The Urban Tale Of David Myatt And Anton Long


The Urban Tale Of David Myatt And Anton Long


There is a modern urban tale that David Myatt is not only ‘Anton Long’ of Order of Nine Angles (O9A, ONA) fame but also founded the O9A in the 1970s and was its leader for many decades. Myatt himself has consistently denied – on his word of honour – being ‘Anton Long’ and founding the O9A. Supporters of Myatt have argued that in over forty years no one has provided any evidential facts (evidence acceptable in a Court of Law) that prove that Myatt is Long or that he founded and led the O9A.

Evidential facts in this case include evidence from primary sources, such as documents which forensic linguistics (for example) suggest Myatt may have written or which Myatt under caution admitted to writing; a confession or signed statement by Myatt; sworn testimony by witnesses who are available for cross-examination; forensically verified video/audio recordings of Myatt admitting to being Long and/or of having founded the O9A; and so on.

Lacking such evidential facts, those who believe this urban tale usually do so on the basis of one or more of the following: (i) the fallacy of ad populum, claiming it is “self-evident” because so many others believe it; (ii) the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam – appeal to authority – because others including the media, some academics and journalists and political activists and politicians have said or written that he is Long and did found the O9A; (iii) hearsay; and (iv) the fallacy of Incomplete Evidence – also known as the fallacy of suppressed evidence – when material concerning or assumptions about a particular matter are selected and presented to support a particular argument or conclusion while other material or assumptions which do not support, which contradict, the chosen argument or conclusion are withheld or not discussed. Thus, selective evidence and/or selective argument are employed in order to ‘prove’ a particular point, with such selectively being deliberate, or the result of fallacious reasoning or the result of unscholarly research because secondary and tertiary sources rather than primary sources are used.