Replies To A Few Recent Questions

0

NASA/HST - NGC 1300

Replies To A Few Recent Questions


Concerning My Pontifications and Clans

Given that the essence of The Numinous Way – or what is perhaps more correctly The Way of Pathei-Mathos – is individual empathy, an individual understanding, the development of an individual judgement, and the living of an ethical way of life in accord with wu-wei, I felt it was necessary to remove, to excise, the detritus that had accumulated around it in the course of its development, and so correct my errors. Errors and detritus because for some time I was still in thrall to some abstractions and still fond of pontificating and generalizing, especially about The State.

Thus – as I hope is evident from the latest version of Frequently Asked Questions About The Numinous Way – I have since excised such concepts, such abstractions, such generalizations, as ‘the clan’, and idealistic hypothesizing and pontifications about The State and about other matters, from ‘the numinous way’ until all that is left are the virtues of empathy, compassion, personal love, personal honour, wu-wei, and humility: a simple mystical way of life that needs few words in explanation.

For that is all the The Numinous Way now is – a simple, personal, ethical and tolerant way of living where one is aware of one’s fallibility and so, with humility, does not presume to pontificate and does not concern one’s self with matters which are not personal and not connected to one’s immediate locality or place of dwelling.

Thus, most if probably not all of my writings – my pontifications – concerning that ‘numinous way’ (even recent ones) are unhelpful; of little account; or irrelevant, and certainly detract from or obscure its basic simplicity; a simplicity, a message, that is not really that different from the appreciation of the numinous manifest in most other Ways such as Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism…

Thus also why I have ceased to write about that ‘numinous way’ except – as in the case of my recent The Way of Pathei-Mathos – to finally attempt to express in philosophical terms as best I can that essence and so and hopefully enable, if anyone be interested, an understanding of just why such concepts as the clan have been excised and just what the essence of my weltanschauung now is.

The Way now requires living, by me, not being written about by me.

 

Celebrating Victory Over NS Germany


Regarding your recent article in which it is stated “…with the Allied victory over NS Germany being a moral necessity, worthy of remembrance and celebration.” Given the sheer scale of wartime and post-war atrocities committed by the Allies (saturation-bombing, Heimatvertreibenen, Operation Keelhaul, etc.) I don’t see how you can objectively regard them as any less immoral and hubristic than the Axis Powers, even if you do now regard the Holocaust and other crimes attributed to NS-Germany to be factual.

A valid point. As mentioned in the acknowledgement section, that article was just a summary of my personal replies, with some of those replies being somewhat lengthy, and with some of the summaries being taken from a correspondence that extended over a period of time. Therefore some of the context was lost.

In this instance, perhaps I should have supplied more context, which was a discussion (a small part of which I reproduce below) regarding the morality of modern warfare and which discussion ended with me concluding that (i) given that the Second World War is now part of our history, (ii) given the ‘extremist’ nature of NS Germany and the personality, the hubris, of Hitler; (iii) given – for all their faults and problems – the basically liberal nature of the Allied nations, and (iv) despite the immorality of that war which as you rightly say involved dishonourable conduct on both sides – as modern warfare always, because of its nature, seems to do – on balance the Allied victory was for the best and therefore, as a victory over ‘extremism’ (which I now feel it was, according to my definition of extremism) it also was and is worthy of being celebrated, if in a muted way because remembering the cost in human suffering on all sides, the faults and failures of the Allies, and the dishonourable reality of all modern warfare.

But that is only my own fallible personal opinion, which opinion could be wrong. Such opinions I am always now amenable to revising, correcting, or changing, if presented with new evidence, if new experiences and/or study provide me with a better understanding, or if my reasoning is revealed to be fallacious.

What I did not mention in that correspondence but which aided me in arriving at my conclusion were first-hand accounts – from relatives, from others who over the decades I have met, and (importantly) from others quite recently met – who fought for the Allies or who, as civilians or otherwise, endured the war and suffered because of the war. In respect of relatives, I am from the generation whose paternal relatives fought or were actively involved, and whose maternal relatives often suffered because of the war; for example, one close maternal relative lived in central London and so had experience of The Blitz and ‘doodlebugs’. In respect of others quite recently met, there were experiences of NS Germany and of life and suffering in occupied Europe, accounts which tallied with some of those earlier first-hand ones.

To be honest, during my National-Socialist decades – and even during my years as a Muslim – I ignored all such accounts, such experiences, because: (i) in the case of NS, they did not accord with my positive, idealized, image of NS and what I propagandistically wanted to ebuccinate regarding what I then considered was the ‘decadence of the West’, and the ‘dangers’ of multi-racialism, and the ‘power of the Jews’; and (ii) in the case of the radical Islam I adhered to, such accounts and experiences were regarded as irrelevant considering that adherence to a completely different way of life and my aim of supporting Jihad and undermining the West. In respect of NS, for example, what mattered most for me was fighting for and on behalf of ‘the cause’ – the struggle for victory – and I can recall very early on several conversations with Colin Jordan in which he said that we – the young post-war NS generation – should explain that there was a direct connection between the defeat of NS Germany and the rise of multiculturalism so we need to emphasize that if NS Germany had been victorious we would not have all or most of the problems we, in the West, now have.

Thus such accounts – previously ignored or recently and personally narrated to me – offset the very idealized, somewhat romanticized, and in retrospect very unbalanced and inaccurate view I had of NS Germany and of the war. This is not to say that I forgot or have forgotten or have dismissed what I learned, again often from first-hand accounts, regarding the bravery or the loyalty shown during that war by some German soldiers or by some of those fighting against Bolshevism – and one is reminded here of Leon Degrelle at Cherkasy and Otto Ernst Remer in July of 1944. Rather, such bravery and such honourable loyalty were perhaps placed in their correct perspective, which is the hubris of Hitler and the horrid consequences of his hubris which included the German people themselves enduring great suffering.

This possibly takes us on to another question asked regarding ‘how different the world might look today if one of the other nationalist currents in Weimar Germany had won out’ instead of Hitler.

Were I to speculate on the matter, which I am not inclined to do, such speculation would mostly be based on what I personally consider were some of Hitler’s faults and mistakes, and on how I now, in philosophical terms, conceive of the Second World War which is that it was, perhaps, a cultural pathei-mathos for Europe and America and which collective pathei-mathos affected and changed many people, often for the better, and which has left a legacy we can learn from. But whether we will learn from it is another question. Which is another reason why I wrote that we should remember and celebrate the Allied victory over Hitler.

To end, here is a short extract from one of my replies in the aforementioned correspondence, and which extract concerns the nature of modern warfare.

” Modern warfare by its very nature I consider to be dishonourable. As I mentioned in the article, written last year, War and Violence in the Philosophy of The Numinous Way:

” In The Numinous Way, a distinction is made between war and combat in that combat refers to gewin – similar to the old Germanic werra, as distinct from the modern krieg. That is, combat refers to a more personal armed quarrel between much smaller factions (and often between just two adversaries – as in single combat, and trial by combat) when there is, among those fighting, some personal matter at stake or some personal interest involved, with most if not all of those fighting doing so under the leadership of someone they personally know and respect and with the quarrel usually occurring in the locality or localities where the combatants live.

Thus, war is contrary to The Numinous Way – to the Cosmic Ethic – not only because of the impersonal suffering it causes, but also because it is inseparably bound up with individuals having to relinquish their own judgement, with them pursuing some lifeless un-numinous abstraction by violent means, and with the development of supra-personal abstract and thus un-numinous notions of ‘justice’ and law.”

In addition, the very training that recruits of modern armed forces undergo is designed to promote obedience to an abstract chain-of-command and to promote uncritical aggression toward and the killing of those designated ‘enemies’ by that chain-of-command. Furthermore, modern warfare also involves propaganda, hypocrisy, and a disregard for the truth – and as such has become politicized to the extent that war is glorified; ‘our troops’ are idealized with our ‘enemies’ demonized; war and invasion are portrayed as ‘in the interests of peace’; our cause is always ‘just’; and inconvenient truths and actions that portray ‘our troops’ and ‘allies’ in a bad light are suppressed/censored or, if they are discovered, are explained away by a variety of ruses, the most common of which is that they are ‘aberrations’ and ‘the actions of a small minority who will be punished’.

Thus modern warfare has become surrounded by and involves lies, hypocrisy, and corruption, where honourable, decent, officers and other ranks (of which there are many) are often forced to make difficult ethical decisions for themselves, with quite a few learning just how dishonourable modern warfare is and some suffering quite badly because of their experiences.”

The Death Penalty

Regarding your recent article about the 2011 massacre in Norway.  From what I recall of your “Ethical NS” and “Folk Culture” writings, they always opposed the death penalty as uncivilized. I’m curious as to what point your views on this began to change?

Given the personal nature of empathy and honour (at least as I understand it) whether or not an individual deserves to be killed because of dishonourable deeds done is a personal matter, one of conscience. My own personal view now is that there are indeed some individuals whose proven deeds are so dishonourable, their character so rotten and irredeemable, that their death is just, a restoration of the natural balance.

In respect of those writings you mention, a long time ago now – what seems like several lifetimes ago – I revised my idealistic Nine Principles of Numinous Law to include the following:

” The death penalty is reserved for exceptional cases where the guilt of the accused is beyond reasonable doubt and where the dishonourable deed or deeds done is or are of such a dishonourable kind that the life of the individual becomes forfeit, it being for a Judge in a Numinous Court of Law to decide, after representations from the family or relatives of the victim or victims of such a deed or deeds, whether the case merits such an exception, which such an exception disbarring the accused individual from their right to trial by combat, except when the relatives of the victim or victims of such a deed or deeds demand such a trial by combat with one of them nominated to undertake it in lieu of a trial.”

Numinous law, as the blurb stated, “is the basis of the legal code of an ethical, numinous, community: that is, the basis of ‘law and order’ in a society founded upon the ethic, the morality, of personal honour.”

The promotion of such a law was originally part of now long rejected ‘folk culture’ and melded to the promotion of clans and tribes in place of The State, but which concept of clans I erroneously carried over to ‘the numinous way’

I have however – as I have tried to explain in several recent effusions, including in some personal replies [see My Pontifications above] – since excised such concepts, such abstractions, as the clan and such hypothesizing about and polemics against The State, from what is, in essence, a very individual ‘numinous way’.

David Myatt
25th April 2012 ce

Acknowledgements: This text consists of my replies to a few of the particular questions submitted to or asked of me or forwarded to me by various correspondents during April of this year (2012)
Image credit: NASA/HST – NGC 1300