceful society – dedicated to peace and the selfishness and materialism which goes with it – encourages and creates a feckless, crime-ridden society full of aggressive individuals who use that aggression to achieve their petty, egotistical aims.

War channels the natural and healthy aggression of youth and early manhood in a useful and productive way. The proponents of pacifism and the ‘peaceful society’ believe in their vain arrogance that their abstract, unnatural and intellectual ideas can change what they see as “human nature” – they believe that given sufficient “education” (read ‘brainwashing’) and sufficient social schemes, this aggression and lust for battle can be removed or miraculously transformed into something which they believe is more positive. What these products of late-twentieth century decadence fail in their intellectual arrogance to understand, is that individual nature is only and always changed by real, practical experience of living and never by ideas or any amount of ‘teaching’ and/or social schemes. What little individual change results from such things as ideas, teaching, ‘faith’ and social schemes is only and always pretence – affectation; that is, whatever change such things produce in individuals, such changes are not real – they do not go deep, they are not fundamental, positive changes.

What all this amounts to is that if one places side-by-side a combat veteran, and one of the intellectual pacifist/’social worker’ types which modern society breeds in profusion, then it is obvious to anyone of any real intelligence that the combat veteran is the better person, more in touch with the reality of life, more civilized and more able to cope with life and any change life brings. It is only soft, comfortable modern urban/suburban living which allows the social worker type to flourish – and this soft urban/suburban style of living exists in any civilization only for a short period, for it has within it the seeds of its own destruction. These seeds are the soft individuals it breeds. Civilizations are created and maintained by individuals of character – by warriors, by those experienced in war – they are never created and never maintained by ideas, by bureaucratic types, by politicians, by social schemes and ‘education’. Anyone who believes that civilization depends on clever, fancy ideas and those who propound such ideas or makes their living from them is, quite simply, being naive. The penalty for such large scale naivety as the societies of the West now suffer from, is that slowly descent back into barbarism which has already begun.

The reality of pacifism and other such unnatural abstract ideas, is that they undermine and ultimately destroy that personal or individual character which is essential to civilization. The personal character essential to civilization and a civilized way of life is only and always created by combat – by personal experience of war. A healthy society accepts war and prepares for it. A healthy society encourages warrior virtues and trains its people for combat. A healthy society upholds the war or combat hero as the highest ideal – as someone to be admired and emulated. A healthy society rewards those who have distinguished themselves in battle and accepts such individuals, and only such individuals, as leaders. In a healthy society, young men look forward eagerly to battle.

In contrast, an unhealthy or sick society strives to make “heroes” out of such non-entities as “entertainers”, politicians and successful business people. In brief, a sick society elevates the type of people combat veterans despise – vain, egotistical people concerned for the most part with materialism and/or sickly, pretentious (often sociological) ‘ideas’.

In needs to be constantly affirmed that war and civilization are inseparable. To be civilizing, war has to be for some noble purpose – and this purpose can only be to ensure the survival, prosperity and extension of a particular folk, nation or race. War for a decadent purpose – such as to ensure ‘peace’ – is self-defeating, and produces only degeneracy and decline because such a decadent purpose weakens those fighting and produces an ailing, weak society dedicated to unnatural ideas that make people psychically unwell. Thus, any war which aims to strengthen a particular folk, nation or race is good; any war fought for any other reason – such as an abstract idea like ‘peace’ – is bad. A good war creates, aids and maintains civilization. A bad war destroys civilization.

A good war is morally right – it is a duty. It is a necessity. A good war ensures the health and vitality of a particular folk, nation or race – and thus makes for a healthy, vital society. What we have today – in terms of civilized life and the comforts which go with it – is the result of war. What we have lost and are losing – honour, community spirit, noble character, vitality, purpose – is the result of peace. For too long the pacifists, the cowards, the decadent and the pursuers of selfish, material goals, have been unchallenged. We who believe in war – who know its value and its purpose – have been silent for too long. We need to once again proudly and defiantly sing the praises of war!


-David Myatt, Order of Nine Angles-

Honour, Empathy and the Question of Suffering

Posted in Perspectives from David Myatt with tags , on July 15, 2009 by cosmion
Honour, Empathy and the Question of Suffering

Can you explain in more detail the relation between honour and empathy and how this relates to the question of suffering?

Empathy may be said to be the essence of what I have called The Numinous Way – empathy with life, with Nature; with other human beings; with the very Cosmos itself. From empathy arises compassion – the desire to cease to cause suffering, the desire to alleviate suffering – and honour is how we can do this, how we can restrain ourselves and so do the right, the moral, the empathic, thing.

That is, in an important sense, personal honour is a means of living in an empathic way – how we can be compassionate, and empathic, in our lives, in our interactions with other human beings, and indeed with all other life. For the basis of personal honour is the desire to treat other people – other living beings – as we would wish to treated. Having manners, modesty, being polite and gentle, are part of honour, because these things enable us to relate to people in a moral, empathic, way.

What about animals? You have written about respecting all life and not causing suffering to animals – does this mean you accept that animals have rights?

In respects of animals, it is a question of respect and empathy, of knowing and feeling the connexion that we, as individual human beings, are with all manifestations of life, human, animal and otherwise. We should treat animals as we ourselves, as individual beings, would like to be treated. Would we wish to be subject to pain? To suffer? Would we wish to be captured, and held in captivity, and experimented on, and breed for food and for slaughter? No, of course not. In an earlier essay of mine, I gave an analogy concerning a race of aliens – sentient extra-terrestrial life-forms who possess technology far superior to ours – who come to Earth and who treat us as we treat and have treated animals: as property; as some commodity. Such an analogy should place us, and other life in the Cosmos, in context – providing us with the new Cosmic perspective, the new Cosmic ethics, we need, in place of the ego-centric, human-centric, arrogant perspective and ethics of the past.

Thus, we need to feel and know – to accept – how we are but one small manifestation of Life, connected to all life in the Cosmos. What we do, or do not do, has consequences for ourselves and for other Life. To have empathy – to be empathic – is to be an evolved and evolving human being: it is to be and behave as an adult, a rational human being rather than as the children we have been for so many thousands of years with our tantrums, our squabbles, our pride, our need to fulfil our own desires regardless of the suffering we might or do cause to others, to animals, to Life.

As for “rights”, that is an abstract concept, imposed upon Life, and like all concepts, it distorts what-is, and encourages conflict and suffering because it posits some ideal which it is believed can and should be striven for. Correctly understood, it is empathy which is important – not such an abstract concept as “rights”. From empathy there is compassion, and personal honour, for such honour, as I explained earlier, sets the practical limits of our personal behaviour, and thus prevents us from going beyond the boundaries which empathy sets.

In essence, therefore, empathy takes us far beyond the classification of concepts and the sterile, rather uncompassionate debates that revolve around such concepts as “rights”. Thus, there is no need to debate, for example, whether some or all animals are sentient, or whether they are “intelligent” according to some abstract criteria, for such questions are irrelevant, from the perspective of empathy, from the perspective of the matrix of the Cosmos. We have – or can develope – an empathy with life; an appreciation of Life itself; an understanding of the possibilities that life presents.

But we are encumbered by the dead-weight of our own arrogance, our hubris, our belief we are “superior” to some other life on this planet.

You have written recently that you regard The Numinous way as fundamentally a-political, more of a spiritual way of life. Has this fundamental change in your beliefs been the result of your own experience these past six or more years, since surely you previously agitated for political, revolutionary change?

There certainly has been a fundamental change, as a result of my thinking, and my experiences, some of which have been deeply personal, and occasionally tragic. In essence, I have come to feel, know and understand the value and importance of empathy, compassion and human love, and to realize how abstractions – be they political, religious or even social, and be they forms, constructs, ideas or ideals – undermine and are contrary to the empathy, compassion, love and personal honour that are the essence of our humanity. All such abstractions cause suffering. This is the inescapable reality. For adherence to such abstractions, the pursuit of such abstractions, always results in conflict and suffering, and as I have learnt, and remarked in recent essays, good intentions are no excuse, for it the cessation of suffering that is the most important thing, not some abstraction, not some ideal, not some cause, not some vision or dream of the future.

For decades, I myself in my error, in pursuit of some so-called glorious vision or some ideal, pursued such abstractions, and in the process contributed to, and caused, suffering. For year after year I made excuses, controlling my natural empathic nature, my instinct for compassion, by believing that “sacrifices” have to be made – that it was acceptable, in order to have a better future, to use violence, to encourage struggle, and war, and conflict: that if people had to suffer and die to preserve “this”, or create “that”, then it was necessary; harsh, but necessary. That view, however, is morally wrong; reprehensible. We should no longer make excuses for ourselves, for no cause, no abstraction, no ideal, no construct, is worth even one person’s suffering, pain and death. Morally, we are only ever justified in defending ourselves on an individual basis in a personal situation – that is, it is only honourable for us to defend ourselves, and those of our relatives or family, who may be near us, if we or they are attacked. This personal defence can and may involve force sufficient to cause injury to the attacker or attackers, or, as a last resort, it may involve their death if there is no other option available.  However, this use of force cannot morally, honourably, be abstracted out from such a personal, direct, situation or confrontation.

For centuries we have mistakenly, arrogantly, pursued such abstractions as “nationalism” and we have gone to war to defend an abstraction called our nation, as we have killed others, and caused suffering. Millions upon millions of people have been killed. Millions upon millions of people have been injured, and millions upon millions have endured hardship and suffering. This is and was morally wrong; it was and is dishonourable.

Previously, we pursued such abstractions as Empire, or we followed some leader or ruler or some King who desired to conquer, or rule, and who in the pursuit of such things again went to war and again indulged in killing and again caused suffering. We have also pursued religious abstractions, and fought, and suffered and died, in the name of such an abstraction, such a faith. Now, the rallying cry is or seems to be for “democracy” and “peace” – and in the pursuit of these abstractions, people regard war, invasion, the occupation of lands, the killing of so-called “enemies”, as acceptable and indeed necessary, as the price which has to be paid. As I said, this is morally wrong; it is reprehensible; it is inhuman.

Not so long ago, some politician said that “if we want peace, it has to be fought for”, by which he meant people had to suffer, be injured and be killed in the striving for this mythical peace, which he incidentally never bothered to define.

Such an attitude, such a belief, is uncivilized: a sign of immaturity; a sign in truth of barbarism, of inhumanity. It is de-humanizing. True peace can only ever be attained by means which do not cause any suffering and by means which do not contribute to any suffering, for true peace is within each and every one of us – it is not some mythical or abstract “thing” which can be attained at some future time through violence, hatred, struggle, suffering, killing or war, just as true peace cannot be attained through some law, or be given by some political party or government or leader or ruler. Neither can it be legislated into existence by some piece of paper (a constitution) or by a particular type of government, such as democracy.

The simple compassionate, empathic, honourable truth is that to attain peace we must change ourselves; we must become empathic, compassionate human beings. We must reform, evolve, ourselves through accepting a Cosmic morality that does not depend on amoral, inhuman, abstractions and which does not claim to have been revealed by some deity. For it is the struggle for abstractions, for abstract ideals – the struggle to implement such things – which is inhuman, which always leads to suffering, however noble and fine such ideals or abstractions might seem, and our foremost, fundamental, principle must be to alleviate suffering, to cease to cause suffering to any human being, or to any living thing.

The politician who made the aforementioned statement has been responsible, as head of the British government, for many tens of thousands of people being killed in various parts of the world; for the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people, for the maiming of tens upon tens of thousands of people, and directly or indirectly, for the torture and humiliation of thousands upon thousands of peoples. Yet such a person – and those who support such a person – finds and find such things acceptable; acceptable, but, they say, regrettable, and they will write and say this because they have placed some abstraction, some ideal, some mythos, before human suffering, and are prepared to inflict suffering in the name of this ideal, this abstraction, this mythos, this belief. This is fundamentally wrong. It is immoral.

For decades I myself made the same mistake, in my pursuit of some political idea, or some religious belief. As I keep writing and saying, we must at last grow-up, and become truely human: that is, empathic, compassionate. We must cease to cause suffering. All we have to do is change ourselves – and let-go of the abstractions we have brutally imposed upon Life, upon human beings.

Are you optimistic about the future?

Vaguely. I used to be very optimistic, but not any more. I hope I am wrong. But it does appear that we human beings are incapable of learning from our errors, from our experience. The names we give to our abstractions change, as do some of the excuses we make for killing and causing suffering, but our basic nature does not seem to change very much. My own life is an illustration of our human stupidity, of our forgetting – for I myself failed to learn, for decades; failed to change myself; continued to make excuses for continuing to cause suffering, and continued to forget the sometimes painful lessons I learned along the way.

We have thousands of years of history to learn from; thousands of years of literature, of Art, of music; thousands of years of personal examples – of people who strove to do what was moral, honourable, who understood the truth regarding the cessation of suffering; who understood the wisdom of compassion. Sometimes, we have honoured such people – more through rhetoric, through platitudes, than following their example. And yet still the suffering goes on – still we follow and strive for and adhere to some abstraction, or we follow our own dishonourable passions.

That is, we have failed to develope the empathy we need, the empathy which we must have if we, and the life on this planet, are to survive, and if we human beings are ever going to evolve, ever going to grow up. It is empathy which is the key, which is required, which is the beginning of our change into genuine, civilized, compassionate, beings, and this requires us to have the perspective of the Cosmos, of all Life: an appreciation and understanding and feeling for how all such life is connected, and how we are but one finite, temporal, nexion, and of how we can, through such empathy, reach out toward a more evolved existence beyond the spatial temporality of this Earth.

As some people have remarked, all this does seem rather like Buddhism. Would you agree?

There are certain similarities, but a great many differences. A difference such as that of personal honour. A difference such as that of empathy – as manifest in the perspective of the Cosmos; in the knowing of The Numen, and the presencing of The Numen through such things as music, Art, literature, and the immediacy-of-the-moment when we feel the beauty, the joy, the potential, of Life within us.

Thus, while there is suffering, there is also – and can be and should be – great joy; great beauty. A knowing of beauty so great that we are momentarily removed from our own often mundane lives and transported to another more numinous realm of existence. Hence there is the prehension of the moment – a living-in such a moment, rather than the somewhat turning-away from the world, from life, that exists in Buddhism when so many moments are used to end the presencing of the moment, through such a technique as meditation.

The Numinous Way is essentially both a new and an old way of living. New, in that we are consciously aware of the need not to cause suffering and so can, because of honour, restrain ourselves and reach out with empathy, love and compassion. Old, because there is or can be wu-wei. New, because there is a going-beyond each and every abstraction to the essence which is of ourselves as one finite, temporal nexion; old, because there is a feeling for the moral allegories, the lessons, of the past. New, because there is a knowing of the possibilities which await if we can but use empathy and honour to change ourselves.

Interview with David Myatt on the Numinous Way and “The Folk”

Posted in Perspectives from David Myatt with tags , on July 15, 2009 by cosmion



Q: Is it correct that The Numinous Way now rejects as unethical the concept of even “the folk”?A: Yes. Both the concept of race – and that of what was called the folk – are regarded as un-numinous and unethical. They are examples of abstractions, which abstractions – as explained elsewhere (for instance in The Immorality of Abstraction) – obscure, or undermine, empathy; and it is empathy which is the fundamental ethical basis of The Numinous Way itself.


As mentioned in An Overview of The Numinous Way:

“Empathy leads us away from the artificial, lifeless and thus un-numinous abstractions we have constructed and manufactured and which we impose, or project, upon other human beings, upon other life, and upon ourselves, often in an attempt to “understand” such beings and ourselves. And it is abstractions which are or which can be the genesis of prejudice, intolerance, and inhumanity. In addition, abstractions are one of the main causes of suffering: one of the main reasons we human beings have caused or contributed to the suffering of other human beings…”

Race, the causal concept of the folk, bound as that concept of the folk is by a certain racial exclusivity – and all that derives from such things (such as racism, racialism, racial prejudice, and nationalism) – have no place in The Numinous Way. Such things – such abstractions – are the genesis of suffering, and thus contradict the very essence of The Numinous Way.

Historically, The Numinous Way was developed over a period of some ten years, and in the early stages of its development was even called The Numinous Way of Folk Culture, and prior to that, just “Folk Culture”. There was thus some emphasis in those early days on “the folk” as a living-being, which living, changing, being was taken to be a natural part of Nature and was initially regarded as not the same as the abstract concept of “race”. This, however, was an error, based upon not taking the ethic of empathy to its logical, and human, conclusion.

As the development of The Numinous Way continued based on the cosmic ethic deriving from empathy and compassion, the emphasis had to be, ethically, removed from both the concept of the race and that of “the folk” to be upon the individual in relation to values of empathy and compassion, and upon the individual developing such ethical virtues and faculties. This change resulted from the fundamental premise that all human abstractions – all theoretical forms, ideals, and causal constructs – were a move-away from, or detrimental to, empathy and thus a contradiction of not only honour but also of our very humanity. Thus were such human “things” – such human manufactured abstractions – considered to be, at worst, unethical and, at best, detrimental to honour and thus to empathy and compassion, for such “things” either tend toward prejudice, or they are manifestations of prejudice: of that unnecessary and unethical and often irrational and instinctive pre-judgement which we human beings are and have been prone to, but which we can, through empathy, move away from.

Thus, the faculty of empathy – and its cultivation and development via compassion and the ethic of honour – is totally independent of the concept of “the folk”, which concept of the folk is not now, and should not be taken or assumed to be, the foundation of, or part of, The Numinous Way itself. Rather, the foundation of The Numinous Way is empathy: empathy with all life, on this planet, and in The Cosmos. Thus, the fundamental aim of The Numinous Way is to place the individual – regardless of what folk or race or culture they are said to belong to, or they might consider themselves to belong to – in the correct context with Life, with Nature, and with The Cosmos. Expressed another way, the aim is for us, as individuals, to develope empathy, compassion and reason – and to strive to live in an honourable and compassionate manner – so that we can naturally feel and access and be part of the numinous, and evolve our humanity without causing or contributing to suffering.

Thus, The Numinous way is profoundly a-political, regarding all politics, all ideology, all dogma, as detrimental to empathy and the development of empathy, and as a cause of, or a potential cause of, suffering.

Q: But isn’t there a danger of even this Numinous Way, as you call it, becoming a dogma, developing a theology, and thus causing dissent and strife among its adherents?

A: Every Way has some potential to become an abstraction, a dogma. What stops them from doing so is the application of their basal ethics. If the ethics of the Numinous Way are lived, applied, it cannot become so. What might become dogmatic or abstract would not by definition therefore be The Numinous Way, but something else. Thus, so long as the ethics are applied, and lived – so long as there is personal empathy as the basis of living – this cannot or should not occur. The Numinous Way does not claim to be divinely-inspired, as it does not set itself up as the authoritative guide to living, or as some perfect representative, as the sole representative, of what is true and right. It does not claim to have some monopoly on understanding. It is just one answer among many answers – to be considered, or not, to be accepted or not, according to the judgement, the empathy, of each individual.

Q: Are you then saying that the answers of other Ways, of religions such as Christianity, are important and relevant?

A:  I can only repeat what I have said and written before, which is that such ethical answers, all such ethical Ways and religions, have, had, or may have their place in presencing The Numen, or presencing aspects of The Numen: in bringing some people to some understanding of ourselves, of the Cosmos, of Life. In providing some people with an ethical guide to living and so aiding the cessation of suffering and the presencing of what is good.

Yet, The Numinous Way is quite simple – positing a simple ethical cause-and-effect, and not requiring a complicated theology, scriptures, or some deity or God. Thus, for The Numinous Way, there is no problem of evil, because there is no supreme, perfect, Being, no abstract moral dichotomy, no sin – only that simple cause-and-effect, that simple understanding of balance, of aiding, or harming, Life; of causing suffering, or ceasing to cause suffering. Of ourselves as being responsible for our actions, our thoughts, with these actions, these thoughts, affecting others, affecting Life, affecting the Cosmos, in a good (not-suffering), or a bad (causing-suffering) way, with what is good aiding that change, that evolution, which is implicit in Life, with such change, such evolution, being toward empathy, understanding, consciousness.

Q: However, you do seem to still focus on what you call “the clan”, as for example in the essay The Clan, Culture and The Numinous Way of Life. Can you therefore explain the difference, if any, between what you call “the clan” and “the folk”?

Essentially, a clan is a basis for individuals to live in a numinous way, in harmony with themselves, with Nature, and with the Cosmos. The clan is basically just a large extended family, where the individuals are personally know to each other and/or related to each other by family ties, such as marriage. What distinguishes a clan is this personal knowing, these personal, direct, living, relationships – and a certain honourable loyalty, a certain “clannishness”, based on this personal knowing and this personal loyalty.

Thus, the clan is living: growing, changing, evolving; and it is not tied to or dependant upon any static, causal, un-numinous abstraction such as “race”. It is a coming-into-being, and the criteria for “membership”, if you will, is not determined by some causal abstraction, such as perceived (outward) ethnicity, but by personal interaction, a personal knowing, based on personal (individual) character.

Furthermore, the clan is the basis for establishing new, numinous, communities based on The Numinous Way itself. That is, new clans can express, manifest, presence, the numinous itself by the members of such new clans living according to the numinous principles of empathy, compassion and personal honour. They are thus nexions, regions where numinous law, based upon honour, can be established, to the benefit of the individuals of such new communities.

In addition, it is such new communities which can aid the evolution of the individual, establishing – over a certain amount of causal Time – a more evolved, more cultured, more empathic, more compassionate, more honourable, human species. Such communities – as briefly mentioned in the essay you referred to – are, or rather should be, the genesis for a new culture, which new and numinous culture can and should research and develope that new acausal science and technology which can aid us to leave this planet, which is currently our home, and so live and evolve among the stars of this and other Galaxies.

For it is this new acausal science and technology – based on acausal energy – which will finally liberate us from our present cumbersome, destructive (of Nature, and of The Numen), interventionist and un-empathic, non-living, causal technology, just as the numinous principles of empathy, compassion and personal honour liberate us from causal thinking, causal abstractions, and thus enable us to establish new ways of numinous, evolving, conscious life: beyond the artificial restrictive abstractions of the past, most evident today in the tyrannical State and in lifeless concepts such as that of the nation.

Thus, for perhaps the first time, we conscious evolving empathic human beings can attain, individually, and collectively through our new clans, a genuine freedom.

David Myatt

The Approach of the Dark Gods

Posted in Perspectives from David Myatt, The Dark Gods with tags , on July 10, 2009 by cosmion



The Approach Of The Dark Gods

The Seven Spheres of the Septenary represent Gates, and each Gate expresses an aspect of what is represented by the abstract symbol “Time”. In one sense, these Gates join our physical world to those realms created by the evolution of consciousness itself. These realms can be viewed in two ways – firstly, as convenient abstraction, bounded by acausal time, and whose most fundamental forms are what Jung called ‘archetypes’, and, secondly, as having an actual existence, either extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional. In the first instance, the realms are considered as products of the mind – real enough on their own level, but without any existence that can be scientifically ascertained. In this sense, they are psychological. In the second instance, the realms are considered to have an actual physical existence, and various models for such existence have been proposed. This other realm, approachable through Gates, will be simply called the ‘acausal’ realm for the sake of convenience, and although it helps to consider the acausal in the psychological sense, each initiate must arrive at their own mode of explication, using the faculty of Thought.

Each Gate that joins these two realms (that is, the causal and the acausal) when it is opened signifies a New Aeon and a consequent increase in human consciousness. According to tradition, each Gate is linked to a specific place or location and it is through this location (which may be considered a channel for the forces involved) that the magical form of the particular Aeon in question is most obviously expressed.screen3

The teaching of the Order of the Nine Angles accepts that all previous Gates had terrestrial counterparts (for example, the centre of the Hyperborean Aeon was the area around Stonehenge; that of Hellinic, Delphi.) and that the opening of these Gates was the result of the natural evolution of consciousness rather than something consciously planned. That is, one may think of the Gates being opened, in the symbolic sense, by Gaia, the Earth Mother. Our consciousness that is, our ability to consciously reflect, to question Being, is the result of this process, and in the past this process was understood by the use of myth. Each of the previous five Gates (that is, from the Pre-Hyperborean to the Western) derived their power from the Earth and its energies (although according to one tradition the first Gate was opened due to the interference of alien life-forms [discussed later]) and it is important to understand that there existed no “Golden Age” in the remote past from which there was a subsequent fall. Each Aeon drew its magical inspiration from a natural force which was symbolized and which gave rise to the powerful archetypes and myths and which became the ethos of a particular higher civilisation. At the geographical location of a particular Gate, the force was revered, and it is vital to realize that this religious reverence was only partly conscious: its origin was an empathy with Gaia and this empathy was partially understood (i.e. consciously) through symbols and myth. Inevitably this empathy became obscured by dogma, ritual and elaborate myths until the centre itself became magically exhausted, and another Aeon dawned. Some centres however, like Stonehenge, still retain an aura of power, but nothing like that which once existed. This gradual exhaustion of the Aeonic force – and the consequent decline of the civilizations associated with it – is a natural process which may be likened to the depletion of a battery under electrical load.

The last Aeon, the Western whose center is in Northern Europe, is drawing to a close as its energies fade. The next Aeon, however, has as its centre not our Earth, but a location in space and until this centre is reached, the new Aeon will not be possible. However, the Old Aeon has some 350 years still left to run, and during this period, the energies of the New Aeon will become more and more obvious as they seep around the Gate, brought in part by deliberate Ritual by small groups of Adepts. Hitherto, the seeking or Aeonic centres has been mostly instinctive, but we have now reached the stage in our evolution when we can consciously decide our own Destiny. In a sense, we have, due to the opening of the previous Gates, passed a threshold, and henceforward little is certain because our possession of reflective, logical and scientific consciousness, represents a new and complex variable in the equation that governs Aeonic forces. Already, for instance, as the Old Aeon dies, small groups of Adepts, still cling to an inverted aspect of their Aeon, are trying through ritual to change our evolution in accord with certain ‘prophecies’ over two thousand years old. These adepts hope to establish a terrestrial centre not many hundreds of miles from the centre associated with the Sumerian centre, and tied as they are to the illusion of opposites that has been such a fundamental (and detrimental) feature of Nazarene belief, their success will mean a significant step backwards in the evolution of consciousness.

In the evolutionary sense, the next Gate is and must be extra-terrestrial and the force beyond this Gate may be signified in two ways. Practically, the force will be represented by the physical exploration of outer space through vehicles such as spacecraft; magically, the force is represented by the mythos of the Dark Gods since, in essence, this magical force is chaos itself. It is beyond opposites – a return to the primal chaos, which the previous succession has covered up through ritual, word and even symbol. Misunderstood – that is, seen from the perspective of the Old Aeon – this represents the intrusion into our world, from other dimensions, of the darkest of dark forces, a return, according to the tradition mentioned earlier, of those alien forms who came to Earth Aeons ago at the dawn of man’s consciousness.

In short, the New Aeon signifies a calling forth of the Dark Gods through the Rite of the Nine Angles. This Rite is very simple, and has as its basis what Old Aeon qabbalistic thinking signified by the word ‘LAShTAL’ – but the Rite itself is a conjoining, a drawing down, through pure Thought, that is devoid of word because the two fundamental aspects (of which 156 is one) hitherto apart and drawn together through Destiny (‘wyrd’) are, in themselves by their very existence, Keys. In a more symbolic way, and viewed through the distortion of opposites which is such a feature of the Old Aeon, one aspect of this Rite is represented by the Qlippoth of the 17th path of the qabbalistic Tree of Life

According to the tradition mentioned earlier, the first Gate was opened by the arrival on Earth of aliens. These aliens were, in themselves, without recognizable form and were capable of assuming various shapes, including human form. Legend knows of them as the ‘shape-changers’, and the demon Choronzon, as well as Lovecraft’s Yog-Sothoth, are said to be primitive memories of them. These beings of chaos did not stay long on Earth, because Earth was for them only a temporary staging post in their flight, pursued, as tradition says, as they were by another life-form, humanoid in appearance. This other life-form depended on external means of transportation to take them among the stars, and in legend they are known as the Elder Gods. Some kind of confrontation between these two types of aliens occurred on or above our planet, traces of this conflict survive in myth and legend as the battle between Agarthi and Shambhala and it is said that the humanoid species originated in the region of space near the star Sirius.

The shape-changers, for reasons of their own, interfered somehow with our evolution (according to one legend by giving us dreams) although it could be that just contact with such aliens was sufficient for this to occur among small and isolated groups of primitive man. It is held that the Elder Gods or Sirians were basically opposed to any contact with primitive species, and according to one tradition shamanism resulted from primitive man’s attempt to imitate the behaviour of the shape-changers. Both of these alien life-forms departed from Earth, and conscious evolution thereafter, spurred on by the original breakthrough, increased exponentially.

This tradition may be regarded as having, like some myth, a basis in fact, or it may be regarded simply as a mythos, that is a means, soon discarded, to greater insight into one’s self. To establish its factual basis would take the discovery of factual evidence, unassailable in its interpretation, and while some evidence for this tradition has been proposed at various times none of it is conclusive, and the tradition remains just a tradition, to be believed or not, according to one’s way of thinking.


-David Myatt-

Order of Nine Angles
1974 ev