Concerning David Myatt and Anton Long

In a recent post, I provided sufficient information to cast serious doubt on the long-standing but unproven claim that Anton Long is and was a pseudonym used by David Myatt. My post led to a response by DL9.

This particular response, by DL9 – himself associated with the ONA for some years – raises two interesting questions, the answers to which questions do seem, to me, and several others, to confirm that Myatt is not Anton Long.

These two questions are: (1) who is the author of the Order of Nine Angles MS Diablerie: Revelations of a Satanist, which manuscript Goodrick-Clark, in his book Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of Identity (New York University Press, 2002) used as his primary (and indeed his only) means of associating Myatt with the persona of Anton Long; and (2) Myatt’s known, and provable, interest in the Occult in the 1970 and early 1980’s.

In addition, I analyse the differences between (1) the voluminous, and totally ONA-centric, writings of Anton Long, from the years 1974 to 2009, and (2) the voluminous, and extremely varied, if not polymathical, writings of David Myatt, from the same period. This analysis should furnish us with some evidence or some clues as to whether these are the works of two different people, or the works of one man.

If one takes the trouble to read and assess all the writings by both Myatt and Long, it becomes quite clear that there are significant differences. To me, the most significant differences are ones of approach, of content, and of variety, and these differences, being fundamental, lead one to the inescapable conclusion that Myatt is not Anton Long. Why?

Because if one actually takes the trouble to read Myatt’s poems, spanning the years 1976 to 2009; to read his letters (especially those written between 2002 and 2008), and to read his most recent writings regarding his own philosophy of The Numinous Way (2006-2009), then one is left with an entirely different impression, and understanding, of David Myatt from the clichéd version we have become familiar with from the Internet, and from the many articles and books written about, or which make mention of, Myatt.

It is highly significant that no journalist or author who has written about, or made public pronouncements about, Myatt – from Gable and Lowles of Searchlight, to Goodrick-Clark, to Nick Ryan, to Michael Whine, to Graeme McLagen, to others – have never made any comment about, let alone read, Myatt’s poetry, his published personal letters, or his mystical writings about The Numinous Way, in which mystical writings he extols the virtues of empathy and compassion and writes at great length about the need for us to cease to cause suffering.

It is equally significant that very few individuals who make comments and public pronouncements about Myatt with such alacrity and so frequently on the Internet and elsewhere have never read these particular published and readily available works of Myatt.

Thus, their views and opinions about Myatt are shallow; at best suspect, and, at worst, based on ignorance and prejudice – the ignorance, the prejudice, the pre-judgement, of judging him by what they, often incorrectly, perceive to be his past political views or some past religious association of his. That is, they project some label onto him, and then judge him according to how they, or others, perceive that particular label. Quite often, he is judged on the basis of hearsay, rumor, or on the basis of some baseless and unproven accusation – such as the unproven accusation that he is a “Satanist”.

For had these people making such public pronouncements about Myatt, or writing comments or articles about him, actually taken the trouble to read all or even some of the aforementioned personal works of his, then they would assuredly come to very different conclusions, having had their prejudices and opinions about Myatt challenged by the evidence of these writings of his.

Here is a recent (July 2009) quote, culled from the Internet, which expresses the opinion of someone who actually took the trouble to read some of the aforementioned works of Myatt:

” [Myatt] appears to have been on a multi- decade intellectual/spiritual journey that has taken him far beyond his NS/supremacist origins, through all sorts of twists and turns (his writings on “numinosity”, NS ethics, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), and finally ending up somewhere near the opposite place from where he started. I would call that an admirable and even noble journey.

Very very few people are capable of real change. They seize upon some ideology or orientation or other, and NEVER LET GO. No matter what. So, when someone DOES change, I respect it — apart from the consideration of what, specifically, they changed from or to. To be able to change, from the strongly-held convictions of earlier years, shows character and deep commitment to truth — regardless, again, of specifically what one is changing from or to.

For it is such personal works of Myatt as the aforementioned, that – to quote the words of Julie Wright in her introduction to the first volume of Myatt’s published letters – the “real” David Myatt speaks, shorn of his varied, and changing, public personae. This David Myatt – this man pursuing an inner spiritual journey – is so very different from Anton Long, as evinced from Long’s Occult writings spanning the years 1976 to 2009, that it is quite implausible that they are the same individual, for Long’s writings are those of a man whose views, for over thirty years, are unchanged, and who writes about the same “sinister” subjects over and over again, in very much the same dialectical and diatribal way.

In contrast, Myatt’s other non-personal writings – from his early polemics about National Socialism, to his later attempts to develop a revisionist or “evolutionary” and ethical National Socialism, to the Islamist articles of more recent times – are as outer markers of this inner spiritual quest of his; a spiritual quest which, over some forty years, has taken him from Taoism, and Buddhism, to the violent politics of neo-nazism, thence to the Jihad of radical Islam, and – finally – to the mystical and compassionate spirituality of his philosophy of The Numinous Way.

Thus, Long’s entire life-long output reveals him as a consistent follower, Adept, and latterly, GrandMaster, of The Left Hand Path; as a proponent and exponent, par excellence, of The Sinister (i.e. of traditional Satanism). Myatt’s entire life-long corpus, however, reveals him as a genuine seeker after gnosis; as someone whose various and manifold practical and spiritual involvements were but steps along his own, inner, spiritual journey, which journey has now, apparently, ended with him developing his own unique and ethical philosophy, which ethical philosophy has some similarities with both Buddhism and Taoism.

There is, therefore, Anton Long, the committed and life-long Satanist, proponent of violence, and sinister culling; and David Myatt, whose life-long Promethean peregrinations have led him to change and abandon his previously held violent neo-nazi, and then his radical Islamist, views, and who now expounds upon and extols the virtues of empathy, personal love, compassion, and wu-wei.

As DL9 mentions in his interesting recent article entitled Some Questions About David Myatt and Anton Long, it is quite possible, and in my view more than likely, that the ONA manuscript Diablerie – the only known copy of which exists in the British Library – was not written by Myatt, but instead by the “real” Anton Long (now a University Professor and author of many academic tomes). Certainly, its style, contents and tone are entirely consistent with Long’s other Occult writings; and, certainly, it was issued by Thormynd Press, publisher and distributor of many other ONA works (as well as some works by Myatt).

This Diablerie is, in my opinion, a rather clever attempt to obfusticate the real identity of Anton Long; a kind of “poisoned chalice” for some unwitting journalist or author; a “jape” of the kind that Mr Anton Long has written about on many, many, occasions; and one can quite imagine Myatt’s long-standing friend – who, as Professor Kaplan noted on several occasions, held different views from Myatt and with whom Myatt disagreed about many things – and the Myatt of those years (c.1990) having a good laugh among themselves at this particular rather schoolboyish jape.

As DL9 also mentions in his article, regarding Myatt known and documented interest in the Occult in the 1970’s and early 1980’s:

” Myatt’s interest in the Occult was merely cursory (or, perhaps, scholarly), certainly temporary, and that his practical Occult involvement, such as it was, was undertaken, as he himself states, for practical, pragmatic, neo-nazi, and covert reasons, and not because he was an occultist or a satanist. “

This is indeed the most reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts, the evidence, available to us.

It might seem odd and somewhat strange, to those unacquainted with the reality of The Order of Nine Angles, that two individuals involved with the ONA for some years – DL9 and myself – have different views about a particular matter; in this case, about whether or not David Myatt is indeed Anton Long.

But the reality – on the ground, as the cliché goes – is that (1) few individuals associated with or even belonging to the ONA, in the last decade, have ever met the mysterious Anton Long; and (2) the ONA methodology, the ONA ethos, encourages and even demands, an independence of thought, and a critical and rational perusal of matters of particular interest to individuals. To actually meet the man himself, an individual associated with or belonging to the ONA must have shown a commitment to the way of the ONA spanning at least a decade, and have, at the very least, achieved by their own efforts what the ONA traditionally termed the Occult grade or stage of Internal Adept. This eliminates all but the most determined, and ensures a high level of inner security.

The reasonable deduction to be drawn from the many clues and the available evidence – most of which evidence, it should be noted, is entirely circumstantial – is that David Myatt is not Anton Long, and that the two, as Professor Kaplan concluded, are entirely different individuals who were friends from the early 1970’s until some seven or so years ago, when, as friends sometimes do, they both became involved with, and fell in love with, the same woman, and parted company, with Long having then, as now, a certain personal animosity toward Myatt.

Who is Anton Long? Anton Long: the alleged founder – the documented Grandmaster – of the sinister, Occult group named The Order of Nine Angles.

For three decades, it has been assumed – by journalists, and others, of the modern sub-species Homo Hubris - that Anton Long is just a pseudonym of one David Myatt, the former fanatical and violent neo-nazi street-thug and theoretician of terror who, in the 1990’s, formed and led the NSM; who was alleged to be the mentor of and inspiration for David Copeland, the London nail bomber; who, after his controversial conversion to Islam, praised and supported bin Laden and the Taliban and penned theoretical tracts in favor of martyrdom operations (suicide bombings) and attacks on “infidel civilians”; and who now (allegedly) has returned to his now much revised mystical philosophy, The Numinous Way, which somewhat gnostic philosophy extols the virtues of empathy and compassion.

Myatt himself, however, has always denied being Anton Long, and has repeatedly challenged anyone to provide any evidence in support of this accusation, something the supporters of the Anton Long is David Myatt theory have significantly failed to do.

In addition, Professor Kaplan – author of several books where Myatt is mentioned, and who corresponded with Myatt in the 1990’s – is of the opinion that Myatt and Long are two different people. Several other people who know Myatt personally are also of this opinion.

If this is correct, and David Myatt is not Anton Long, then are there any clues as to the real identity of Anton Long, Satanist? Indeed yes. For example, Myatt has stated on several occasions when asked about the matter – for example to Nick Lowles of Searchlight, in an interview at Craven Arms, Shropshire, in 1997 – that the mysterious Anton Long was a “long-standing friend” of his. This fact is also mentioned by Professor Kaplan several times – for example, in footnote #51 of his book Nation and Race.

Who, therefore, might this mysterious long-standing friend of Myatt’s be? Myatt once let slip that he was an Oxford academic, in the 1990’s – a fact confirmed by Julie Wright in her short pseudonymous essay A Personal Encounter with DWM. But the real clue lies in the Acknowledgments section of a scholarly book published in Oxford by the OUP in the late 1980’s, where the the author states that over the years his intellectual development greatly benefited from discussions with [.....] – and here, a certain Anton Long is mentioned – along with a host of Professors, and other academic luminaries.

Research into the author of this academic work – which is now a standard text on the subject used by Universities all over the world – has revealed the astonishing fact he was in the NF in the early 1970’s and lived, at that time, in the same Yorkshire city where Myatt then lived and where Myatt, with his fellow neo-nazi and friend Eddy Morrison, founded the ultra-violent neo-nazi organization, the NDFM. Further research has revealed (1) that, at the time and for a brief period, the girlfriend of the future author of this academic work was none other than the elder of Eddy Morrison’s two sisters; and (2) that it was this person – the future Oxford Don – who acted as the go-between in arranging an interview between aspiring newspaper reporter (and then University student) Nicholas Witchell and the even then notorious street-thug David Myatt, which interview appeared in a student newspaper under the headline Evil Genius.

After the publication of the aforementioned work, the academic career of this Oxford Don blossomed, and he was, in the early years of the twenty first century, appointed to the Professorship at a German University, where he remained for many years, until his recent appointment as a Professor at another University.

Is this now renowned academic the mysterious and secretive Anton Long? There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence to support this assumption, for he has certainly been a life-long friend of Myatt; certainly had an interest in the Occult in the early 1970’s, and certainly was present in Oxford when regular ONA sunedrions were held in that city at a certain hotel owned by a lady member of the ONA, although it is rumored that he and Myatt became estranged sometime in the early part of the twentieth century when both became involved with, and fell in love with, the same woman, of East European descent.

But, one might inquire, if this erudite and now renowned academic – now author of numerous academic tomes – is indeed Anton Long, why is Anton Long credited in that Oxford published 1989 academic work? There is a quite simple answer, consistent with the character of Anton Long and with the methodology of the ONA – and this is that it was both a cryptic clue, for the sagaciously determined, as to the real identity of Anton Long, and also a jape, an “insider” (ONA) jest of the kind the ONA has often described in various of its documents. That this was the first academic book published by this author – which book launched him on the road to academic fame – is also another clue.

As to the actual name of this individual, there are more than enough clues given above for those with a serious interest in the matter to discover it for themselves. Which is, after all, I assume what the mysterious Anton Long intended.

In a recent post on a weblog dealing with “David Myatt and Anton Long” an individual – known to be associated with the Order of Nine Angles and using the ‘nym PointyHat – claimed that Anton Long and Myatt are not the same individual, and gave enough facts to enable those seriously interested in this particular matter to discover the real name of the person alleged, in that post, to be the “real” Anton Long.

Certainly, the claim made resonates with many who, over the past two or more decades, have never bought into the whole Searchlies disinformation package that Myatt is Anton Long and leader of the ONA… Certainly, also, the circumstantial evidence provided in support of the claim is most interesting; and certainly the claim is worthy of serious consideration, particularly since no one has ever been able to provide any evidence in support of the other claim that David Myatt is Anton Long. Certainly, the claim raises many interesting questions.

For instance, one might inquire as to why someone known to be associated, for quite some time, with the Order of Nine Angles has only now released this information? Or, perhaps more accurately, we might inquire why has the ONA itself now allowed this information to be released? Or, perhaps, they have not, and Ms PointyHat was acting on her own initiative, and/or has only recently “discovered” some of the facts mentioned in the blog post, and then deduced the connection between the unnamed Professor and Anton Long.

Whatever the circumstances relating to the genesis of the information which forms the basis for the claim, it is to be hoped that those with a more than curious interest in the matter will take up the challenge and both seriously discuss the claim, pro and contra, with some of them, after some research, bringing to light more facts regarding this particular Professor. One might even hope that this Professor is contacted and asked certain pertinent questions.

In my own case, I do believe there are some matters which need to be discussed in relation to these claims of Anton Long not being Myatt, and of Anton Long being instead a former Oxford Don who is now a Professor at some, un-named, University.

Goodrick-Clark, in his book Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of Identity (New York University Press, 2002) followed Searchlies in boldly stating that Myatt is Anton Long, basing his own claim on alleged similarities between Myatt’s early life – as chronicled, for instance, in Ms Wright’s biographical article, The Promethean Peregrinations of David Myatt, which Short Biography was first published, by her, in 1998 CE – and Anton Long’s early life, as chronicled in the manuscript Diablerie: Revelations of a Satanist by Anton Long, the only known copy of which is in the British Library, where Goodrick-Clark read it.

Certainly, a comparison between these two documents most certainly leads one to this conclusion, for both, for instance, describe a childhood in Africa and the Far East; involvement, in England in the 1960’s, with neo-nazi groups; and a certain interest in the Occult. But, one might inquire, was this Diablerie actually written, in the late 1980’s, by Myatt using the pseudonym Anton Long? If so, why?

If Myatt did indeed write this Diablerie then one might assume that he did so to place on record, for future generations of his esoteric kindred (what Anton Long has called the sinister tribes of the ONA), some circumstantial evidence of him being Anton Long, and the fact that only one copy of this still unpublished manuscript is known and somewhat inaccessible to all but the most determined, might seem to support this assumption.

However, it is just as plausible to assume that someone else wrote this Diablerie in a clever attempt to either discredit Myatt and/or to obscure the real identity of the person who used, and who apparently still uses, the name Anton Long. If this is indeed the case, then this particular disinformation (and/or obfustication) campaign has certainly succeeded, at least for the past twenty years, and one is left to further speculate as to the real author of this work. The former Oxford Don himself, perhaps (if he is indeed Anton Long)? Or, perchance, some savant of the Magian, or some person behind the Searchlies organization, which Searchlies persons certainly have shown an almost pathological hatred of David Myatt for several decades.

Thus – and as often in such matters as these where circumstantial evidence, hearsay and rumors are involved – one is left to form one’s own conclusions, on the basis of what one might want to believe; or on the basis of one’s feelings or prejudice or assumptions about Myatt himself. One might even be left with a desire to either find out more by undertaking one’s own research, or leave the matter of forming conclusions alone, being thus satisfied with a seemingly perplexing mystery that future generations may well solve, if indeed some of them have an interest in the matter.

Whatever the truth of the matter in respect of the Diablerie manuscript, Myatt himself has admitted (for instance in Part One of his Autobiographical Notes and in several private letters, including one written, in the 1990’s, in reply to a Mr Williams, and in several to Professor Kaplan) that, in the early 1970’s, he had some interest in the Occult. Furthermore, he also admits that he did – for some years in the 1970’s – get involved with, and use, various Occult groups in order to encourage a revolutionary situation that a neo-nazi group might take advantage of; in order to infiltrate people into various influential positions in society; and in order to use such groups as a possible way to blackmail individuals already in influential positions. With all these things done in furtherance of his revolutionary neo-nazi agenda.

” In pursuit of these covert aims I infiltrated several already existing Occult-type groups and created a new one. For many years, I continued with this strategy and did gain some converts for the Cause, both in this country and in other countries. However the results and meagre achievements were far outweighed by the problems these groups caused, and the time came when I judged this strategy a failure. ” Autobiographical Notes, Part One

Thus, he abandoned this particular strategy and the tactics used to try and achieve such strategic aims, and although Myatt gives no date when he finally, in his quite pragmatic way, abandoned such things, it is reasonable to assume it was sometime in the early or mid-1980’s, given that at that time he was still penning esoteric articles, under his own name, for Occult magazines such as The Lamp of Thoth.

The fact that Myatt did use his own name for some such Occult articles – in the early 1980’s and when a certain Anton Long was publishing voluminous writings for the ONA – might also seem to incline us toward the view that Myatt’s interest in the Occult was merely cursory (or, perhaps, scholarly), certainly temporary, and that his practical Occult involvement, such as it was, was undertaken, as he himself states, for practical, pragmatic, neo-nazi, and covert reasons, and not because he was an occultist or a satanist. This might also incline some toward the conclusion that Myatt is indeed not Anton Long.

Yet – and as Julie Wright herself might say, in her rôles as both Myatt biographer and as Myatt confidante – one should, perhaps, be wary here, if Myatt is indeed, as she and many others still assume, Anton Long.

For The Master Trickster could well be having a rather sinister chuckle at our expense, having either himself written many things over the decades – or instructed others to write things for him – in order to obfusticate matters, to lead us astray, to perchance provide clues for the sagacious, and to have the mundanes leaping to various conclusions as those mundanes are subsumed by their own dishonorable prejudices.

Yet, this could well be one assumption too many, and it is to be hoped – as I mentioned above – that some will seriously discuss the recent claim, pro and contra, of Myatt not being Long, and that some people, after some research, will bring to light more facts regarding the particular Professor whom it is claimed is Anton Long. For then, we might be able at last to shed some light upon this whole, and still rather murky, matter.

http://magemyatt.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/even-more-about-david-myatt-and-anton-long/

http://madmagemyatt.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/some-questions-about-david-myatt-and-anton-long/