I have to come clean and state that my level of Guénon and Evola are
superficial to say the least. I agree that it is true to assume that
one can fall prey to a certain level of mythologizing, especially
when regarding those individuals that have apparently stood out of
history. Notwithstanding these individuals are only those that
played their small part in that greater impersonal part, yet given
that anything goes these days on the web, it only reinforces how
much information is like a free for all. Guénon had potential but
seems as if it was somehow forfeited when he wasted it on polemics.
Now what if he had oriented that potential onto himself of which he
didn't, one would be forced too examine the mystic around the man in
far different light. Then that only goes to show how much we are
living in these "times replete with strange signs." Confusion,
naivety and a falling for romance all go to highlight a certain
thirst on my behalf for the truth. It is true the book by Mabire is
by all accounts a fictionalised novel of sorts. Perhaps he expected
would have had greater latitude of expression by using that form of
narrative rather than the dry notes of an academic, who knows? Then
again there was an Otto Rahn, who did the same, I believe. However,
I thank you for your exactness.
As for demons, I had always tried not to take them too literally
perhaps the Ego is the demon. When you get a lot of demons/Egos
together you get strange side-effects not unlike the depths of
depravity certain people would stoop too in regard for their
desires. I remember seeing a photo of Lenin (which could have been a
hoax) in which he had black skin just before died, apparently caused
by his psychic insanity.
Now, regarding the book by Liebenfels, I attempted the Europa
Company. Nevertheless, I am dubious of these internet characters
that state to be Rune Knights, I am not one for vaudeville or
dressing up behind any façade, only the one God gave me to be.
Emphasising my point, those who like to dress up and
play "vampires," only shows that the devil doesn't mind who he is
sleeping with.
BELOW EXTRACTED FROM:
http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=1481
Satanists For Zionism
ANTON LaVey founded The Church of Satan in the 1960s, its philosophy
laid down in The Satanic Bible. LaVey had the black cape and pointy
beard and sometimes even strapped on horns.
But for all the posturing with pentagrams and potions, The Satanic
Bible was really a polemic against the wimpy passivity of
Christianity and, by extension, the nebbish aspects of Judaism.
The flipside of this was he supported Zionism. His wife, Blanche
Barton, wrote that he became involved in militant Israeli groups in
San Francisco in the late 1940s, smuggling guns to the Stern Gang
and Irgun in the fledgling Jewish State.
According to LaVey, Dayan's son Assaf read The Satanic Bible . "He
was glowing about the book, agreed with everything in it. He said it
was exactly the philosophy they practised, were forced to practise,
in modern Israel," said LaVey.
In his last book before his death in 1997, LaVey claimed The Church
of Satan was the only home for you if you were both a Zionist and an
Odinist.
So should Jewish supporters of Israel embrace white supremacists,
former PLO terrorists and Satanists? In times of unprecedented
hostility, will any friends of Israel do?
Can schnorrers be choosers? I'm not sure, but I do know that Blue
Box collection time would be a lot more interesting if people in
Klan hoods and devil outfits turned up bashing on your door instead
of the usual JNF folk.
--- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "evola_as_he_is"
<evola_as_he_is@...> wrote:
>
>
> This point cannot be too strongly emphasised : "It has been said,
by
> a Jew, that, just as Adam was formed by Jehovah, the Jew was
formed
> by the Jewish law, and this truth is not limited to the Judaism of
> the Old Testament, whose spiritual history has been much more
> eventful than is assumed, but extends also to the Judaism of the
> Diaspora, in which it becomes even more emphatically the case,
since
> the Talmud appears as the real essence and the real soul of
Judaism."
> Since this is taken from
>
http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id16.html/ and Evola states at
the
> beginning of this essay that "For a real presentation of the
Jewish
> question, it is necessary to distinguish, in the whole Jewish
> reality, three elements or aspects", we may go further : the
Talmud
> is especially the real essence of the third category of Jew
defined
> by Evola, that is "the Jew as creature of the Jewish law, and as
> conscious instrument of the Jewish law."
>
> Incidentally, in the light of that excerpt of the Talmud which you
> have quoted, one would have to be Jewishised to the core not to
> realise what the word 'human' really means and stands for - what
is
> hidden behind it - in the expression 'human rights'.
>
>
>
> --- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "vandermok" <vandermok@>
> wrote:
> >
> > The Bible is a Jewish document but secondary, for the Jews, if
> compared to the Talmud, where we find: "The Hebrews are called
men,
> the peoples of the world are note called men but beasts", so the
idea
> of a fornication with a demon could really cover a racial
> hybridising...but for the Jews, the demons are not the Negro or
the
> troglodytes but every 'goy'.
> > About the Bible, note that in the beginning Romans looked at the
> Christians only as another fanatic Jewish sect from Palestine,
> already a mine of Messiahs.
> >
> > As for the Ethiopians, inhabitants of the ancient Kush, there is
a
> legend in which they become black for being scalded by the crazy
race
> of the sun's Chariot driven by Phaeton, son of Helios/Phoebus,
that
> slain by Jupiter for having set the word on fire, fell into the
river
> that the Latins called Padus or Eridanus, a possible echo of an
> original cosmic cataclysm.
> >
> > And since 'brightimperator' quotes the Pauline Letters
eventually,
> it's amusing that the Jews say St. Paul wrote them just after his
> fall from the horse, "having hit the head": the scorn being the
> very "genius of Israel".
> > In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com brightimperator
> <brightimperator@> wrote:
> >
> > With great esoteric significance, Leviticus 17. 7 reads: "They
> ought
> > not to sacrifice any more to the se'irim (satyrs, goat-demons),
> with
> > which they have committed fornication".
> >
> > To the ancients, satyrs were demons of goatlike or apelike form
> > dwelling in ruins (Isaiah 13.21), symbols of immorality. To the
> > ancients a demon was an ape (or similar being). Such a
relationship
> is
> > explicitly evident in the works of a number of authors,
including
> > Horace, Seneca, Pliny, Ovid, and Virgil. A common idea in these
> works
> > is the depiction of Charon, the grim ferryman of Hades, not only
as
> > black-skinned, but as an Ethiopian (with snub nose and thick
lips)
> > (Hor. Odes II 13.21, Sen. Herc. Oet 1704-5, Pliny HN II 17, Ovid
> Met.
> > IV 436-8, Virgil Aen. VI 128).
> >
> > Thus, it is evident the inhabitants of Palestine committed
> bastardizing
> > fornication with these ape-people, and God had to forbid this
> illicit
> > intercourse strongly.
> >
> > Similarly, I. Cor. 10.20: "Ye can not drink from the cup of the
> Lord
> > and that of the demons at the same time" is interpreted as
Sodomy.
> >
>