http://www.dwmyatt.info/



The Code of Honour

The word of a man of honour is his bond - when a man of honour gives his word ("On my word of honour...") he means it, since to break one's word is a dishonourable act. An oath of loyalty or allegiance to someone, once sworn by a man of honour ("I swear by my honour that I shall...") can only be ended either: (i) by the man of honour formally asking the person to whom the oath was sworn to release him from that oath, and that person agreeing so to release him; or (ii) by the death of the person to whom the oath was sworn. Anything else is dishonourable.

A man of honour is prepared to do his honourable duty by challenging to a duel anyone who impugns his honour or who makes dishonourable accusations against him. Anyone so challenged to a duel who, refusing to publicly and unreservedly apologize, refuses also to accept such a challenge to a duel for whatever reason, is acting dishonourably, and it is right to call such a person a coward and to dismiss as untruthful any accusations such a coward has made. Honour is only satisfied - for the person so accused - if he challenges his accuser to a duel and fights it; the honour of the person who so makes such accusations or who so impugns another man's honour, is only satisfied if he either unreservedly apologizes or accepts such a challenge and fights such a duel according to the etiquette of duelling. A man of honour may also challenge to a duel and fight in such a duel, a person who has acted dishonourably toward someone whom the man of honour has sworn loyalty or allegiance to or whom he champions.

A man of honour always does the duty he has sworn to do, however inconvenient it may be and however dangerous, because it is honourable to do one's duty and dishonourable not to do one's duty. A man of honour is prepared to die - if necessary by his own hand - rather thaan suffer the indignity of having to do anything dishonourable. A man of honour can only surrender to or admit to defeat by someone who is as dignified and as honourable as he himself is - that is, he can only entrust himself under such circumstances to another man of honour who swears to treat his defeated enemy with dignity and honour. A man of honour must die fighting, or die by his own hand, rather than subject himself to the indignity of being defeated by someone who is not a man of honour.

A man of honour treats others courteously, regardless of their culture, religion and race, and women gallantly, and is only disdainful and contemptuous of those who, by their attitude, actions and behaviour, treat him with disrespect or try to harm him, or who treat with disrespect or try to harm those he has personally sworn loyalty to or whom he champions.

A man of honour, when called upon to act, or when honour bids him to act, acts without hesitation and if necessarily quite ruthlessly provided always that honour is satisfied.

A man of honour, in public, is somewhat reserved and controlled and not given to displays of emotion, or to boasting, preferring as he does deeds to words.

A man of honour does not lie, once having sworn on oath ("I swear on my honour that I shall speak the truth...") as he does not steal from others or cheat others for such conduct is dishonourable. A man of honour may use guile or cunning to deceive his sworn enemies, and his sworn enemies only, provided always that he does not personally benefit from such guile or cunning and provided always that honour is satisfied.

A man of honour strives to dress in a clean, discreet way in practical clothes devoid of ostentation and suitable to the task in hand.

The Code of Honour

Thanks for posting that - a quite timely reminder, from an important writer, IMO.

As for Myatt himself, my personal view is that he's provided a new ethics, based upon honor, and a new Weltanshcauung, based upon the concept of the folk, Nature and what he terms the Cosmic Being



This new ethics, this new Nature and folk based philosophy, he calls The Numinous Way (of Folk Culture) and it is the direct result of his many and varied Faustian peregrinations; his diverse experiences, which includes Islam. I thought I'll have to mention Islam, before someone else does!

If we go to the trouble of reading his latest writings, we'll find he has gone way beyond conventional religions and philosophies, and has considered important ethical questions in relation to race, the folk, honor, and the question of suffering. For instance, go read his essay Questions "About Race, The Folk, and God" and his "The Development of The Numinous Way and Other Questions".

We'll also find self honesty, especially in his writings since May of this year - an engagement with life, its traumas. A "learning from personal experience" as he writes, many times.

While I don't personally agree with a few of his recent conclusions (such as to do small communities instead of a nation), he is in my view the only serious, contemporary thinker of "ours" who goes beyond vainglorious rhetoric, beyond political propaganda, and beyond regurgitating Nietzsche and the "might is right" school of non-thinking. He poses important, serious moral questions, and answers them - such as regarding suffering, and honor. Indeed, if Myatt is anything, he is the philosopher of honor, par excellence. He has given us a genuine, rational, ethical folkish philosophy, based on and celebrating what is good, what is honorable. This is what we need, what we have lost - lost, in all the rhetoric about "racial doom", in all the rhetoric about "hate"; in all the posing about war; lost, amid all the violence.

To paraphrase what Myatt himself said in a recent essay, we have lost that essential goodness that is the basis for any genuine religion or philosophy or Weltanschaaung. We have become small minded and defensive, when we should be open minded, honorable and example of what is good. That is the way to win over our own people. It always have been - but it's something we seem to have forgotten in the "racism" and the bleatings about being "superior". Myatt has learnt all this the hard way - from practical experience; from making mistakes. From engaging with people in diverse and different ways. From involvements as diverse as Christian monk, Combat 18, NSM, Buddhism, Islam, and so on.

It's just such a shame that many people who rush forth to give their opinion about him (qv. Stormfront for instance) have formed that opinion of theirs based either on what others say or write about him, or on a cursory examination of only some of his writings. Or, even worse, based upon a misunderstanding regarding his life-long Faustian quest (and one thinks here of his involvement with Islam). Few, if any, who pen or speak their opinions about the man have taken the trouble to read his most recent writings about the Numinous Way, his private letters, or his poetry, or even his own explanations for his varied involvements.

BTW, I'll also mention this, before someone else does - he's not now a Muslim, if he ever was one, in the correct sense of that term. Faustian quest comes to mind here.

Thanks for posting that - a quite timely reminder, from an important writer, IMO.

As for Myatt himself, my personal view is that he's provided a new ethics, based upon honor, and a new Weltanshcauung, based upon the concept of the folk, Nature and what he terms the Cosmic Being



This new ethics, this new Nature and folk based philosophy, he calls The Numinous Way (of Folk Culture) and it is the direct result of his many and varied Faustian peregrinations; his diverse experiences, which includes Islam. I thought I'll have to mention Islam, before someone else does!

If we go to the trouble of reading his latest writings, we'll find he has gone way beyond conventional religions and philosophies, and has considered important ethical questions in relation to race, the folk, honor, and the question of suffering. For instance, go read his essay Questions "About Race, The Folk, and God" and his "The Development of The Numinous Way and Other Questions".

We'll also find self honesty, especially in his writings since May of this year - an engagement with life, its traumas. A "learning from personal experience" as he writes, many times.

While I don't personally agree with a few of his recent conclusions (such as to do small communities instead of a nation), he is in my view the only serious, contemporary thinker of "ours" who goes beyond vainglorious rhetoric, beyond political propaganda, and beyond regurgitating Nietzsche and the "might is right" school of non-thinking. He poses important, serious moral questions, and answers them - such as regarding suffering, and honor. Indeed, if Myatt is anything, he is the philosopher of honor, par excellence. He has given us a genuine, rational, ethical folkish philosophy, based on and celebrating what is good, what is honorable. This is what we need, what we have lost - lost, in all the rhetoric about "racial doom", in all the rhetoric about "hate"; in all the posing about war; lost, amid all the violence.

To paraphrase what Myatt himself said in a recent essay, we have lost that essential goodness that is the basis for any genuine religion or philosophy or Weltanschaaung. We have become small minded and defensive, when we should be open minded, honorable and example of what is good. That is the way to win over our own people. It always have been - but it's something we seem to have forgotten in the "racism" and the bleatings about being "superior". Myatt has learnt all this the hard way - from practical experience; from making mistakes. From engaging with people in diverse and different ways. From involvements as diverse as Christian monk, Combat 18, NSM, Buddhism, Islam, and so on.

It's just such a shame that many people who rush forth to give their opinion about him (qv. Stormfront for instance) have formed that opinion of theirs based either on what others say or write about him, or on a cursory examination of only some of his writings. Or, even worse, based upon a misunderstanding regarding his life-long Faustian quest (and one thinks here of his involvement with Islam). Few, if any, who pen or speak their opinions about the man have taken the trouble to read his most recent writings about the Numinous Way, his private letters, or his poetry, or even his own explanations for his varied involvements.

BTW, I'll also mention this, before someone else does - he's not now a Muslim, if he ever was one, in the correct sense of that term. Faustian quest comes to mind here.

Cool Blue, it is good to see someone of intelligence such as yourself posting here and it is also refreshing to encounter another poster who admires Mr Myatt`s work.
He is IMO a beacon shining brightly amongst all the gloom and doom that surrounds us and his writings do reflect an essential godness and honourable way of living and thinking.
Like all of us through trial and error he has made mistakes but through these he has gained wisdom,understanding and in a very Aryan sense `compassion`.His is a very Faustian, a very Aryan path.
For too long we have lost sight of the other and more truer meaning of the term `Aryan`. To me he embodies the concept.

.His is a very Faustian, a very Aryan path.
For too long we have lost sight of the other and more truer meaning of the term `Aryan`. To me he embodies the concept.

Certainly, yes - for you describe the essence of the man (mistakes and all, which he admits), and you grasp the essence of being Aryan.

Maybe there is hope for us, after all!

David Myatt: Islamist Nut or something else?
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=334091

David Myatt
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=315788&highlight=Myatt

David Myatt: Islamist Nut or something else?
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=334091

David Myatt
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=315788&highlight=Myatt


Thanks for the links Albion.
I see that Sid has found a soft spot for Mr Myatt if this post of his under the user name of StGeorgeIsCross is anything to go by.
A marked contrast to the things he has been saying about him on the Phora today.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=334091&page=4
I have gone for the third option, although he is getting a little better in his old age. It is difficult to expect someone who is so totaly devoted to one particular cause not to have one or two daft idea's.

And yes I've been challenged to a duel myself, with deadly weapons!