Jump to content

Talk:David Myatt: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 343: Line 343:


::: BTW, the Myatt site I was referring to was http://www.ibnmyatt.info/ [[User:Pointyhat9|Pointyhat9]] ([[User talk:Pointyhat9|talk]]) 08:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
::: BTW, the Myatt site I was referring to was http://www.ibnmyatt.info/ [[User:Pointyhat9|Pointyhat9]] ([[User talk:Pointyhat9|talk]]) 08:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You say he has rejected Islam as of 2010 in the aritlce. But on Islamic Awakening he is still posting: http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f40/the-numinous-reality-of-islam-38476/ I remember last time this happened. It was a case that his site got hacked.


==Myatt's Conversion to Islam 2==
==Myatt's Conversion to Islam 2==

Revision as of 13:24, 12 April 2011

See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Folk Culture and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cosmic Ethics

VNN Forum Allegation

I have reverted the edit by user:Onlythfacts since: (1) VNN forum is not IMO a credible source according to Wikipedia criteria, and (2) the allegation made is just another unsubstantiated allegation about Myatt. In respect of this allegation of Myatt still posting on racist forums, Myatt has made it quite clear that he has renounced his former nazi, racist views (see for example [1] ) and that as a Muslim he has no interest whatsoever in posting items on racist forums. Coolmoon (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myatt's Middle Name

I have reverted the last edit as several published sources give Myatt's middle name as Wulstan. These sources include Michael, George. (2006) The Enemy of My Enemy, and Myatt himself (qv his poetry and Greek translations). The confusion with William arose from a series of articles by Myatt published in the now defunct Filosfem magazine which incorrectly gave his middle name as William. Coolmoon 18:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to 'William' as his middle name is here. Where is the refernce that Filosfem magazine "incorrectly gave his middle name as William"? Robert C Prenic 20:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, your link is to a "conspiracy" type website which might not be entirely reliable. Myatt's middle name is given by Professor George Michael in his book - he was in personal correspondence with Myatt [this can be verified by Professor Michael, I presume, if required] and Myatt gave him some personal details including his middle name. Those interested might like to know that some issues of Filosofem are to be reprinted by Integral Tradition Publishing, of Denmark. Coolmoon 19:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, I just want to also give this reference: It is also mentioned as William in here:
The chief representative of Nazi satanism in Britain is David William Myatt, whose thought has been a major influence on this international cult. Born in 1952, Myatt was brought up in East Africa and Singapore, where he was fascinated with spirit-dancing and martial arts. In 1967 Myatt came to England to complete his secondary education, while his father returned to Africa. The young Myatt made contact with a coven in Fenland the following summer and later joined secret groups in London practicing the magic of the Golden Dawn and Aleister Crowley. Around this time the activities of Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan became widely known. Yet Myatt remained unimpressed by what he saw of ritual magic and occultism. He sought something altogether more exciting, dangerous and truly evil. At the same time he began to think of satanism as a means to create an new fearless individual, a higher human type in a Nietzschean sense (Anton Long [i.e. David Myatt], Diablerie: Revelations of a Satanist.(Shrewsbury, U.K.: Thormynd Press, 1991)" Pages 216-217, Black Sun: Chapter "Nazi satanism and the new Aeon", Goodrick-Clarke, 2002 195.188.112.2 (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. The fact is - like I said in a previous reply - that people like Professor Jeffrey Kaplan and Professor George Michael, who mention Myatt in their books, took the trouble to contact Myatt in person, and so ascertained certain details about him, such as his real middle name. AFAIK, Goodrick-Clarke did not contact Myatt. Kaplan exchanged several letters with Myatt, as he mentions in his book Nation and Race - he also states that he believes Myatt and Long are not the same person. Coolmoon (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the ref in the Myatt article to Diablerie: Revelations of a Satanist because Goodrick-Clarke only claimed that that book was by Myatt, not providing any evidence. This is based on his claim that Myatt is Anton Long - something which another author, Prof. Geoff Kaplan, does not accept. Also, Myatt's always denied being this Anton Long character. So, unless this claim is balanced by denial by Myatt and by citing the counter claim of people like Kaplan, it seems best to keep this contentious issue of Myatt being Anton Long out of the article here, so keeping to NPOV. It couild be inserted in the ONA article, but a balanced view should be given - arguments pro and con. 91.121.202.57 (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myatt's the Numinious Way and break from his past

I've removed this material from the article and from here. It's about someone else, not about Myatt, and it violates so many of our content policies, there's no point in listing them. If it keeps on being added, the page will have to be protected, so please stop. If the anon has a genuine point to make that is directly relevant to this article and can be sourced to a reliable publication, please post it here succinctly. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that the point being made is that Myatt has made a break from his past affiliations with his recent adoption of The Numinious Way. How is that about someone else? It is clear that you are not at all interested in any Wiki NPOV but only in enforcing your own POV.

"Immoral racism?"???!

No, if you had actually read Myatt's "The Numinious Way" you would know that what Myatt is critical of Pierce and of his Cosmotheism is that it is "immoral" because it is all based upon "an abstraction" and NOT at all because Cosmotheism is "immoral because it is racist".[2]

Both of you need to get your facts straight before reverting other peoples factual edits. It is clear that the point being made is that Myatt has made a break from his past affiliations with his recent adoption of "The Numinious Way", of which and which includes his "criticisms of Dr. Pierce and his Cosmotheism", really makes that quite clear. I guess that any of these "facts" won't get in the way of your own biased POV vs a true NPOV for this article on "David Myatt", or will it? Political bias like yours in the Wiki Project makes this encyclopedia into a "joke".

  • First of all - 72.250.238.141 - you should really sign your comments by placing four tildas (~) at the end. Second, Wikipedia does strive hard to uphold NPOV - if you look at, for example, the edits of user SlimVirgin to this Myatt article over say the past year you will see she has tried to present a balanced view, something not easy to do when the subject has or is perceived to have controversial and "extremist" views. Third, Myatt's criticism of Pierce is, IMO, not germane to the article here. Fourth, Myatt "may" have broken away from his past - and if this is so then, provided a reliable source (according to Wikipedia's criteria) is given it may (just "may") merit a mention. You have not, it seems, provided such a reliable source. However, that said, enough information is already provided re this so called "numinous way" - including a link to items on Myatt's own site - for readers to enquire further if they are interested in the matter. 65.57.106.15 17:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am a anon, second, I have not seen the NPOV upheld in Wikipedia, thirdly, Myatt's criticism of Pierce is quite germane as it is proof or clear evidence indicating his real "break from the past" and via Myatt's "own words". What is more reliable than that of one's own words for being a "source" and also of one's own beliefs? This is the link that proves his break, regardless of any of your own biased or "pc" POV, that should remain in the article: [3] Those at all interested in the truth of any matter should check all primary sources and just not ever rely on any PC-biased group of editors at Wikipedia.

  • Signing comments does not affect anonymity - and, as I understand it, unsigned comments are liable to be removed. On the matter of "truth", as someone once quipped: "What is truth"? While wikipedia is not perfect, its contributors are diverse in their views - if you follow a heavily edited article over a period of time, you will see a dialectic in operation. The pendulum may swing both ways for a while, but in the end it slows down and a kind of balance is achieved. If you are so against wikipedia, you could always start your own project - and I do believe alternative metapedias may already exist. Coolmoon 04:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • After further reflection, I have decided to remove from the article your comment about cosmotheism (pace please) - since (1) the article you gave a link to is unsigned and on a site which is not Myatt's; (2) Myatt's conversion to Islam is anyway, as he claims, a break from his nazi past, so this further comment is in my view superfluous; (3) several links, in the Myatt wikipedia article, are already given to various items, by Myatt, which affirm this change in his views, and more can be found on his own website. Coolmoon 05:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have reverted to the previous version by SlimVirgin as the recent edits by 72.250.238.141 are it seems to me unnecessary and incorrect. It is unnecessary in my view to add words such as "for him" and "to any mixing..." in the section on The Numinous Way since these things are implicit already. It is incorrect to insert "recently" and change "is" to "was" in the lead - Myatt, by his own admission, is a Muslim and continues penning what many describe as "Islamist" articles, and his "Numinous Way" dates back, it seems, to his C18 days (before his conversion to Islam). As for him still being a nazi - this is debatable; Myatt himself says he no longer is ( qv. his From Neo-Nazi to Muslim essay on his website and some Muslim internet forums, and other recent essays written under the name Abdul Aziz Ibn Myatt) while others remain unconvinced. Coolmoon 03:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the link to a site which contains some of Myatt's neo nazi writings as such a link seems to me unjustified for several reasons. First, Wikipedia should not be in the business of promoting such material; second, the site contains a collection of old writings by Myatt giving views he has since, apparently, rejected [4] [5]; and third, if any reader is particularly interested in such views, then surely they can find them by doing a web search. Coolmoon 04:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hilarious that the spook monkey "Coolmoon" has taken away the Security Services Asset post when he is quite happy to keep in references to him being a Nazi. Funny old world innit?! 81.156.236.173 16:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Myatt's official site and Official forum profile are linked in the article, as shown below. Last updated remarks are of 25 April 2008:

But should these below links be added?

Robert C Prenic 22:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • First off, the cjb site was never an official site by or about Myatt. It was set up and maintained by some Swedish fans of Myatt and it and its contents were never endorsed by Myatt. Second, the tedder tripod site no longer exists and was anon and so it's contents are dubious. Third, the 1998 edition of the Searchlight magazine to which you gave a link contains loads of libellous allegations about Myatt and not one piece of evidence. Myatt denied all the allegations made by Searchlight then, and on other occasions, and challenged them to provide evidence, which they didn't and haven't. Therefore to include it would IMO contravene NPOV especially as coverage of the allegations is given in the main article. Fourth, the only official site by Myatt is that at www.davidmyatt.info of which the www.dwmyatt.info site is a mirror. 208.77.91.15 11:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An asinine allegation, also completely unproven (as always) and vigorously denied by this *Aryan Lord* character anyway. Asinine, 'cos Myatt is now regarded as a "race traitor" - an enemy - by the people on such forums for his conversion to Islam and his renunciation of his former nazi and racist views. Do please take the trouble to read what Myatt has said in the last few years regarding his commitment to Islam and his rejection of such views. 208.77.91.8 12:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Myatt's own official site is http://www.davidmyatt.info/ which hasn't changed at all. The other site you refer to is registered to someone else (not Myatt). Myatt has only ever claimed the davidmyatt.info as his own (and it's linked from his profile at Islamic Awakening). That's why I reverted the edits in the Wikipedia Myatt article. So, the site you refer to was most probably set up by someone else with the intention of spreading rumours, circulating disinformation (etcetera) about Myatt - which isn't something new. Coolmoon (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IQ

Political scientist George Michael has written that Myatt is an "intriguing theorist," [9] with a reported IQ of 187, [9] who has embarked over the years on a series of "Faustian quests." [9] — I seriously doubt this guy has an IQ of 187, mainly, because he's a follower of Islam (not exactly a religion that attracts geniuses). It would be nice if someone could verify the source given for this bold statement.[6] ISBN 0700614443 page 142. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 00:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a patronizing, prejudiced - perhaps even racist - comment this seems to be. Now, if anyone had written "I seriously doubt this guy has an IQ of 187, mainly, because he's a follower of Judaism (not exactly a religion that attracts geniuses)" then imagine the controversy such a comment would, quite rightly, arouse. The same if we inserted Christianity instead. Your personal "doubt" in this matter is, in my view, irrelevant, for the criteria of inclusion of such a detail in respect of the subject of a Wikipedia article is that of a reliable source, and a book written by a Professor and published by a mainstream publisher is considered to be such a reliable and verifiable source. Coolmoon (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's in no way racist because Islam is not a race. Jews, on the other hand, are quite intelligent (Albert Einstein wasn't a coincidence, and look up Ashkenazi intelligence). Jews, are arguably a race/ethnic group and quite intelligent. And Christianity, just like Islam, is not a race. You have to be intelligent enough to know the difference between race and religion. Obviously, two different things we're talking about here. Holding up the racist card is just lame anyway. Look, I would like for someone to verify this claim by checking the source. That's all. No need to accuse me of being racist when I just happen to dislike Islam as a religion. By the way, I must admit this was probably the most ironic "racist" personal attacks I've ever been accused of. I think I've seen it all now, when being called racist for insinuating that Islamonazis are dumb, lol :) — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment was still quite patronizing and prejudiced - OK, I may have gone somewhat overboard by writing that it may even have been "racist". Perhaps I should have written: Islamophobic. It is prejudice to judge an individual - and their worth, and so on - by some outward attribute, be that attribute the color of their skin, their religion, or even their political views. The comment was certainly patronizing, because of the assumptions you have made about Islam in general. Coolmoon (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the IQ assertion in general should be either deleted entirely, or presented only as an unsourced and risible assertion. Even just a 180 IQ would mean that Anton Myatt is scoring in the top 0.000003% of the population - i.e., he'd be one of the 2 smartest people in England. Given that Stephen Fry has published books and hosted TV shows, Stephen Hawking became an acclaimed cosmologist despite being profoundly disabled, and you could probably list 100 other Englishmen of profound genius, while Myatt's only ever posted stuff on t'intarwebs and started minor silly conspiracies, I'd have to argue that this 187 figure is completely unsupportable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your deletion, for I do believe your reasoning is flawed, for you assume that if someone has such a high IQ, then they will have made public contributions of note. Therefore, you conclude - without exactly defining what constitutes "public contributions of note" - that Myatt cannot have such an IQ.
In any case, your criteria for what constitutes a high IQ is open to question - the criteria reported vis-a-vis Myatt (given in a reputable;e source according to Wikipedia criteria and thus suitable for inclusion) is that he gained those scores on several well-known IQ tests, administered and marked by others. The quote you deleted contained the word "reported" - which is accurate.
If one wanted to quibble with your remarks about Myatt, one might add that Myatt has done much more than post material on the Internet. One has his (alleged) influence over Copeland and others. His leadership of various extremist organizations. His creation of the ONA, which I seem to recall you once admired, and which creation has influenced many thousands of people, world wide, in diverse ways. Perhaps you are unaware of, for example, the WSA groups in the States, much influenced by the ONA. Perhaps you are unaware of his "numinous way" philosophy? Or his Greek translations? Or his poetry? Quite a lot of "creativity", whatever we may think of his political and religious peregrinations. Coolmoon (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps just replace the word "reported" with "alleged", retaining the credible reference? 80.193.69.13 (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least you should be indentifying who reported him to have an IQ of 187. George Michael? In what context did he say this? Did Michael assert that it was asserted by Myatt, or another person?
Second, the 187 figure is unbelieveable on its face. I dare you to tell me which IQ test gave him a result this high. I was under the impression that IQ test results are only valid for a certain range - I doubt the Stanford-Binet and WAIS tests can assert IQ results above, say, 160.
It's possible Myatt took a children's IQ test when he was 6 and it gave him a result of 187. But that, as an example, does NOT mean he now has an IQ of 187. That only means he was a very smart precocious kid. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, possibly - but then why not apply that to a lot of the "reported" and "quoted" stuff about Myatt in the article? For instance, to "for beneath this seemingly innocuous exterior is a man of extreme and calculated hatred." On what basis did Gable say this? Is it just his reported personal opinion, or did he have some basis for this claim? Also, what about the reported claim that "Myatt is a self-publicist who has claimed to have taken up many guises, including being a monk..." This appears to be only the reported personal opinion of one man, yet it is in the article, along with other such negative opinions about Myatt. Surely, the article is just full of "reported" statements - some from Myatt; many by those who seem to dislike him and his (alleged or former) views - and if you want context for one report, then why not all the others? If this was done, we'd surely go beyond the bounds of a short Wikipedia article, and would end up writing a biography. Which is may be what you - or someone - should do?  :) 80.193.69.13 (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting this - I'm removing the IQ reference again. I can get to the sentence in the Michael book at Google Books, and he says "he reportedly has an IQ of 187". A footnote is given, but as it's not available via Google Books, and the above person hasn't told me what the source is, I have to assume he got it from Google Books too. The "reportedly" in Michael's book seems like the author is purposefully turning to a weasel word, probably because he himself doesn't believe it; and within its context it does seem (as I suggested above) that this was only the result of a children's IQ test - which is meaningless for adult IQ. Basically, this is a really doubtful factoid, at the level of saying "Myatt also invented steam, and in his spare time tames lions with his psionic powers". I strongly question even how it is supposed to be informative - what, is it there to tell everyone how cool he is, or rather how dangerous he is? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles removed from his website

I notice that a couple of articles (there may be more, I am unsure) that have been penned by Abdul Aziz Ibn Myatt have been removed from his website.

For example:

(Revised 16 Jumaada Al-Thaani 1424)).

Any anyone help retrieve the ones I an unable too? The ones in bold? 77.98.117.4 (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Several of his article - AFAIK - have never appeared on his official website, including Are Martyrdom Operations Lawful (which was updated by Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt on 3 Rajab 1428 - the original being dated 1424 AH) and the very recent Deen Al-Islam and the Question of Civilians, which is dated 14 Zhul al-Hijjah 1428. The Saved Sect article which you mentioned is the updated version of his From Neo-Nazi to Muslim (which is on his davidmyatt.info site) - they asked him to update it to include some reference to his renunciation of his neo-nazi views, which he did. I'll see if I can find the other articles you mentioned. Coolmoon (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have linked some of the updated articles, hope this is ok. Thanks for your help. I just wish he'd put his articles in one place and in order - especially for people for find him interesting and respect him. That would be greatly appreciated, I hope he thinks of doing this. 77.98.117.4 (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Any luck Coolman?

Of those listed on the AN forum page that you gave a link to, only the following are by ibnmyatt. All of these - except those marked with + - are on his davidmyatt.info site.

Those marked with ++ are on the Islamic Awakening forum

For those marked with + I have given links

Those marked with +++ seem to be unavailable, or I haven't found them.

+ Democracy - Imitation of the Kuffar

available at http://web.archive.org/web/20050407142747/www.aryan-nations.org/wulfranhall/islam1.html

The Significance of the Taliban

+++ Basic Introduction to Islam

Hikmah - The Simple Beauty That is Islam

The Misrepresentation of Islam

Jenin: A Name We Shall Remember

Some Fundamental Principles of Authentic islam

Islamic Sanctuary: The Real Cause of the War

The Hypocrisy of the Kuffar

++ A Brief Guide to Kaffir-speak

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=4134&postcount=1

This was recently reposted by a Muslimah at

http://www.myislamweb.com/forum/showpost.php?s=419a8541fbfac6c0f20998a7b7b2b2dd&p=142761&postcount=1

+ Obeying Only Allah http://www.ummah.com/forum/showpost.php?p=714906&postcount=1

and at

http://web.archive.org/web/20050407161928/www.aryan-nations.org/wulfranhall/myatt-islam3.html

+++ Whose Law Do We Obey?

Other articles of note by ibnmyatt, which do not seem to be currently available, include - "Why I Support Sheikh Usama bin Laden (Hafidhaullah)" [dated 18 Thul-Hujja 1423] Coolmoon (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Introduction to Islam is available at http://www.davidmyatt.info/intro.html Coolmoon (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change

I have removed now officially and legally known from the intro since no verifiable source (according to Wikipedia criteria) is given for this statement. If such a source is given, then perhaps it can be inserted again? My other changes to the intro are mostly minor grammatical ones. Coolmoon (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the qualification - in the intro - regarding martyrdom operations (although only in retaliation of military aggression and occupation) since I can find no reference to this qualification in either published literature about Myatt or in Myatt's own writings, which writings discuss permissibility in general terms without such a qualification. If anyone can find a specific reference to such qualification, please feel free to give it. In addition, I have placed the reference to establishing a Nazi-occultist commune in the section relating to Political activism, and removed the discussion of allegations re Occult involvement (and duel) since this duplicates what is already covered in the Conversion to Islam section anyway. Coolmoon (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Websites similar and who is he and Julie Wright really?

As I see above linked, all of the new websites are very similar to his. This is either him deceiving and getting everyone confused or it is someone else mixing things up here and here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.0.177 (talk) 07:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean

Julie Wright

Who is Julie Wright (JR Wright)? Can she be contacted? Her site has been around for about 9 years I think. It is really David Myatt? SlimVirgin said: "Also, do you know who Julie Wright is? It's not a question of using sources that are pro- or anti-Myatt. It's that we must use credible, reputable published sources, not personal websites. We can use Myatt's personal website as a source for what he says about himself, but if we want to state something as a fact, then we need an independent, reputable, third-party reference, and as we don't know who Julie Wright is (or I don't, anyway), we can't judge whether she counts as that. See Wikipedia:No original research for more details. The problem with Julie Wright is that we don't know who she is. You say she's an ordinary bystander, but who? The difficulty is that we have no way of knowing if what she says is accurate, and if it's a personal website, there has been no fact-checking process, such as you'd find with e.g. The Times, New York Times etc. — as inadequate as their fact-checking procedures often are, they do exist, and it's this process of peer-review that makes the source credible or reputable by Wikipedia's standards. e can't keep filling it up with material Myatt publishes on his personal website, or that Julie Wright, whose identity is unknown, publishes on hers. If no credible, independent third parties have updated their records on him, we can't update ours."

Now, the front page of Wright's site (http://www.geocities.com/davidmyatt) has been updated as of September 2008. The problem is, the style of the sites and the writings on them have a tiny hint of the same hand. And, now their is a new one about Myatt http://aboutmyatt.wordpress.com/ which uses exactly the same info on his site (http://www.davidmyatt.info and mirrored here http://www.dwmyatt.info) and hers. Nothing new. This one is updated exactly at the same time as his: http://naseehah.wordpress.com/ but the two sites http://www.geocities.com/dwmyatt/ and http://www.cosmicbeing.info/ are very similar to Wrights and Myatt's and both free sites. Even the new logo on the top of Wrights site is somewhat similar to that of this one. The sites are updated at very similar times, in a similar style, all on free sites and new images of myatt appear at a similar time on these same sites.

Now, Myatt has allegedly had contact with her, if it is not him, so can he shed light on who she is?


Julie Wright's site has been on-line for around ten years, and - on balance - it presents views about Myatt which do Myatt no favours. That is, it presents items which argue that Myatt has been and is connected with the ONA (which Myatt himself denies) and it pushes the "Searchlight" argument that Myatt's aim is still a sinister one, connected with the ONA. It is also critical of Myatt's claim regarding his conversion to Islam.
As for the web mistress of the site, I suggest you check out her biog of Myatt and some other items there, where she states she has known Myatt for some 20 years, also Myatt's letters there, which in the main are written to Ms Wright over a period of years. It's interesting to note that Ms Wright's site has been used as a source of info about Myatt by writers such as Professor Michael and Professor Kaplan, and also - unacknowledged - by Searchlight. None of these sources are pro Myatt in any way.
Thus, while that site does include some stuff written by Myatt and some of his "fans", overall it does IMO give a reasonable and unbiased overview of him, presented by someone who has known Myatt for some 20 years but who, while admiring his poetry and translations, takes a decidedly critical look at his life and does not accept Myatt's own version of events.
Hence, I think we can conclude that Ms Wright's site is not a "Myatt fan site".
As for the other sites you mention, the "cosmicbeing.info" site is not a free site, as you mentioned, and focuses on Myatt's "numinous way". It is paid for site, with a registered domain name.
The geocities "dwmyatt" site has not been updated in well over a year, so does not fit the pattern you mention.
The wordpress blog "aboutmyatt" presents both pro and contra views of Myatt, and it has more con items than pro ones, and thus also - on balance - does Myatt no favours.
In general, the appearance of a recently posted photograph (and new articles) on various sites at around the same time is nothing suspicious, just how the Internet works. Someone posts a photo, say, and someone else sees it, and puts it on their own site.
As for some of the sites having a similar appearance - well, yes, maybe. But, again, that might only imply a Internet copying, an imitation, by others, not some massive deception by someone, by one person. To me, there is no need to invoke conspiracy type theories, either pro or con Myatt. We just need to accept that Myatt has some "fans" - be they of his pre conversion to Islam stuff (who thus admire his numinous way philosophy or his nazi writings, or both) - and has his detractors, who don't into buy everything that Myatt states, with both of these types having put up sites about Myatt. There's also, of course, the many admirers of the ONA which it is alleged Myatt is connected with, and one of the sites listed above is by someone connected to the ONA, as a check of the domain info will show.
BTW, I'm going to slightly revise the intro of the Myatt article - IMO there's no need for both white nationalist and neo nazi, especially since Myatt only ever himself claimed to be a nazi, and not a white nationalist. I've also amended (1) the eternal link - from the annoyingly ad ridden cjb site to the geocities one, which seems to be a new site by some Muslim fan of Myatt's Islamist writings, and is identical to the cjb site; (2) the internal link to wikiquote which doesn't work when linked to "ibn Myatt" so I've set it to David Myatt, which does work. Maybe someone here knows how to redirect wikiquote from ibnmyatt to David Myatt. Vorlon71 (talk) 10:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Nine Angles?

Why has reference to Myatt's time spent developing the psuedo satanist ONA for his security service bosses not been included in the article? Can we assume that this article is a hagiography? Is Myatt editing his own page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.233.56 (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re the ONA in this article: Because Wikipedia requires credible, verifiable references, not rumours or unsubstantiated allegations. Same applies to the allegations regarding 'security service' involvement - there are no credible sources for this allegation (webpages and forums are not credible sources), never mind no evidence for such an allegation. In addition, please note that according to Wikipedia policy, Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. Allegations of Myatt being involved with the ONA may be potentially libelous, and Myatt has consistently - over a period of some three decades - denied such involvement, and no one has ever produced any evidence for any such involvement. As for your allegation of Myatt editing this page: what evidence have you? Personally, I don't think this page does Myatt any favours at all, and this seems just another spurious allegation. 86.149.14.119 (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is worthy of some discussion. If credible non-Myatt sources assert that he was Anton Long, and all we have on the other side is Myatt's denials, then it's entirely acceptable to mention ONA in this article, with the standard Myatt disclaimer. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but assertion is one thing; proof, another. Also, not every credible source asserts that Myatt = Long. For instance, Professor Jeff Kaplan, who makes mention of Myatt in several of his books (e.g. Nation and Race, and Encyclopedia of White Power) who believes Myatt and Long are different people. This particular assertion began with Searchlight - hardly an unbiased source - who never have provided any proof, and even Nick Ryan who has worked closely with them states on p.55 of Homeland that he had no idea how accurate Searchlight's information was, or who or what their sources were. More to the point - when does an allegation, made and repeated by those with a vested interest in discrediting someone, with no evidence to support it, become important enough to be included in Wikipedia? Does one have to include any and all such allegations, and if so surely that goes against NPOV, especially since so much space already in the Myatt article is given over to assertions made, without evidence, by the people at Searchlight? If one goes further down this road, the article surely becomes just like a copy 'n paste from their publications. 86.140.178.76 (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is calling Myatt a satanist - and repeatedly claiming that he founded or is involved with a group such as the ONA - defamation, and thus potentially libelous? According to Wikipedia: "defamation...is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual... a negative image." Certainly, it does appear as if repeatedly claiming, in public, that someone is a satanist is giving them a negative image, particularly as it is also alleged that the ONA practices various licentious rites and possibly human sacrifice. Coolmoon (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we include this blog page which contains a lot of archived media material about Myatt's involvement in various controversial actions and extra material concerning the ONA? http://aboutmyatt.wordpress.com/david-myatt-agent-provocateur/

Some blog somewhere written by some dude isn't a remotely valid source, especially for a living person. Check out WP:BLP. It might be very useful to help you find valid references elsewhere, published by other people. But if it's just something that someone has posted on a blog, no. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Silly Rumours?

Reverting edit by 82.0.138.226 because no source(s) whatsoever is/are given for these rumours, and even googling does not return any sources (however dubious) for such rumours. They are therefore most probably just more of the many spurious rumours spread about Myatt. Coolmoon (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myatt's Conversion to Islam

I have reverted several edits which inserted the term "alleged" regarding Myatt's conversion. The use of the term "alleged" regarding Myatt's conversion to Islam is incorrect. Myatt converted to Islam at a Mosque in the Midlands (England), in front of many Muslims, including a Qadi from Pakistan and the Imaam of the Mosque. He also has a certificate, signed by those witnesses, testifying to his conversion, with the certificate having been verified, and signed, by the Islamic Foundation. Anyone interested can check with the Islamic Foundation or the Mosque where he did his Shahadah and where he regularly attended Namaz (Muslim prayer) for over two years while he was resident in that area.

In addition, Myatt has - for years - been accepted as a Muslim, by other Muslims, as a view of several threads on the Islamic Awakening forum will show, and as shown also by his Live Dialogue (answering questions from other Muslims) on the well known Muslim website, Islam Online, for which this is the link http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=61ud64 Coolmoon (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Return to the Numinous Way?

Recent information - including some from Myatt himself - seem to suggest that Myatt has not only continued to develop his Numinous Way philosophy along ethical lines, basing it upon empathy and compassion, but has also personally returned to it, thus leaving Islam (?). Myatt's own website (http://www.davidmyatt.info/), given in the Wikipedia article about him, now only has a redirect link to http://www.numinousway.info from whence there is a link to personal stuff at http://www.numinousway.info/pathei-mathos/index.html

I think after having read all his article and forum posts, all of his Wikipedia page and all of the discussion page and links, that he is a very confused, or coniving, individual. I maintain now that he is behind all of these similar geocities sites and probably is Julie Wright. Their is even a new thread on IslamicAwakening discussing this. See also Is David Myatt A Muslim? A Reply to PointyHat. See also http://magemyatt.wordpress.com/ http://madmagemyatt.wordpress.com/ AWT (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confused? Conniving? A person opinion, surely. Here is another one which takes the opposite view -
” [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.
This guy Myatt is, I submit, a man of quite some (inner) accomplishment…..”
As for Myatt being Julie Wright, again this seems to be just a personal view, with no objective evidence in support. As mentioned here several times, Wright's site presents Myatt in a distinctly unfavorable light, so just how then does your "theory" about her being Myatt work? I might just as well assume that User AWT is the same person who posted the new thread about Myatt on IA forums.
Personally, I think the above quote is dead on - visit Myatt's own website for details of his spiritual journey if you're interested. Raffy13 (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, interesting quote, I like it. That quote you give above is from site where you yourself quote it. I believe the quote to be from a site you are linked with where the quote is found here. Also, why has the article "Is David Myatt A Muslim?" cached here by R. Parker of Shropshire, been removed from hee (cached) and here, a site you are associated with. I don't know if you'll know the answer but I thoght I'd ask. All these sites are updated with similar commentry or different articles on the same subject all at the same time. The only myatt site to remain muslim is http://www.ibnmyatt.info/ . All the R. Parker comments and articles are being removed from these sites. And, at the same time from yours here where one used to be.

This post at IA - http://forums.islamicawakening.com/269728-post12.html - is, I believe, relevant here. Coolmoon (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the edits of Coolmoon, as the references given don't indicate the change written about by Coolmoon. Myatt's own wensite is as was, i.e. full of his Islamist writings. Morden7 (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can only assume you must have missed something or got misdirected somehow for all the links work for me and "tell the story" of his move back to his now more developed mystical, sort of Buddhist like, philosophy, so I'm going to put back my original edit. This story is also confirmed by what seems to be Myatt's own weblog at http://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/ and by the material on his other site at http://www.numinousway.info/ - a whois gives Myatt as the owner of that domain name.Coolmoon (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Morden, you win... All Myatt's Islamist material is back up, and there's an article which might explain all the changes, at http://www.davidmyatt.ws/return-numinous-way-myatt.html - so it seems I like some other people might have jumped to the wrong conclusion. I'm going to, therefore, edit some of my changes in the Myatt article, 'specially as some of the links I gave now don't seem to work anymore. Coolmoon (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the article to include the fact that Myatt has now undoubtedly returned to, and further developed in recent years, his own mystical, paganistic, philosophy, The Numinous Way. All his Islamist material has been removed from all of his websites, replaced by the aforementioned material. Also, several new published essays, by Myatt confirm this. Among these new essays (all on his official website) are - (1) http://www.davidmyatt.info/pathei-mathos/a-foolish-failure.html; (2) http://www.davidmyatt.info/pathei-mathos/a-learning-from-physis.pdf; (3) http://www.davidmyatt.info/pathei-mathos/question-of-empathy.pdf; (4) http://www.davidmyatt.info/pathei-mathos/return-to-beginning.html; (5) http://www.davidmyatt.info/pathei-mathos/change_perspective.html.

There is also the following weblog, by Myatt, which contains most the above essays, and some others - http://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/

Therefore, I feel that my changes to the article are justified, as well as necessary in order to keep the article up to date. Coolmoon (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the edit by user Mujahidinadesert who deleted, without explanation, a paragraph about Myatt's return his numinous way philosophy (see my entry here, above). It seems quite clear to me, from all the sources I've given above and in the article, that this return by Myatt is both relevant and correct, which is why I reverted the edit. Coolmoon (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Coolmoon cares to check out Myatt's own official website, you'll find there's only Islamic material. So I've changed the article, as Mujahidinadesert did earlier, 'cos I think you're mistaken about this alleged *return* to the numinous way stuff. Pointyhat9 (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the Myatt site I was referring to was http://www.ibnmyatt.info/ Pointyhat9 (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say he has rejected Islam as of 2010 in the aritlce. But on Islamic Awakening he is still posting: http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f40/the-numinous-reality-of-islam-38476/ I remember last time this happened. It was a case that his site got hacked.

Myatt's Conversion to Islam 2

I'm going to rewrite the old material in the article regarding doubts about Myatt's conversion - he's been a Muslim now for more than 11 years, and the general consensus is expressed by British writer Martin Amis who on several occasions (including a TV interview) has mentioned Myatt's conversion - see for instance http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/dec/01/race.islam - and called Myatt a "ferocious Jihadi" (Amis, Martin. The Second Plane. Jonathan Cape, 2008, p.157). I'll add references to the article to this effect as well.

The only credible people to ever seriously doubt Myatt's conversion (thus discounting kooks on the Net) were the Searchlight organization, who haven't to my knowledge made any comment about Myatt for around six years. Myatt is now almost universally regarded by his former racist associates as a "traitor" for embracing Islam, and accepted by Muslims as a Muslim. Coolmoon (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also deleted the part in the section Conversion to Islam which repeats Searchlight's allegations about involvement with Satanism, since these allegations were mentioned in the previous section, Personal life, together with Myatt's denial, and there seems no reason to repeat the allegations and the now equally unnecessary repetition of Myatt's denial. Coolmoon (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I'd add some additional references - several of them from academic sources - which mention Myatt's conversion to Islam, and accept it, and which therefore seem to make Gable's personal opinion, voiced nearly ten years ago, doubting the validity of Myatt's conversion, now just a lone, and rather out-dated, dissenting voice.
1) Doyle, Neil. Terror base UK: inside a secret war. Mainstream Publishing, 2006, p. 65 ISBN: 9781840189940
2) Roger Eatwell. Community cohesion and cumulative extremism in contemporary Britain. The Political Quarterly, Vol. 77, number 2, 2006.
3) Raphael Israeli. The Islamic challenge in Europe. Transaction Publishers, 2008 pp.44-5 ISBN: 9781412807500
4) WR van Leeuwen. Dreamers of the Dark. Doctoral Thesis. University of Waikato, New Zealand, 2008, p.93
5) Senholt, Jacob C: Political Esotericism & the convergence of Radical Islam, Satanism and National Socialism in the Order of the Nine Angles. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Conference: Satanism in the Modern World, November 2009
6) The Jabotinsky International Center for combating anti-semitism http://www.fighthatred.com/hate-quotes/abdul-aziz-ibn-myatt
7) Mark Weitzman. Magical Logic: Globalization, Conspiracy Theory, and the Shoah (Posen Papers in Contemporary Antisemitism). Hebrew University of Jeruslaem, 2009. pp.9-10
8) Italian newspaper l'occidentale 5 Febbraio 2009 Egitto, il "Dottor Morte" è solo uno dei nazisti convertiti all'Islam
9) http://www.newmuslimthailand.com/main/thirdpage.php?style=preview&spv=3&tpv=1049
Combining these additional references with the ones given in the Myatt Wiki article, we now have over 13 credible references supporting the view of the genuine nature of Myatt's conversion, and the single dissenting opinion of one person, with the supporting references all more recent than Gable's personal opinion. Coolmoon (talk) 08:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think, btw, about the allegation that Searchlight is actually a front for MI5? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, it's just a rumour, malicious or otherwise. No reliable sources - according to Wikipedia's criteria - to support it or which, again AFAIK, even mention it. But that aside, Searchlight's (mostly Gable's) personal opinion about Myatt (for which no evidence was ever presented) was given a disproportionate amount of space in the Myatt article here in my view, before being edited - it constituted almost a third of the whole article, and thus the article probably didn't really give a NPOV. Not even Nick Griffin's article here on Wikipedia had/has such a profusion of comments/opinions from Searchlight, which after all is just one organization. I've added an additional ref to the above. Coolmoon (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to Myatt's official weblog at davidmyatt.wordpress.com and removed the link to his old profile at the IA forum, which is redundant now, given his return to his numinous way philosophy. I've gone through the WP policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#In_biographies_of_living_people regarding links in biogs of living peoples, and it seems to me a link to his official weblog is OK, but if someone with more WP than me knows better, I'll stand corrected. Coolmoon (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct page back to David Myatt

Can someone who knows how to do it - doh! (I failed) - redirect the Abdul Aziz Myatt page, here, back to David Myatt (and vice versa) since Myatt is no longer Muslim, and IMO the page "David Myatt" should be to the main page here, with the ibn Myatt redirecting to it? Pointyhat9 (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll take care of it. Yworo (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source to say he is no longer Muslim? It doesn't mention that in the article. McLerristarr | Mclay1 02:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes it does. It just doesn't mention it in the Islam section. My mistake. McLerristarr | Mclay1 02:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Myatt&oldid=423680828"