David Myatt - Polemos Our Genesis

1 of 14

David Myatt - Polemos Our Genesis

Part One

RS: Given new items attacking you, both in print and on-line, would you mind
answering some questions, some of which I'm sure you've been asked before?
DWM: Given that you have taken the trouble to seek me out and ask the questions,
first-hand, no I do not mind.

My first question is this. What is your response to those who continue to claim that
you are and have been involved in Satanism?
My response now as in the past is to ask where is the evidence for such a claim? The
person opinion or the assumptions of some journalist or other, or of some author, is
not evidence. No one has ever - in over thirty years - provided any evidence of such
involvement. Evidence as in proven, undisputed, facts such as might be used in some
trial in some modern Court of Law.

David Myatt - Polemos Our Genesis

2 of 14

In addition, I would ask those who make such a claim - and those who repeat such a
claim and/or embellish it - if they have read my autobiography Myngath, my published
letters [1], and studied in detail my writings about my philosophy of The Numen (aka
The Numinous Way), and read my poetry such as the recent compilation Relict. I
seriously doubt any of them have. For had they done so, they would most assuredly
find an individual whose character, and whose effusions, do not conform to those of a
'satanist'.
I would also point out that none of those who pontificate about me in a negative
manner - or who have so pontificated about me - in print, or via the medium of the
Internet, or who pontificate about me to others via hearsay or through rumourmongering, know me as a person, or have even bothered to try to get to know me
personally. Thus, their views and opinions of me are just their personal views and
opinions, unfounded by that necessary personal knowing which personal honour
demands in respect of making a personal judgement about someone. That others
often repeat such personal views and opinions - of, for example, journalists or authors
- as if they are fact is just an example of such others committing the logical fallacy of
argumentum ad verecundiam.

But surely some journalists have interviewed you in person and some authors and
academics have contacted you?
A short personal interview - lasting an hour or so, or less - does not constitute a
personal knowing. Such a personal knowing requires a close and regular contact over
a period of at least a few weeks.
Neither does an exchange of a few letters - or, these days, a few e-mails - constitute a
personal knowing.
As I said, the reality is that none of those who pontificate, or who write about me, in a
negative manner know me personally, as - to my knowledge - no one so pontificating
about me has made a detailed, a scholarly, study of my philosophy of The Numen, or
of my life, or of my published letters, or of my poetry (such as my poetry is).
For example, several individuals - none of whom to my knowledge know ancient Greek
- have pontificated about and criticised my Greek translations, such as my rendering
of some of the fragments attributed to Heraclitus as well as my translations of the
likes of Aeschylus and Sophocles.
Such pontifications often take the form of "he's paraphrased prior translations" or
that I have given "bizarre readings of the fragments of pre-Socratic philosophers like
Heraclitus..."

Why such pontifications, about me in general and such things as my translations? In

my view, because such people are prejudiced against me, deriving as that personal

David Myatt - Polemos Our Genesis

3 of 14

prejudice often is from what they assume are (or were) my political views, my former
political activities, or my (alleged) involvement with Satanism, or my past association
with some Way of Life (such as Islam). And so on.
Thus their opinions about me and my work - in this instance, my translations - are
coloured by this prejudice to the extent that feel they have to criticize me and my
work, and cannot, or refuse to, say anything positive about me or my work. Most
certainly these people have not studied, in a scholarly way, the works of mine they
criticize or spew forth some opinion about.
I would ask such persons for their translation of, for example:

: :



Aesch. Ag. 67-71

As I would ask them, for example, to compare my translation of the above - in a

scholarly way, with scholia - with the translations of others. My translation is:
What is now, came to be
As it came to be. And its ending has been ordained.
No concealed laments, no concealed libations,
No unburnt offering
Can charm away that firm resolve

Or, in the matter of Heraclitus, I might ask them to compare my translation - in a

scholarly way, with scholia - of Diogenes Lartius:

(ix. 9)
All by genesis is appropriately apportioned [separated into portions] with beings bound
together again by enantiodromia [2].

My Greek translations have been used in several University courses around the world,
and in several American High Schools - and I even had, some years ago now, the
honour of one class in one High School putting on a stage performance of one of my
translations of a particular Greek drama. Used, and appreciated in such
establishments, until, that is, several prejudiced individuals - obviously subsumed by
some fanatical political or personal agenda of their own - took it upon themselves to

David Myatt - Polemos Our Genesis

4 of 14

write to or contact such educational institutions and 'warn them about me', drawing
attention to my former political activities and views and making claims about
involvement with 'satanism'. To their credit, a few - but only a few (last time I
checked, some years ago now) - such educational institutions ignored these claims,
and continued to use my translations.

But surely such opinions and rumours about you are not surprising given your, how
shall I say, interesting and intriguing life? Do they bother you?
No, such opinions and rumours do not really bother me, for I try and take a somewhat
wyrdful - Cosmic/acausal/taoist - view of them, and only occupy myself with them
when individuals such as you, yourself, personally ask me about such matters.
So no, such opinions and such rumours about me are not surprising. In fact, they are
perhaps to be expected. But as I mentioned, I do occasionally, being all-too-human
and despite trying to take a wyrdful view, find myself wishing that people - before
gushing forth their opinion about me - would take the trouble to actually read my
autobiography, my published letters, and study my Numinous Way. They then might
be in a position to have an informed, an educated, a cultured, view of me and of my
life-long rather Promethean quest to answer such questions as Quid Est Veritas.
But - C'est la vie.

An informed view of you by placing your political activism, your involvement with
Islam, your criminal activities, and other things, in the context of pathei-mathos?
Just so. As the genesis of the personal weltanschauung I have now developed.

Which is your mystical Numinous Way philosophy?

Indeed.

So perhaps your work, for example your Numinous Way, will only be appreciated after
your death?
Possibly, or possibly not. For it is for others, disconnected from the ethos and
prejudices of our own rather un-numinous times, to judge such lucubrations of mine,
and indeed to make some rational assessment of me and my pathei-mathos. If that is,
anyone in the causal future beyond my mortal death finds such lucubrations and such
a life-story of sufficient interest, or of any interest at all.
As Heraclitus expressed it (at least according to my fallible understanding of the
text):
, ,
[] [3]

David Myatt - Polemos Our Genesis

5 of 14

Part Two

RS: Well I guess this mis-understanding extends to people who've described you as a
man of 'extreme and calculated hatred', as a psychopath, and as a hate-filled
extremist who 'jumps from one hate-filled ideology to another'. Would you agree that
such descriptions of you result from the same type of mis-understandings?

DWM: Yes, certainly it is the same mis-understanding with similar causes: that of
those making such comments about me not knowing me personally, and that of them
not having studied my Numinous Way, my published letters, and my poetry. But in
addition such individuals reveal both a lack of reasoning and a certain prejudice, if
not a hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy, because while they loudly proclaim that 'hatred' is morally wrong, their
own public comments about someone such as me are redolent of their own extreme
dislike (their hatred) of such people as I am assumed by them to be. So, on the one
hand they denounce 'hatred' and yet on the other hand they publicly espouse a hatred
of people they make assumptions about.
A lack of reasoning because they invariably commit some logical fallacy such as Non
Causa Pro Causa - by, for example, assuming that the cause of a person's alleged or
assumed 'hatred' is some trait of or defect in that person's personality. For example,
here is someone - a self-described liberal and 'advocate of individual liberty', no less writing about those who belong to religious and political groups the writer does not
personally approve of: he assumes they are 'cranks and losers', "sad, inadequate
individuals who, for variety of psychological reasons, are drawn toward hate-filled
ideologies..."
A prejudice - and thus a very un-liberal de-humanization of their alleged opponents because of the assumptions, the generalizations, they make about the character of
people they do not personally know, based on what they assume are the real or the
alleged (or the past) political and religious associations/beliefs of those people, and
based on what they have assumed are the causes behind someone associating with or
adhering to such 'ideologies' as they have additionally assumed can be or should be
described by biased terms such as 'hate-filled' and 'ideology'.
But naturally those making such comments in public do not realize how prejudiced,
how un-reasonable, how full of hatred, they themselves are. Indeed, they mostly pride
themselves that they are tolerant individuals, as no doubt they will dismiss the
foregoing as another 'rambling rant' of some 'crank'.

David Myatt - Polemos Our Genesis

6 of 14

Turning now to National Socialism, or rather what you once termed the ethical
non-racist National Socialism of Reichsfolk. Would you agree that your Numinous Way
allows, ethically, for the creation of folkish clans and tribes as described by
Reichsfolk?

One has to make a distinction between individuals, and organizations/groups, and

also between an individual philosophical guidance and the dogma, or the principles
and aims, of a group or organization.
The philosophy of The Numinous Way is primarily an individual intimation of the
nature of Reality, and one which can predispose the individual toward the ethical way
- of compassion and personal honour - that individual empathy reveals in the
immediacy of the living moment. Reichsfolk and similar organizations have certain
principles and aims, and thus imply something beyond such philosophical individual
revealing and ethical guidance. That is, they imply an ethnic kindred, and thus a
shared goal, a supra-personal aim and choices based on some posited criteria; which
is that of a perceived ethnicity.
Ethically, all The Numinous Way implies is that the individual has the rational choice
whether or not to be empathic - compassionate and honourable and thus cease to
cause or to contribute to suffering - in the immediacy of each personal living moment,
with there thus being no aims or goals beyond such a succession of lived moments by
the individuals. That is, there is only ethical individual living, in moments; nothing
that could be classified, in conventional terms, as political, or social, or religious, and
not even any striving (or any desire for striving) by individuals - for example, a
striving for 'enlightenment', or for some personal reward (in some posited after-life)
or to gain 'good karma' and avoid 'bad karma'. There is only us as individual human
beings understanding ourselves as but one finite mortal nexion, and thus being
empathic and honourable, or not. In brief, there is wu-wei: we, the Cosmos, changing,
flowing, as we flow and change.
But, such philosophical reflexions aside, The Numinous Way - that is, individuals
disposed toward empathy, compassion, and honour - implies the personal, individual,
unique judgement of the immediacy of the moment. There is therefore no "it (The
Numinous Way) can (or cannot) allow for" or condone or encourage (or discourage)
this or that, for such can allow or disallow or condone, encourage, or discourage (or is
or is-not compatible with) imply far more than such personal, individual, unique
judgement of the immediacy of the moment. For this 'it' - such things - imply
something both supra-personal and some abstraction, or some category - some
inclusion/exclusion.
As I wrote in Some Questions Concerning The Folk, Race, and Empathy
" What is important is that the choice of partners and of friends is
entirely a matter for individuals. A question of love, of loyalty, of honour, of
what one feels is natural for one, and not a question of something called

David Myatt - Polemos Our Genesis

7 of 14

"race" or ethnicity. A question of Life working as Life works, in a natural

manner in its species of time, with no abstractions imposed; no ideology
followed or formulated, no dogmatic rules for individuals to try to or have to
conform to.
The best illustration here is falling in love. To fall in love is natural, human
indeed possibly one of the most human things to do. If we happen to fall in
love with someone similar to ourselves, in outward appearance or whatever,
fine. If we happen to fall in love with someone different from ourselves, in
outward appearance or whatever, fine. The flow of Life within and exterior
to us naturally decides.
What matters is the love; the returning of love. The wu-wei of love. The
numinosity of love. The loyal and honourable sharing. The experience of life
together. That is the foundation on which a clan, and from it a new folk,
comes-into-being and should come-into-being: not some abstract criteria
we impose upon ourselves or upon others, and which imposition is or can be
the beginning of suffering. Not some dogmatic belief in some idealized race
and the need to try and "preserve" that race. Not the rejection of empathy
and love for the sake of such an abstraction, such dogma.
Thus, if one is happy living among ones own kind in a village of ones kind
and treasures their traditions and ways and wants to hand them onto to
ones own children fine. If one falls in love with someone of ones own
kind, and is happy, fine, and thus may begin a new folk of similar people. If
one falls in love with someone different from ones self and ones own
ancestors, fine. And so on. It is the numinosity of love, of living numinously,
that is important that is ethical. It is the imposition of some abstraction
ones self, on others judging others by some abstraction that is immoral,
wrong, contrary to The Numinous Way.
It is, simply expressed, a question of the natural balance of Life; of using
empathy and honour to find and feel and appreciate and try to live that
balance."
Thus, each and every individual - according to the ethics of The Numinous Way - is
free to choose how and with whom to live. If they desire to and are happy living
among their own kind, according to their own understood ancestral traditions, and
thus establish in their own way, without recourse to unethical means, a new
community, an extended family, a new clan or tribe on their own folk all of whom are
of the same kindred spirit, then that is not un-ethical, or contrary to The Numinous
Way. Indeed, to make some dogmatic principle stating that it is or would be unethical
for such free individuals to form of their own free choice such an extended family of
their own kind would itself be contrary to The Numinous Way.
In the same way, according to The Numinous Way, there is nothing unethical about
some other individual or individuals desiring to do the opposite, and establishing
some new family, or some new kindred, on non-folkish lines, if that is their choice. For

David Myatt - Polemos Our Genesis

8 of 14

it is, to repeat myself, a question of tolerance, of personal love, of personal honour, of

empathy, and of a personal judgement deriving from pathei-mathos.
Thus, it is not a question of 'race/ethnicity', or of 'racialism' - pro or contra - but
rather a question of individual choice and individual empathy.
For what is unethical are two things; (1) using some abstraction (such as ethnicity) as
the basis for judging a person or as a means of assigning worth to an individual; and
(2) resorting to compulsion or persuasion in order to try to have others conform to
some ideal, some abstraction, some belief, some dogma, some ideology. Be that ideal
some idealized 'race' or nation, or be that ideal some abstraction such as some suprapersonal 'freedom', some 'human rights', or some sort of political/social crusade
against 'racism' or 'hatred' or whatever. [4] The ethical criteria is honourable
behaviour, by individuals, and an individual judgement based on their own unique
pathei-mathos; not some generalized impersonal support (by The Numinous Way, or
whatever) of or some generalized condemnation of others or of some group or of
some other Way.
This is why the emphasis of The Numinous Way is on individuals - and thence on
families (on two individuals joined by empathy, loyalty and love), on thence on their
extended families (their progeny, and relatives), and thence possibly on such extended
families naturally evolving into new clans and tribes - and not on large abstractions
such as The State or the modern nation. The why and the how - the genesis - of such
new clans and tribes is entirely a matter for individuals and families. Hence The
Numinous Way being apolitical - since politics by definition depends of abstractions,
on the supra-personal; on the division of individuals into some abstract categories, on
the surrender of one's own judgement, and on using the pathei-mathos of others
whom one does not personally know.

As I tried to explain in my lengthy essay The Uncertitude of Knowing, rampant

dishonour - and suffering - exists in the world, and will continue to exist in the world
until the majority of human beings become empathic, compassionate, and honourable.
Until that future time (should it ever arise) is it justifiable to condemn those who
lacking the intimation of Reality that The Numinous Way (and similar Ways) can
provide, nevertheless and by various means seek in practical ways to do what is
honourable by dealing with dishonourable people? One example I gave in that essay
was of a Police officer.
Given that ethical criteria is of individual honour and a personal knowing - the honour
of deeds done by individuals and a personal knowing of those individuals - it is not
justifiable to condemn these individuals for belonging to some Institution (such as a
Police force) or to some group (such as Reichsfolk) since what matters is whether
their life, their individual deeds, are shown to be honourable or dishonourable. That
is, they can only be correctly judged by such individual deeds of theirs, not by their
associations or by their loyalty to or membership of something supra-personal.

David Myatt - Polemos Our Genesis

9 of 14

As I wrote in that essay:

" As Savitri Devi understood, any organization [...] by its very nature - is
causal. That is, that all such temporal organized structures are either
'against Time' or 'in Time'. No-thing 'above Time' can be 'organized', since
what is 'above Time' is a-causal. Such acausality requires, to be presenced
in the causal - to affect human beings and thus produce positive,
honourable, Change - an honourable causal form or forms or some
individual(s) inspired by the numen inherent in such acausality. That is, it
requires those who are 'against Time' - those who presence the acausal via
some nexion such as an organization, or some affective and affecting form
which manifests in some way the honourable, the numen, itself, and which
thus, to some degree at least, is numinous in and of itself, albeit always in
an imperfect way.
This need for such numinous practical and organized manifestations - such
numinous presencings and such honourable human beings who act in their
own way to do what is honourable - will remain until we human beings have
evolved, in sufficient numbers, to become a new and a different species of
being and which new species can directly access the acausal without the
necessity of some causal form or forms. That is, until we develope and use
empathy; until empathy removes the need for each and every fallible causal
form - from States, to nations, to laws, to religious beliefs, to political and
social dogma..."
In conclusion, therefore, one might be justified in saying that a group such as
Reichsfolk can to some extent encourage individuals to act with honour, counter (to
some extent) the dishonour that exists in the world, and thus can move us by its very
existence toward a more empathic, honourable, future.
Yet this, as I saught to explain in The Uncertitude of Knowing, is not some ethical
endorsement by The Numinous Way of Reichsfolk - or of such Institutions as the
Police or even of such a Way as traditional Catholicism (and so on) - but rather a
statement of the realities of the world; of how it will take centuries if not millennia (if
then) before we human beings have evolved en masse to be empathic, compassionate,
honourable beings.
Or, expressed in inexact terms, it is an understanding of how the wisdom that is
always above-Time (acausal, numinous) can often be presenced by those individuals
and some groups/organizations against-Time, provided always that such individuals
act honourably.
Which is why, of course, I wrote in the aforementioned essay that National-Socialist
Germany has been much mis-understood and was:

David Myatt - Polemos Our Genesis

10 of 14

"...an intuitive attempt to transfer the traditional collective way of living to a

modern State and nation, and thus should be considered in this context.
Hitherto, it has been judged, philosophically, by particular abstract criteria such as the happiness and the freedom and the 'rights' of the individual which in my opinion is not correct since it expresses a different,
non-individual, ethos [...] In the collective way, the individual has duties and
obligations to the community, which come before the happiness, the desires,
of the individual.
Therefore, this modern attempt to re-establish a collective, traditional, way
of life, using modern means - forms such as The State - is interesting
philosophically, existentially, especially since Blud und Boden was an
intuitive apprehension of the numinous, and then an attempt to manifest
and evolve, using such modern forms, a still living tradition devolving
around a living folk and to re-present and encourage the symbiotic
relationship that lies at the heart of the collective ethos and in the dwelling
of particular people in a particular locality who have a common tradition."
Reichsfolk was and is a continuation of this intuitive against-Time attempt, but one
involving clans and tribes instead of a modern State and nation.
Yet since these are only and ever imperfect and flawed attempts to presence the
numen, although - like a Police officer honourably acting in the line of duty and thus
in the service of some existing State - are what they bring-into-being, and more
importantly what dishonourable deeds they may in acting forestall and prevent, better
than if they had not existed/acted at all?
My own fallible personal judgement is that honourable action by honourable
individuals - whatever the allegiance of such individuals, whatever their perceived
and accepted duty - is always preferable to doing nothing when faced with someone
doing some dishonourable deed.
Thus, and again in my own fallible personal judgement, a group such as Reichsfolk consisting as it does to my knowledge of honourable individuals predisposed to act
honourably - could well possess the potential to re-establish, for some or many
people, a more numinous and evolutionary way of living than currently exists in the
societies of the West, or elsewhere. As would or might a Muslim Khilafah do, in the
lands of the Muslims.

But all this talk of Reichsfolk does not make you a supporter of Reichsfolk or a
National Socialist, does it, as many assume?
No, it does not. It makes me someone who seeks to use reason and who now applies
the results of his pathei-mathos, and the ethics of The Numinous Way, to understand
such still controversial matters as National-Socialism, past, present, and future. In
addition, I have presented above only my own fallible personal understanding of such
matters.

David Myatt - Polemos Our Genesis

11 of 14

Hence, neither I nor,

" The Numinous Way, per se - philosophically, ethically - has [any] direct
affinity with National-Socialism just as those striving to live by the ethics of
empathy have no with that particular causal form and the
abstractions that make it what it is. Rather, there is, as I have striven to
explain here and elsewhere, a criticism of it on philosophical, ethical,
grounds - but a criticism based on a rational understanding of it in the
correct context, and which understanding provides a perspective beyond
the distortions, the prejudice and the assumptions and the propaganda
about National-Socialism that exist today and have existed for over fifty
years. There is thus a reasoned judgement, deriving from truths revealed by
good, honourable, people; a reasoned judgement which, as I mentioned,
reveals the still somewhat heretical truth of National-Socialism as a curious
mixture of and . " The Uncertitude of Knowing

But as so often, I do not expect the distinctions I make - between a rational, an

Aeonic, understanding (the wisdom that is above-Time and thus acausal) and overt
political/religious support for against-Time groups or various Weltanschauungen - will
be understood, except by a few, just I will no doubt continue to be denounced and
described as a hate-filled extremist by those who, lacking fairness and reason, turn
their attention to fictional characterizations and to manufacturing fictional
dnouements for such characters and who, in the process, bring upon ancestral,
living, cultures and upon communities (folkish and otherwise), an unbearable
affliction:
,
.



.
,
.
. ,
, , :



,
,
.
:

David Myatt - Polemos Our Genesis

12 of 14

. [5]
Aesch. Ag. 379-399

David Myatt
September 2011 CE

Notes
[1] Two volumes of letters are available, covering the important years 2002-2011 CE.
The first is Selected Letters, 2002-2008 CE (compiled by JRW) and the second my
Letters to Friends, 2008-2011 CE.
[2] I used a transliteration of the compound Greek word - rather
than given a particular translation, since the term enantiodromia in my view suggests
the uniqueness of expression of the original, and which original in my view is not
adequately, and most certainly not accurately, described by a usual translation such
as conflict of opposites. Rather, what is suggested is confrontational contest that
is, by facing up to the expected/planned/inevitable contest.
As I noted in a footnote to my translation, Carl Jung who, according to my research,
was familiar with the sayings of Heraclitus used the term enantiodromia to describe
the emergence of a trait (of character) to offset another trait and so restore a certain
psychological balance within the individual.
[3] Fragment 80. My translation is: One should be aware that Polemos pervades, with
discord , and that beings are naturally born by discord.
[4] On the question of 'human rights', refer to my Uncertitude of Knowing, from which
this is a quote:
In the illustrative sense, the theory of 'human rights' manufactures a
template (a blueprint) for the individual human being, and then this
template is used to judge not only the diversity of living individuals but also
the societies which those living individuals dwell in, which in effect means
the proponents of the theory of 'human rights' manufacture another
template, in this instance for an idealized society which fits their idealized,
disconnected, human being.
Actual existing societies are then morally judged on how well they conform
to this ideal, this template - it being considered that the more they conform
or approximate or strive for this manufactured ideal, then the more moral,

David Myatt - Polemos Our Genesis

13 of 14

the better, they are. In addition, it is assumed that laws, some particular
type of government, some charters, some agencies and forces of 'law and
order', can aid the process of making a society approach, approximate to, or
reach, the ideal.
For in the theory of 'human rights' - in all variants of this theory - the
abstraction of such rights is bound to the notion of a structured society, of
some nation, some State, or some supra-national organization, being able to
safeguard, give, cultivate, or guarantee such rights, and thus such rights by
necessity require such a controlled society, and depend on the relation
which exists between that society and the individuals within it, a
relationship governed by enforceable and abstract laws.
Thus the context of such societies - and of the individuals in them - becomes
these abstractions, laws relating to them, obedience to such laws, and the
pursuit of these abstractions, these ideals, which ideals are said to be able
to produce or to guarantee 'human rights' and thus can ensure the
happiness of individuals, with the happiness of isolated, abstracted,
individuals being considered desirable if not the most important thing.
Society then becomes an un-numinous collection of mostly isolated
individuals or nuclear families who possess expectations concerning their
rights and their standard of living, and who thus pursue materialism and an
abstract happiness dependant upon how well their 'rights', their individual
demands, their expectations, are met and catered for by their society and
the government which rules over and controls this society.
[5]
For unharmed is the one
Who rightly reasons that what is sufficient 380
Is what is allotted to him.
For there is no protection
In riches for the man of excess
Who stamps down the great altar of the goddess, Judgement,
In order to hide it from view.
But vigorously endures Temptation That already-decided daughter of unbearable Misfortune.
And all remedies are in vain.
Not concealed, but conspicuous A harsh shining light Is the injury.
For, like bad bronze 390
Struck and rubbed, he becomes blackly-covered
As is the customary practice {... as a boy
In pursuit of flying game...}
Laying upon the folk an unbearable affliction.
But not one of the gods hears the supplications:
Instead, they take down those persons

David Myatt - Polemos Our Genesis

14 of 14

Who, lacking fairness, turn their attentions to such things.

Note: {...} indicates a conjectural reading of the text.

cc David Myatt 2011 CE

This essay is covered by the Creative Commons

(Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0) License
and can be freely copied and distributed, under the terms of that license.

Image Credit: Orion Nebula, NASA/HST