This site is an archive of Diffractions Collective material from 2013 – 2023
For 2023 and beyond see

Interview conducted by Dustin Breitling with Members of Gruppo Di Nun.

Dustin Breitling: Could you speak to the genesis and what prompted the formation of Gruppo Di Nun?

High Priestess of Nun: The project of Gruppo di Nun emerged both from a deeply personal journey and from the urge to find new and unexplored paths of political resistance. On one hand, the genesis of our idea was a process of individual nigredo, during which we were haunted by the prospect of cosmic death and extinction. In the face of annihilation, the tools and practices of traditional magic, with their anthropocentric view of the cosmos, revealed themselves as unsuitable in dealing with the unsettling inhuman murmur invading us from the depths of time. From a political point of view, we were motivated by the realization that the right has often used, and still uses, magical tools in order to obtain consensus and shape its ideology. We refer, in particular, to the use of meme magic by the alt-right in recent years, and the recurring reference to authors such as Julius Evola by increasingly influential fascist thinkers, like Steve Bannon and Aleksandr Dugin. We believe that this resurgence of magic in right-wing environments calls for a radically anti-fascist demonological guerrilla, based on a foundational shake-up of the principles of the Right-Hand Path magical tradition. This radical opposition to fascist magic also echoes in the name we chose for our group. The name Gruppo di Nun mirrors Evola’s Gruppo di Ur, whose writings are a prime example of alchemical ultra-fascismUr, the upward triangle and rune of fire, representing human Will triumphing above the chaotic abyss of matter, was changed to Nun, deity of the primeval waters in Egyptian mythology and kabbalistic sigil for the ocean of infinite recombination.  

D.B.:  How does the Manifesto relate and distinguish itself from what is conventionally understood as Magick through persons such as Osman Spare, Crowley, Carroll, Grant? Do you derive influence from these important figures or who has played a formative influence on your understanding of Demonology and Magick? Finally, how does your understanding of Demonology/Magick serve as a potential vector or tool for praxis and political struggle?

High Priestess of Nun: The main divergence between the views presented in our Manifesto and the ideas channelled by Thelemic Magick is that we reject the narrative of the existence of a unified magical path. While the Thelemic view of Aeons suggests natural continuity and convergence, we see instead that the Right-Hand Path has imposed one hegemonic cosmology through the use of violence and oppression. In this, we were strongly inspired by the CCRU’s theories on the Architectonic Order of the Eschaton and the One God Universe, where the focus is on a magical warfare between a reactionary project of cosmic unification and a multiplicity of lemurian forces of disaggregation. In many ways, Chaos Magick has inherited the Thelemic dogma on the existence of “one” true magic, and, we believe, hides behind a superficial eclecticism that does not challenge, and possibly even endorses, traditionalist fascist magic. This, for instance, emerges clearly in Carroll’s ideas on the existence of a unified spiritual tradition that encompasses both western and eastern thought, similarly to what many celebrated Right-Hand practitioners, such as Eliphas Levi, have argued in the past. Despite our strong belief that Thelemic Magick is ultimately a Right-Hand Path doctrine, we are fascinated by Crowley’s focus on Love as a universal propeller, especially as it is developed in Parsons’ Liber 49. While, in Crowley’s work, Love is always balanced by Will, thus reconstructing the kabbalistic duad in accordance to the law of equilibrium, in the Book of Babalon Love appears as a non-dual, overflowing force that, as “a factor unknown and unnumbered”, cannot be trapped in a balanced duality.

Another aspect that deserves to be mentioned is the introspective dimension of much, if not all, of twentieth century magic. Starting from the late nineteenth century, magic is increasingly described as a science of consciousness, in contrast with more ancient traditions, such as alchemy and astrology, that involved a direct, and often problematic, relationship with the outside. This focus on the human mind, and its enhancement through practices such as concentration and meditation, often results in the celebration of consciousness as a God, even when the individual self is annihilated. In our view, proposing the existence of an anthropomorphic and immortal ultra-consciousness, accessible only to the few through an esoteric path of illumination, is not only delirious, but inherently fascist. For this reason, we wish to leave twentieth century magic behind, and propose a new millennial – and millenarian – magic, that, instead of barricading itself inside the boundaries of human consciousness, reaches beyond the human through all means available. Because of this, our magic has been widely inspired by scientific thought as a divinatory tool that can allow us to reach into the inhuman depths of matter, both theoretically, particularly through Boltzmann’s statistical thermodynamics, and experimentally, by rediscovering the experience of the chemical laboratory as a new form of anti-human alchemy.

Claudio: Personally speaking, my knowledge of the occult is mainly informed by the works of Spare, Grant and Carroll but also by gnosticism, H.P. Lovecraft and anti-cosmic black metal. I’ve always been too lazy and solitary to engage with ritual magic or numerology – although I find geomancy and divinatory practices very intriguing. My interest for “swift magick” originates from practical necessities: how to radically shift perspective in less than two minutes? Tarots, I-Ching and pendulum, for example, offer a fast magical service (once mastered): they are ancient technologies, based on worldviews that are spatio-temporally distant from ours. However, it’s very important to understand that they are almost completely useless if you want to predict the future or speak with the dead, because they’re just medium machines that works on empty generalities, heuristics and empty affects (change, danger, doubt, fear, sadness). The point is to enter into this gray area (between the blackness of the unknown and the whiteness of knowledge) through different doors. Sigils, oracles and divination tools are both gnoseological and theoretical devices, built to understand the world. So this kind of Magick happens in a correlation area and is potentially far more dangerous than ritual magic – you are naked before chaos (the pendulum in particular should be used carefully, because people tends to give it too much credit, starting to feel “bad things” very quickly). In short, this is one of the fundamentals of Chaos Magick: to multiply your perspective, identities and approaches to reality (see, for example, Philip Dick’s The Man in the High Castle or the brilliant Hellblazer comic series). This is a truly political (but also anti-political, non-philosophical and anti-practical) issue. Demonology and demonical contagion always refers to atmospherical multiplicities so, if you realize that you’re already many (Legion, “Zos-Kia”), you’re halfway there. I’d also like to suggest a very interesting work on magick and epistemology: SSOTBME by Ramsey Dukes.

High Priestess of Nun: As demonologists, we think of ourselves as vessels for a swarm of voices from the great outside. Our political perspective is breaking the circle of fascist Right-Hand cosmology, short-circuiting the man-God machine and unleashing a pandemonium of centrifugal inhuman forces. We do not wish to substitute a hierarchy for another, but to build circles without centers, that explode towards the outside instead of reaching for convergence. We believe that this can be realized through an understanding of Love as a non-dual, universal drive towards the entropic disaggregation of all structures, that produces an increasing multiplicity of combinations. 

D.B.: Your “A Manifesto for Revolutionary Demonology” challenges the doctrine of Right -Hand Path Magick, could you expand a bit further behind what you regard as the ‘hallucination of the Right-Hand Path’ that maintains an illusion of symmetry, equilibrium, and perpetuates an extant strata of dominant hierarchical forces, how do you deem its influence trickling into “social organization potentially debases into Nazi-Fascist dictatorship, a white ethnostate or a meritocratic society dominated by the Cisgender Heterosexual White Male.” Also, why did you choose to not further your engagement with the Left-Hand Path doctrine?

High Priestess of Nun: In our Manifesto, we built our main argument around the idea of equilibrium. Equilibrium is a pivotal concept in traditional Right-Hand magic, starting from medieval alchemy, where it is formulated in the famous dictum contained in the opening of the mythical Tabula Smaragdina: “What is below is like that which is above, and what is above is like that which is below.” This underlying idea of symmetry recurs in all of the most important symbols and sigils employed in the magical tradition, from Solomon’s seal, constructed from the intersection of an upward and a downward triangle, to the image of the Ouroboros swallowing itself eternally, and, most importantly, in the Kabbalistic Tree of Life, sustained by the two Pillars of the Temple that converge in Kether, the crown. The relevance of equilibrium in the magical tradition is related to the idea of absolute reversibility, that is, the notion that the past is entirely preserved in the future, and the future completely contained in the past, forming a never-ending circle in perpetual motion, where the active principle (Will) and the passive principle (Love) are eternally chasing each other. This duality is only resolved in God (consciousness), that can be thought as the static point within the circle in which this motion converges. This view of the cosmos as an equilibrium of polarities is rooted in our cultural substratum to the point where it is perceived as natural and, therefore, sacred and immutable. We believe, instead, that this notion of equilibrium conveys a clear political agenda, and that, far from being a perfect theory of everything, it contains arbitrary – and even absurd – assumptions. The absurdity of circular cosmology is, put simply, that it relies on perpetual motion, and thus denies the evidence of time as a material drive towards disintegration. This is expressed in the patriarchal project of progress as conservation and accumulation, which, being absolutely unsustainable, can only be realized through time sorcery. But what is even more interesting to us is the social and political outcome of this arbitrary cosmology, that results in the establishment of what we may define as cosmological sexism: gender is not only a set of more or less reasonable social rules, but it is elevated to an inescapable axiom underlying reality, that poses polarization as a boundary condition for the existence of the universe. This same sexism or polarization can be easily applied to different social and political contexts, including the idea of the few dominating the many, legitimized either by God, race, class or “personal merit”.  This view is particularly insidious, because it radically naturalizes the passive position of “the feminine”, without necessarily debasing it in explicit terms; oftentimes, it even celebrates it as a generating and nurturing force. In our latest piece, Catastrophic Astrology, we have reconsidered this process of polarization in the light of Mesopotamian mythology, where the birth of the cosmos is often described as emerging from the dismembered body of an Original Mother, slain by a masculine Sun-God. This dismemberment symbolizes a brutal domestication of some untamed, unconstrained and anti-human force: a rebellious matter that fights against the cosmic divide et impera of Solar patriarchy. 

In many ways, our dogma may be considered as an expression of the Left-Hand Path. From the perspective of traditional magic, our approach could be defined as Humidum Radicale, since our practice focuses on a passive and ecstatic acceptance of Love as the Great Propeller. Nonetheless, the Left-Hand and Right-Hand paths in traditional hermeticism are symmetrical and lead both to the same destination, converging on the same goal, that is the becoming-God of the individual practitioner. Our practice is centrifugal in nature and lacks convergence; this sets us apart from what is traditionally intended as Left-Hand magic. Another aspect of our criticism towards the Left-Hand Path is related to the direction taken by modern-day Satanism. From my experience, the vast majority of Satanic cults are either focused on a short-sighted anti-clerical rationalism, or they promote a radical individualism that offers some extremely problematic political outlooks, including social darwinism. We are not interested in the view of Satan as some Promethean hero of humanity because we do not need another human God; rather, we are more fascinated with anti-human demons, such the Beast described in the Book of Revelation.

D.B.:Do you also affirm there is a critical and important distinction between what i.e.Mark Fisher contends in his White Magic that Magic “like propaganda, proceeds by operating within a given system, moving in line with its despotic programming in order to ‘organize’ and ‘install’ words and languages with the goal of capturing potentially divergent movement” and Sorcery, by contrast, “operates at a much higher — or perhaps, more properly, lower — level. It marks an opening to the Outside, the zone where the Outside pours into the interior. Instead of organizing words into programs, sorcery entails “words melting into Things, and building sensitive side-communication Meshworks that spread”? If so, what disagreements would you maintain or how would you rather expand the distinction? Furthermore, how do you envision your work engaging with the notion of “demonology as hyperstition, and we rely on the belief that demonic entities can enter the material plane to feed and multiply through human vectors?” 

Claudio/Schism: White Magic and Black Magic (the right-hand path and the left-hand path) are tied to each other by a double thread. The coincidentia oppositorum, in this case, can be deduced from the common orientation of these two currents towards the achievement of a “utility” which, at the same time, represent also a “profit” of some kind. It is some sort of silly mirrors trick, identified by Nietzsche in Genealogy of Morals: the ideas of good and evil can acquire different values, depending on the subject to which they refer – they are, therefore, perfectly interchangeable with each other. Both refer to a relative gain or loss, attributable to an hypothetical subject. Morality depends on its very nature from this perspectivism, as can be deduced from its prescriptive character (“do not steal”, “do not kill”, or, on the contrary, “steal” and “kill”); for this reason morality always ends up to protect particular interests, although it covers itself through a veil of universality. Profit is defined by the attainment of positive knowledge or personal gain, as well as by the possibility of drawing a cosmic order that grants the prosecution of human activity (an aspect that is fundamental also to modern, or rational, satanism).

Chaos Magick and time-sorcery, instead, concern, first of all, a pure concept of experience: an “anti-praxis”, that is to say an exploration of one’s own power and of the possibilities of the world – beyond any pre-established norm, beyond any law, prudence or common sense. Therefore, “evil”, properly understood, corresponds to an expenditure, to a fall into the unknown and to uselessness (as Georges Bataille noted). This distinction, which previously appeared to be moral, reveals its economic origin, leaving us free to move beyond this particular metaphysical framework. The destruction of every established order is a secondary effect, perhaps even an epiphenomenon, of exploration in itself (and the same can be said of any useful or positive effect related to it). For this reason this question concerns a beyond of the principles of economy and accumulation, not a mere “transvaluation of values” – it is not a matter of passing from the right-hand path to the left-hand path. 

As Plato stated in his Ion, this kind of “blind exploration” – unhinged by any rigid parameter or reference – has all the characteristics of demonic possession or “mania” (madness or frenzy), an event in which one loses his Self and grants access to a (non)state of unconsciousness, drifting into the anarchy of unconscious. Plato, Antonin Artaud, Bataille, Burroughs and even Nick Land have identified poetry, literature, fiction, spectacle, sex and music as the main vectors of contagion of this madness of “non-reference”; they’re different modalities of chaos-channeling. The main point here is their linguistic or perceptive ambiguity, the lack of a strong codification, the impossibility of fully integrating them into a system – order always has some problem with sex, shows and  music but also with waste of precious time. Also, we can find in all these fields feeble regularities but no immutable law, therefore there is no possibility of elaborating a technique – a closed set of diagrams able to explain a reference system (the World) and exactly predict his trends. Therefore, any kind of operation (theory or praxis) that propagates or falsely asserts the possibility of constituting, without any ambiguity, this kind of hypothetical technique\discipline can be defined White Magic or ICE magic. The demonic and the chaotic, on the contrary, represent a dimension which is external to the order built by humans but which, at the same time, is capable of violently breaking into this order, upsetting its fundamental axioms (as we can see in classical ritual magic, with the breaking of the magic circle). Demons are shadows of doubts, witches flights (or UFOs), simulacraor weird affects (“I feel I’m becoming a mouse or a cockroach”). This is the case, for example, of Descartes demon: white magicians can fight chaos and establish a shared “reality” only posing the idea of God – the apodictic tutor of order and self-consciousness. But the concept of God is not an a-priori knowledge, being produced a-posteriori by the hypostatization of our self-identity. Finitude, transgression, excess and imperfection are essentially demonical: they belong to the realm of un-being and becoming. In this sense, there is some sort of demonical presence even in the simplest of actions, such as deciding the position of a door: when is it too far to the right or too the left, too high or too low? This is an aesthetic judgment, devoid of obvious causal links and ratio (measure)or, perhaps, completely devoid of them (an example taken from Wittgenstein’s Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics). So, the refutation of the validity of the economic principle does not make us merely arbitrary: to be revealed is the arbitrariness of the world itself, its groundlessness and the similarities it presents with games (in regard to its construction by humans but also to its self-construction’s faculty aka Nature). In the frame of speculative materialism this is the core principle of Hyperchaos, led by a principle of unreason. To fall into this chaos – into this “vast abrupt” – means to be invaded by it and, in some ways, to die at the eyes of the World – abandoning one’s identity, knowledge and every moral distinction between good and evil. But the story does not end here: demonology must also be able to identify demons, maintaining a weak link with the regularities of logos. The risk with channeling these entities onto the material plane is that, sometimes, they desire to become gods – accumulating followers, establishing a police or even an inquisition, blocking every exploration and freezing the universe into ICE (“Everyone must become a mouse”, said the King of Mice). So, you need to be able to recognize and destroy these kind of demons at birth, before they can annoy or, of course, killing you.

D.B.:According to Rhetttt and Claudio Kulesko the “stepping out of our present condition into an alien state of absolute Outsideness and community with the Unknown” at some level Barbarism is the chronopolitical vector, which moves from the Outside towards the Inside” why do you select the figure of the Barbarian as a vehicle for ‘a-subject’ to come or perhaps ‘absubject’? Do you see the Barbarian as a destratifying force perhaps on a continuum with the concept of ‘The War-Machine’ as espoused by Deleuze & Guattari? Is the Barbarian a figure that catalyzes and epitomizes an exit from a certain prison of Modernity?

Claudio: I’m a huge fan of R.A. Howard! Beyond this, it’s easy to see how modern myths (such as the cyborg, the ecological apocalypse, the sprawl but also the archetypal myth of hyper-modernity, the AI) are directly linked to a dark double, that ooze into their marvellous side: the (literal or allegorical) end of humanity. This is the mysterium fascinans et tremendumof the sacred: to make the human sacred, to bring it before the glory of apex-enlightenment, you have to sacri\fice it. This is the meaning of The Judgment (the Apokalyps) in tarots: disclosure of knowledge, revelation (of the numinous). Every myth can turn itself into religion, as every demon can virtually turn into a god. To make up an Apokalypse you just need this: a bunch of gods and angels and a solid system of beliefs. Modern West’s myths turned themselves into some sort of {sacred} religion of artificial intelligence and full automation – tracing their own Apokalypse through the Artilects hyper-war and ecological catastrophe. The barbarian, on the contrary, is resolutely post-apocalyptic (as you can also see in popular culture, i.e. in the Mad Max movie series, in Fist of the Northstaror in the Falloutfranchise). As two of the main theorists of barbarism, Nietzsche and Leopardi, have repeatedly stated, the barbarian exists in a weird temporal undertow: he stands before the constitution and after the fall of civilizations but, indeed, he’s negatively defined by his outsidness to an existing state of things. He\she\them (or, maybe, it) – The {abstract} Barbarian – is the outsider and the alien par exellence, because of this relative outsidness towards territorial and cultural boundaries, major languages, political activity, normative practices and even sedentary time-circuitries (calendrics and progressive-conservative time). Nevertheless, it must be clear that the barbarians are never the direct cause of a civilization’s collapse, as some racist scum want you to believe – each civilization draw its apocalyptic diagrams by itself. 

In this specific case, the Deleuzoguattarian nomadic-war-machine represents the “event”, an abstract ideogram that offers general coordinates to thought: there is a mercantile war-machine, a digital war-machine, a partisan war-machine (as recently noted by A. Culp), a barbaric war-machine and even an armored war-machine. Each of them practices nomadism in relation to certain sedentary concretions – thus the abstract generality of the concept of war-machine. As I’ve written into Insurrezione Gotica(Gothic Insurrection), the peculiar outsidness of the {abstract} barbarian towards major languages, written codes and politics (I know! This is the exactly opposite of Haraway’s cyborg, but I don’t think they should totally reject each other) makes him, in the eyes of sedentaries, more akin to animals, plants or even commodities! But it’s exactly this kind of inhuman kinship that makes the nomadic barbarian the sworn enemy of civilization but, also, the true protagonist of the revolt against the “modern world” aka neoliberalism, statalism, nationalism, socialism, capitalism, marketism and fascism. Furthermore, barbaric affects are as much hybrid as barbarian ontology: they’re ambiguous, unclear and obscure, both in regard of their contents and their objects (we got spirits, anthropomorphic animals and plants, animism, demiurgism and also demonism). At the same time, this fragmentary (ap)perception is deeply aware of the immanence of chaos and death, of the possibility of a world-without-us (that was or that will be) and of a world-in-itself that is not only for-us humans but also for non-human entities. So, this kind of “empirical patchwork” stretches indefinitely towards differences and multiplicities – maybe even toward a glimpse of the “Vision-in-One”. As Nietzsche wrote in Beyond Good and Evil: “[Barbarians] were more COMPLETE men (which at every point also implies the same as “more complete beasts)”. Humanity has been organized and “organicisized”, striated by laws, boundaries and identities, becoming INCOMPLETE – obviously this is a myth, a very dangerous myth, but has become necessary to live dangerously. There’s another important reference for this conceptual character: E. Cioran, who in his The Fall into Timerecognized the (Nietzschean-Spenglerian) continuity between the skeptic (he who can reverse the “death posture”) and the barbarian : both are nihilists, destroyers of concepts, gods and worlds.

Rhett: In my work the barbarian is a very literal political metaphor: the barbarian represents a form of anti-political enmity which comes from the outside of the established order of the polis. In other words, the barbarian is a straightforward representation of what Land once called Outer-politics, politics which tend towards exit, escape and, I add, sabotage and insurrection and not forced unification, statism and unity (even though I clearly reject the weird libertarian positions Land seems to endorse these days). The barbarian is a revolutionary catastrophe incarnate, which stems from the catastrophe of modernity, that accelerationism diagrams so well, but does not perfectly coincide with it. Furthermore, the barbarian gives an almost mythological and digestible representation to the “block everything, let the unimaginable in and just let go” anti-politics of the Invisible Committee and cyber-nihilism, which are the paradoxical and conflicting backbone of my current political stance. The barbarian is metaphorical simplification of Blanchot’s disaster, which disarticulates the real-as-homeostasis and lets presence-as-chaos-and-irreversible-loss in, practicing what Blanchot, again, called “initiatory realism”.

Also, and more importantly, I believe that the barbarian is a sort of deadly symptom, which forced itself unto me from without via Claudio’s friendship (which has truly been a sort of unavowable community) and the nigredoI underwent together with the various members of the Gruppo di Nun; it is almost an unconscious prefiguration of a destitution so palpable, totalizing and annihilating I lack the vocabulary to describe it. It is, in a sense, a mystical and apophatic apparition of the monstrosity of the “letting go” proposed by U/Acc Neo-Futurism and by the insurrectionary anti-politics born out of the world-at-war we live in. As a figure, it has no positive conceptual content, but it forces a soaring and disarticulating vision unto the reader, coalescing the digital neo-millenarian folklore which feeds this weird theory scene into one single image, into a vector of positive unsovereignty and affirmative violence and cruelty against the familiar, the usual, the human. It might not be a pleasant vision (imagine my barbarian as Rimbaud’s barbarian, imagine my barbarian cutting himself to pieces and drinking blood out of a horse pumping vein), but it’s definitely a vision. “The world that hardens up around us is just a collective perception of homeness. A constructed safety which oftentimes sinks into boredom, depression and exhaustion of the imagination. Fixation and attachment are embedded in the society of spectacle. To reach for another outside, this real needs to destabilize, to unhome, the body needs to nd a new human, to unself. We need to work with our presence, with unknown kinds of presence, “to lose our third leg” – the one that we were not aware of having. Become disorganized matter, blobs of chaos, slime molds. To unvertebrate ourselves and give the vestibular over to vertigo, become molusks. To grow “thousands of cilia blinking”, to become “protozoic, pure protein”. Or let the completely unimaginable take over.”(A. Popa, The Second Body and Multiple Outside)

D.B.:The key notion of time that two of your members Rhettt and Claudio have addressed here concerns the ‘cancellation of the future’ Could both of you underline your take pertaining to temporality and its relation to political struggle? At some level there appears to be overlap regarding notions of Tragedy or animating a ‘Neo-Dark Ages’ as a vector that reactivates un-actualized past(s) or lost futures tossed in the trash-heap of the present. Secondly, do you draw influence from the revival of Georges Sorel who conceives of myth-making as a vital resource in political struggle? As I understand he doesn’t regard Myth-Making as a recapitulation or reproduction of a historical reality, past or cultural vision, rather as a means to orchestrate and breed a new militancy and political struggle in the present. Could we regard Myth-Making and ‘Opening up to the Outside’ as a synonymous effort?

Claudio/Schism: The past is alive (or, better, un-dead), that is to say that is deeply concealed and camouflaged through the virtuality of chaos – historical information cannot be dissipated and is always accessible in his “mutant” or “spectral-vampiric” form, the first as variation on a theme (the American Revolution and the French Revolution) and the latter as a nostalgic or lethal parody of the original (i.e. Nazi/Fascism or Russian nihilism in relation to German Philosophy). In itself, the present is an ephemeral fiction, a threshold between his birth, the past, and his death, the future – it’s (literally) the space in which chaos plays its games of contingency and necessity. In this sense, only death and Being belongs to the future: at the threshold passages the regularities of the world are confirmed (producing the coherence of a past-present) or dissipated (revealing chaos). Nonetheless, this game of dice will eventually destroy and devour every past and every present. Death is the only ruler and the only subject of desire. So, unlike Q. Meillassoux, I think that, if you pose the concept of hyperchaos, there’s no contradiction in saying that relative becomings, local conservation and relative/absolute staticity are modes of a more fundamental absolute becoming (hyperchaos or the “un-grund”). Another very important issue is the reintroduction of space into time, and the subsequent overcoming of modern philosophy – an operation that would propagate chaos into each molecular particle of the world. “Neo-Dark Age” concerns the West and his peculiar bitterness (as Cioran noted) and not, for example, Asia or Africa, who are characterized by their own spatio-temporal dimensions, although they are certainly entwined with our. In my opinion, this obsession with time and recent (or even highly hypothetical) technologies you found in accelerationist circles is part of a right-wing (or right-hand path) hegemony: all eyes on the West, “Look at us, we are the future!”. This is a strident contradiction: why universalize time and relative cultural traits (unifying them into an Order or a Unit) while proclaiming to be some kind of “multitude” or fragmentary assemblage? This ethnocentric fallacy is absent in the CCRU Writings, so it should be dated at least to the second wave of accelerationism (the one who spawned L/Acc and R/Acc). Honestly, I don’t care about future – less than ever about a O.G.U. future, the one Burroughs described in The Western Land– although I really appreciate the work of accelerationist thinkers like E. Berger, V. Garton, Nick Land, Obsolete Capitalism Collective and many others. Nihilism is reaching its zenith, fascism is rising again (reaping countless victims), so we need this kind of theoretical instruments to survive and fight in the midst of ruins.

Regarding Sorel, I haven’t read nearly anything at all by him but I remain very skeptical about myths and or mythopoesis. We’d may be able to fixate any kind of belief into ourselves or into a collective body, but who is going to freed us from this {paranoid} fixations? I’m faithful to a nietzschean “pathosof distance” – nonetheless, playing with myths is plenty of fun.   

“Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternally creative source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too.”

Mikhail Bakunin

D.B.:What is on the horizon for Gruppo Di Nun?

High Priestess of Nun: We see a black dawn rising: it is the twilight of the God of Man. As we watch this catastrophic sunset, we will continue working to open our circles to let the outside in, and prepare for the coming insurrection. We are currently working on elaborating a more structured ritual, that will focus on demonic invasion as a subversive path of resistance, on the model of the ancient Sabbath of the witches. When the time has come, you will know. 

“On brothers’ breasts the conqueror treads;
  The hills with fear are thrilled;
  From her proud heights Rome totters to her fall.
  And smilest thou upon the dismal scene?
  Lavinia’s children from their birth,
  And all their prosperous years,
  And well-earned laurels, hast thou seen;
 And thou wilt smile, with ray unchanged,
  Upon the Alps, when, bowed with grief and shame,
  The haughty city, desolate and lone,
  Beneath the tread of Gothic hordes shall groan.”

Giacomo Leopardi/Poem 6

Diffract this //

2 responses to “Under the Sign of The Black Mark: Interview with Members of Gruppo Di Nun”

  1. Isaiah lane Avatar
    Isaiah lane

    Very intriguing and would love to learn more. Is there anyway I can get in contact?.

    1. Diffractions Collective Avatar
      Diffractions Collective

      Hey Isaiah, feel free to reach out at Looking forward to hearing from you!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.