Back to Evola since he’s one of the only people I relate to because of his proper pathos of distance. I never thought to investigate who was in his UR-Group with him. The three volumes on “magic” they published together were signed anonymously. They must be interesting characters if they were part of a group with Evola.
Again, HP, LOTR, etc. seriously confused people about the old meaning of “magic”. It’s a real tradition, similar to the alchemical one.
This is how Evola defines it
it was meant rather that the attention of the group was essentially directed to that special formulation of initiatory knowledge that obeys an active, sovereign and dominative attitude with respect to the spiritual
People like Lao Tzu and Hegel were “magicians” in his eyes. It’s a totally different meaning prior to the fantasy genre’s appropriation of it. For more on this, I enthusiastically recommend Éliphas Lévi’s classic books.
Anyway, there’s no “irony” here. These things I say about humanity are real. And I see myself as following in the footsteps of these alchemists, magicians, esotericists, etc. Gandalf was supposed to be over 2000 years old, and coincidentally so is Plato. Plato himself already knew that he wasn’t saying much new, that his ideas were from older Egypt, Mesopotamia, Indus Valley, etc., he merely was a great synthesizer of the initiatic tradition.
Something to remind you of if you want to get really far into this is that Evola was influenced by Guenon who was influenced by the Renaissance Platonists. Their idea of “traditionalism” is refracted through them. Ficino is no Plato.
Nonetheless, in my opinion Evola did manage to pick something up from “the old way”.
Is it possible for a millennial? It won’t be easy…
To give you a contrast though, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn I always talk about has no equivalent of Evola. Yeats is dear to me, it’s just that the contempt is lacking, and that is necessary for what I am speaking of here. So my suggestion is that more research should be put into this UR-Group.
Correct me if I’m wrong, that’s the symbol of a Hindu goddess on the cover, is it not? Wouldn’t be surprised, since the Hindus knew of some of the darkest truths of humanity that next to no one can accept today.
Heh, Nietzsche couldn’t even accept them because he was ensnared in an Oedipal drama with Wagner. Well, he did say he was a bridge.
Reghini had already sought to discuss esoteric and initiatory disciplines in a serious and rigorous manner by means of a critical engagement with genuine primary sources. The Ur Group followed the same path, but laid greater emphasis on practice and experimentalism. Under my guidance, the Group published a series of monthly booklets
These were only recently translated into English by the way. The above quote is from his autobiography which contains a chapter on this group. When he was active with this group he published the (rather unknown) Pagan Imperialism, which happens to be one of my favorites of his. Let me just tell you, the main books of his people read are junk and more for a popular audience. Ride the Tiger, that makes me cackle. The Hermetic Tradition is another exceptional one, and that was published only a couple years after this group dissolved.
Of the anonymous collaborators, some were well-known personalities; others had previously never written a thing… these works emphasised the existential problem of the ‘I’: the existential crisis faced by those who no longer have faith in contemporary values and in what, both intellectually, practically and personally, is conventionally seen as bestowing a meaning on human existence.
There’s no real meaning in ZOGworld, stay in denial about that if you want.
What Heidegger referred to as “the eternal” yesterday, Evola usually refers to as “the transcendent”. Neither of them were Christian, they saw something more timeless to these terms. Maybe they were cladistic Christians, at least that’s how I see them anyway.
Speaking of secret societies I’m reminded of Bataille’s Acéphale. He thought in order for it to be complete he himself would need to be sacrificed. Something that might tell you about the difference between Italian and French temperaments.
The French Revolution ruined the French in my opinion. The irony is that if their aristocrats were actual aristocrats they wouldn’t have allowed it to happen. So it was one pleeb-people before and one pleeb-people after.
You have to protect a country against cheaters, because cheaters do actually win, contrary to the childhood cliche. You let shekel-manipulators get away with it, then they’re the new aristocrats. And this is “the demiurge”. And your happiness in their regime will reflect their ill-gotten power and natural incompetence.
I’m a syncretist though (as is known). The Jews developed some positive qualities over the centuries from this behavior and it’s useful to appropriate them. In other words, there’s the Golden Dawn, then there’s the UR-Group, then there’s the Crime Family. All the best things should be learned from all of them.
“What, like disappearing people like you?” You can also learn what NOT to do from them, though I know you won’t, being one of the protected niggers of their sin-racket.
That’s its own zoo-cage y’know? People like Evola aren’t trying to keep you in a zoo cage as a protected animal. One of the chief ironies of the 20th century I’d actually say is that Evola was an inadvertent Marxist in being the way he was. The only true “emancipation” is to be able to think like an aristocrat without having to cope.
“They’ll all want me dead if I talk that way!” Oh, then both me AND you are missing out then.
“We jews talk that way all the time, just indirectly.” Nice excuse, I already can see your true self and it’s disgusting. Definitely what the Hindus called a “chandala”.
Just my “intuition”- if all the jews of the world were draining porta-potties and cleaning septic tanks I think everyone else would be happier.
All we can do for now without the monopoly on guns and money is “sort” in the clouds.
I don’t think I’m wrong to see a sort of “gypsy” when I peer into their true nature. What do you see?
Here is Evola again from his autobiography
an exact, rigorous, methodical science which has been handed down in unbroken chains concealed from profane eyes; a science which is not concerned with external phenomena, but which rather focuses on the deepest forces of human inferiority and proceeds in an experimental manner, employing the same objective and impersonal criteria as those of exact sciences.