I believe Dr. Chris Giudice will understand the following reference which will be my final comment here re this particular perspicuous essay of his.
Myatt translates the above as:
< [the] source ... of beings is the un-definitive ...> Where beings have their origin there also they cease to exist: offering payment to balance, one to another, their unbalance for such is the arrangement of what is passing."
Hello there again. I apologise for the quote heavy reply here, but I feel the need to comment on a few things here.
I disagree with the framing of Rounwytha as having "moral gravity". Indeed, the culling tradition is said to originate from within the Rounwytha, with the 17/51 year cycles of culling a male opfer. It's a method of removing rottenness, disease, not moral condemnation, much as you do not need to condemn measles morally to get vaccinated for it:
"In addition, there was the knowing that certain individual deeds were unwise (...) because such deeds indicated the person doing them was rotten, and thus, like a
rotten piece of meat eaten, might cause sickness. Or, expressed another way, because the person doing such a deed was diseased, and which disease, which infection, might spread and so harm the family and the wider community. Hence why it was that such rotten individuals – known by their rotten deeds – would be removed from the family and community by being, for example, exiled or culled and thus by their culling end the infection and aid the restoration of the balance their unwise deeds had upset.
This knowing of the unwisdom of some deeds is quite different from the ‘evil’ which organized religions pontificated about"
This also somewhat undermines the framing of Rounwytha as having authority that is "ethical rather than juridicial", for her judgement is not ethical, and she has the power to sentence someone to death or exile.
I'm unsure how the Rounwytha is not archetypical. There is an entire manuscript dedicated to this, titled "The Rounwytha Way - Our Sinister Feminine Archetype", a text you quote, other manuscripts say that "the Rounwytha tradition is the basis for our new sinister feminine archetype", etc, etc. Its relationship to the sinister feminine is repeatedly emphasised.
I also fail to see how the Way of the Rounwytha isn't feminist. If you define feminism as the attempt to gain 'rights' from some state, then sure, however this is liberal feminism, and opposition is based on state compliance, not equality:
"Such 'feminists' for example almost always act within 'the law' as made by The State and often demand more State-made laws to ensure 'their rights' (political, social, economic, religious) and which notion of 'rights' is itself an abstraction."
If instead, feminism is viewed as male-female equality, and/or the removal of patriarchy, it seems decidedly feminist. To quote:
"Rounwytha Tradition
The muliebral tradition or principle which forms the basis for the inner (esoteric) Way of the ONA (...)
In practical terms, and exoterically, this principle means (...) (2) the understanding that our Dreccian Code applies without fear or favour - equally, without distinction - to men and women of our kind, and that our kind are judged solely by their deeds and by how well they uphold kindred honour, and not by gender, sexual preference, or by any other Old Aeon categorization or prejudice"
"we have abandoned and liberated ourselves from the restrictions of the Old Aeon, of The System - with its patriarchy, its hierarchies, its reliance on abstraction"
It's also worth noting that, in Fenrir Issue III, 121 Year of Fayen, "the subtle feminism exemplified by the Rounwytha" is emphasised by sinistermoon, and similarly, R. Parker speaks of the "strong, independent, female characters" of the Deofel Quartet, and regarding the positive gay and bisexual characters, notes that it is "unsurprising given the Rounwytha tradition and the liberalism of the O9A".
Indeed, the potential of a male Rounwytha is a suggestion of this feminism. Despite the faculties being feminine, muliebral, a male is capable of embodying these traits, even if rarer:
"(γ) that men are the exception, women the rule
(...)
(γ) means that the few men involved tend to be of a certain nature; possessed of a particular and sensitive/artistic character."
Such a possibility of 'feminine' males is also implicit in characters like Fenton from the Grayling Owl, and Thorold in the Giving, and is also explicitly noted by a supposed Rounwytha initiate:
"'I guess, in general, we’re not talking here about men becoming kind of effeminate and women becoming masculine!'
Au contraire. We’re talking about what lies beyond and before such abstracted illusive opposites. About our potential, and about our real human nature, hidden and distorted for so long"
It also does indeed frame it as being of a lost pagan past, although not "reconstructed" or revived:
"This aural tradition is pagan in both the historical sense of that term and in the later usage of that term: paganus
(...)
It is possible – as the Rounwytha tradition intimates – that this aural pagan tradition had its natural origins in the way of life of small rural communities of free men and
women (such as existed for instance in pre-Roman Britain and for a while in post-Roman Britain)"
Unrelated directly, but last time I commented, you had expressed an interest in reading some of what I have wrote. I didn't hear back from you. If this is still the case, feel free to let me know how I can contact you.
None of this counters my arguments. They themselves lack denotata, so they would not think in archetypes, sure, however Rounwytha themselves are treated as archetypical in the O9A corpus. Ergo, the connection to the sinister feminine.
An eschewing of denotata also supports a 'feminist' reading. If individuals are not judged by what a 'man' and 'woman' are supposed by a society to be, but by personal knowing and empathy, then categories like 'male' and 'female' become irrelevant to judgement. It also means that gender presentation and sexual preference are also irrelevant.
Anton Long's words are "just someone's interpretation"? Do you not define him as the primary source of the O9A? If you were to notice, anytime I use authors other than Anton Long, it is purely supplemental. You can ignore them and the argument stands.
And also, why do David Myatt's words matter? He may be the author, sure, but if he is not O9A, his view of it is irrelevant. Indeed, unless he is AL, and AL is assumed to be the only primary source, his word holds no more weight than yours or mine.
TBH I don't care about the O9A/ONA since I consider it to now be a Frankensteinian Monster and a gross error of judgment by AL whomsoever he/she/they were or was. Re DWM's views about whatever, they are just his personal views as mine and yours are our personal views.
To his credit Dr. Chris Giudice presents a refreshingly alternative view of the ONA which IMO uncovers its roots before it became ( > c. 1992) a Frankensteinian Monster. Dare I say he presents an historical revisionist version of the original (1976-1991) ONA? And thus cuts through all the media hype re the O9A since c. 2018 which is based on stuff by a well-paid FBI informer?
That's all I have to say here: it's your opinion, my opinion, the opinion of others based and Media hype, and the views of an academic who, again IMO, has skills and knowledge enough to cut through that hype.
You "don't care", yet you seemingly care enough to argue with my positions, the quotes I give, and to continue quarreling even after saying they are "irrelevant". You also conveniently backtrack from the implicit assumption of DM as an authority, hence linking to him as a corrective measure, versus now claiming he is just one voice among many.
As I have said to your cronies before, academia does not confer any inherent validity. By chance, you et al wouldn't happen to be having "personal correspondence" with Giudice, would you? Much as Monette did, given his references?
If you are, this is just a rather elaborate attempt at laundering, via defining so-called primary sources, having your opinions spoken through such persons. Much as you et al lean on Monette's book which conveniently excluded Chloe and Ryan in the published edition, but not prior, especially given the "La La Land" posts, and your et Al's recent insinuations that Chloe was an FBI agent without proof.
Another excellent analysis - qv. https://sevenoxonians.wordpress.com/2025/12/20/the-rounwytha/
Thank you Egnatious, greatly appreciated!
bro just keep cookin
ἀρχὴ <...> τῶν ὄντων τὸ ἄπειρον <...> ἐξ ὧν δὲ ἡ γένεσίς ἐστι τοῖς οὖσι, καὶ τὴν φθορὰν εἰς ταῦτα γίνεσθαι κατὰ τὸ χρεών· διδόναι γὰρ αὐτὰ δίκην καὶ τίσιν ἀλλήλοις τῆς ἀδικίας κατὰ τὴν τοῦ χρόνου τάξιν
I believe Dr. Chris Giudice will understand the following reference which will be my final comment here re this particular perspicuous essay of his.
Myatt translates the above as:
< [the] source ... of beings is the un-definitive ...> Where beings have their origin there also they cease to exist: offering payment to balance, one to another, their unbalance for such is the arrangement of what is passing."
https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/dwm_translations.pdf
Hello there again. I apologise for the quote heavy reply here, but I feel the need to comment on a few things here.
I disagree with the framing of Rounwytha as having "moral gravity". Indeed, the culling tradition is said to originate from within the Rounwytha, with the 17/51 year cycles of culling a male opfer. It's a method of removing rottenness, disease, not moral condemnation, much as you do not need to condemn measles morally to get vaccinated for it:
"In addition, there was the knowing that certain individual deeds were unwise (...) because such deeds indicated the person doing them was rotten, and thus, like a
rotten piece of meat eaten, might cause sickness. Or, expressed another way, because the person doing such a deed was diseased, and which disease, which infection, might spread and so harm the family and the wider community. Hence why it was that such rotten individuals – known by their rotten deeds – would be removed from the family and community by being, for example, exiled or culled and thus by their culling end the infection and aid the restoration of the balance their unwise deeds had upset.
This knowing of the unwisdom of some deeds is quite different from the ‘evil’ which organized religions pontificated about"
This also somewhat undermines the framing of Rounwytha as having authority that is "ethical rather than juridicial", for her judgement is not ethical, and she has the power to sentence someone to death or exile.
I'm unsure how the Rounwytha is not archetypical. There is an entire manuscript dedicated to this, titled "The Rounwytha Way - Our Sinister Feminine Archetype", a text you quote, other manuscripts say that "the Rounwytha tradition is the basis for our new sinister feminine archetype", etc, etc. Its relationship to the sinister feminine is repeatedly emphasised.
I also fail to see how the Way of the Rounwytha isn't feminist. If you define feminism as the attempt to gain 'rights' from some state, then sure, however this is liberal feminism, and opposition is based on state compliance, not equality:
"Such 'feminists' for example almost always act within 'the law' as made by The State and often demand more State-made laws to ensure 'their rights' (political, social, economic, religious) and which notion of 'rights' is itself an abstraction."
If instead, feminism is viewed as male-female equality, and/or the removal of patriarchy, it seems decidedly feminist. To quote:
"Rounwytha Tradition
The muliebral tradition or principle which forms the basis for the inner (esoteric) Way of the ONA (...)
In practical terms, and exoterically, this principle means (...) (2) the understanding that our Dreccian Code applies without fear or favour - equally, without distinction - to men and women of our kind, and that our kind are judged solely by their deeds and by how well they uphold kindred honour, and not by gender, sexual preference, or by any other Old Aeon categorization or prejudice"
"we have abandoned and liberated ourselves from the restrictions of the Old Aeon, of The System - with its patriarchy, its hierarchies, its reliance on abstraction"
It's also worth noting that, in Fenrir Issue III, 121 Year of Fayen, "the subtle feminism exemplified by the Rounwytha" is emphasised by sinistermoon, and similarly, R. Parker speaks of the "strong, independent, female characters" of the Deofel Quartet, and regarding the positive gay and bisexual characters, notes that it is "unsurprising given the Rounwytha tradition and the liberalism of the O9A".
Indeed, the potential of a male Rounwytha is a suggestion of this feminism. Despite the faculties being feminine, muliebral, a male is capable of embodying these traits, even if rarer:
"(γ) that men are the exception, women the rule
(...)
(γ) means that the few men involved tend to be of a certain nature; possessed of a particular and sensitive/artistic character."
Such a possibility of 'feminine' males is also implicit in characters like Fenton from the Grayling Owl, and Thorold in the Giving, and is also explicitly noted by a supposed Rounwytha initiate:
"'I guess, in general, we’re not talking here about men becoming kind of effeminate and women becoming masculine!'
Au contraire. We’re talking about what lies beyond and before such abstracted illusive opposites. About our potential, and about our real human nature, hidden and distorted for so long"
It also does indeed frame it as being of a lost pagan past, although not "reconstructed" or revived:
"This aural tradition is pagan in both the historical sense of that term and in the later usage of that term: paganus
(...)
It is possible – as the Rounwytha tradition intimates – that this aural pagan tradition had its natural origins in the way of life of small rural communities of free men and
women (such as existed for instance in pre-Roman Britain and for a while in post-Roman Britain)"
Unrelated directly, but last time I commented, you had expressed an interest in reading some of what I have wrote. I didn't hear back from you. If this is still the case, feel free to let me know how I can contact you.
IMO you miss the point - which is that the Rounwytha is a way of life that eschews denotata (such as archetype and ethical and wisdom blah blah) in favor of personal empathy and personal experience. May I suggest you read or re-read DWM's corrected edition of "Breaking The Silence Down" at https://sevenoxonians.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/davidmyatt-breaking-silence-down-color.pdf
None of this counters my arguments. They themselves lack denotata, so they would not think in archetypes, sure, however Rounwytha themselves are treated as archetypical in the O9A corpus. Ergo, the connection to the sinister feminine.
An eschewing of denotata also supports a 'feminist' reading. If individuals are not judged by what a 'man' and 'woman' are supposed by a society to be, but by personal knowing and empathy, then categories like 'male' and 'female' become irrelevant to judgement. It also means that gender presentation and sexual preference are also irrelevant.
Whatever. The O9A corpus re the novella IMO is irrelevant - just someone's interpretation, as yours and mine are. Read what the author of "Breaking The Silence Down" says in https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/dialogue_with_an_iconoclast.pdf
Anton Long's words are "just someone's interpretation"? Do you not define him as the primary source of the O9A? If you were to notice, anytime I use authors other than Anton Long, it is purely supplemental. You can ignore them and the argument stands.
And also, why do David Myatt's words matter? He may be the author, sure, but if he is not O9A, his view of it is irrelevant. Indeed, unless he is AL, and AL is assumed to be the only primary source, his word holds no more weight than yours or mine.
TBH I don't care about the O9A/ONA since I consider it to now be a Frankensteinian Monster and a gross error of judgment by AL whomsoever he/she/they were or was. Re DWM's views about whatever, they are just his personal views as mine and yours are our personal views.
To his credit Dr. Chris Giudice presents a refreshingly alternative view of the ONA which IMO uncovers its roots before it became ( > c. 1992) a Frankensteinian Monster. Dare I say he presents an historical revisionist version of the original (1976-1991) ONA? And thus cuts through all the media hype re the O9A since c. 2018 which is based on stuff by a well-paid FBI informer?
That's all I have to say here: it's your opinion, my opinion, the opinion of others based and Media hype, and the views of an academic who, again IMO, has skills and knowledge enough to cut through that hype.
You "don't care", yet you seemingly care enough to argue with my positions, the quotes I give, and to continue quarreling even after saying they are "irrelevant". You also conveniently backtrack from the implicit assumption of DM as an authority, hence linking to him as a corrective measure, versus now claiming he is just one voice among many.
As I have said to your cronies before, academia does not confer any inherent validity. By chance, you et al wouldn't happen to be having "personal correspondence" with Giudice, would you? Much as Monette did, given his references?
If you are, this is just a rather elaborate attempt at laundering, via defining so-called primary sources, having your opinions spoken through such persons. Much as you et al lean on Monette's book which conveniently excluded Chloe and Ryan in the published edition, but not prior, especially given the "La La Land" posts, and your et Al's recent insinuations that Chloe was an FBI agent without proof.