Notifications
Clear all

Aleister Crowley and 'magical fascism'  

Page 11 / 11
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
02/08/2011 12:44 am  
"lashtal" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
Well, apparently this essay by Crowley is of little interest to our forum contributors.

Inappropriate inference.

Perhaps we'll do a separate thread on Duty, Paul, and we can measure the accuracy of the inference.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
02/08/2011 2:22 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
"lashtal" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
Well, apparently this essay by Crowley is of little interest to our forum contributors.

Inappropriate inference.

Perhaps we'll do a separate thread on Duty, Paul, and we can measure the accuracy of the inference.

Done.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
02/08/2011 9:44 am  

93!

Since this thread was originally about AC's and other early Thelemites' alleged fascist world-view, and later about why all modern Thelemites are such stupid left-wing sissies and how a corrected poltical orientation of them might result in increasing importance, and only very recently about the duty of a Thelemite to challenge the status quo (i.e. by demanding the legalization of drugs), I am afraid that "Duty" - although surely quite interesting to study - doesn't help much with this thread, unless you consider the "proper steps to cause the revisions of all existing statutes" consist of voting right-wing (or not-left-wing) or calling for legalized drugs. One has to be quite a "fan-boy" to distil such duties from a Class E text. Why didn't he simply leave the "to take the proper steps" part out? Now we once more have to think for ourselves....

On the other hand - but this will surely pop up in the other thread - there are quite a few "classic" left themes in "Duty".

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
02/08/2011 3:35 pm  

Going purely on observation of world politics during the last century, I doubt that 'left-wing' or 'right-wing' mean much in practical terms. At their extremes they seem completely identical in effect.

One might observe that there aren't any one-winged avians or aeroplanes that can actually leave the ground.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
03/08/2011 12:04 am  
"Noctifer" wrote:
Going purely on observation of world politics during the last century, I doubt that 'left-wing' or 'right-wing' mean much in practical terms. At their extremes they seem completely identical in effect.

One might observe that there aren't any one-winged avians or aeroplanes that can actually leave the ground.

I agree, Noc. I cannot speak for Keith, I hardly know him, but I would have equal concerns if most Thelemites were of the right-wing bent. It does not seem to me that either right or left are effective forms of government, or are in keeping with the principles of Thelema. We cannot each have our own government, since we share these things in common, so we must choose the lesser of two evils, especially in America. These terms have peculiar meanings that are unique to America in some ways, of course.


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 127
03/08/2011 3:51 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
I would have equal concerns if most Thelemites were of the right-wing bent.

I think it's interesting to note the way that the anxieties tend to run in this direction, rather than the other. People are more worried about Thelema and the right than they are about Thelema and the left. This reveals an instinctual ideology at work - whether it's conscious or not.

I have noted that criticisms, even harsh ones, of Crowley - and the right in general - are approved of, applauded, and allowed. But if anyone dares to look critically at the Thelemic community as a whole...? Then people get defensive and angry. The defense of the collectivity could be seen as itself being a clear indication of a collective mindset. On the right, the group can't be criticized because it is ennobled. On the left, the group can't be criticized because it is ennobled.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
03/08/2011 4:32 pm  
"Keith418" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
I think it's interesting to note the way that [my] anxieties tend to run in this direction, rather than the other. more worried about Thelema and the right than about Thelema and the left. This reveals an instinctual ideology at work - whether it's conscious or not.

Fixed.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
03/08/2011 4:37 pm  
"Keith418" wrote:
I have noted that criticisms, even harsh ones, of Crowley - and the right in general - are approved of, applauded, and allowed.

93!

As this sentence shows, you still seem to think that Crowley "belongs" to the right. As many have shown here, this is simply not true, if only because left and right labels do not work with Crowley's views on politics. Before we are running in circles here it seems necessary to me that you show some proof for two of your main and essential positions: First, that Crowley is right-wing, and to follow Crowley means one has to be right-wing, and of course, strictly right-wing, nut just a few points here and there. Secondly, that the Thelemic community is "generally" left-wing, egalitarian and pro-status quo.

To me it seems that the Thelemic community is only left-wing from your own viewpoint, maybe because you are so extremely right-wing. If you believe that Crowley is there where you are, it would explain why the only answer for people who state that they wouldn't like to see left-wing and right-wing Thelemites, is: "People always critisize the right, why never the left?"

Nobody here ever seems to have been worried about Thelema and the right (or the left for that matter) - until you came and told us they do so.

I really thought we have been over this left and right bullshit and were only talking about the "necessary" changes of the political systems according to Crowley, or how we might understand or misunderstand him.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
03/08/2011 5:11 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Before we are running in circles here it seems necessary to me that you show some proof for two of your main and essential positions: First, that Crowley is right-wing, and to follow Crowley means one has to be right-wing, and of course, strictly right-wing, nut just a few points here and there. Secondly, that the Thelemic community is "generally" left-wing, egalitarian and pro-status quo.

He won't, because he can't. What he will do is not respond to your questions or requests, and continue "blogging" in this here thread.

He reminds me of a certain name538 that used to frequent the politics discussions...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
03/08/2011 7:05 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Keith418" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
I think it's interesting to note the way that [my] anxieties tend to run in this direction, rather than the other. more worried about Thelema and the right than about Thelema and the left. This reveals an instinctual ideology at work - whether it's conscious or not.

Fixed.

Great, but you might try fixing the quote so that reads as a quote of Keith rather than of myself, thanks.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
03/08/2011 7:15 pm  

Keith, what do you think of Jim Wasserman's political views?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
03/08/2011 7:55 pm  

Charitable apologists may see a relationship between Keith's comments and "Duty," but I certainly don't.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
03/08/2011 8:24 pm  
"zardoz" wrote:
Charitable apologists may see a relationship between Keith's comments and "Duty," but I certainly don't.

Sometimes a good dose of 'outrageous villainy' is food for thought. 🙂


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
03/08/2011 8:31 pm  

back to the topic of AC and magical fascism. I remember in one of his self critiques, he said that all his judgements and ego based tendencies were part of his lower self. I interpret this to mean racism and adhering to even another's viewpoint of earthly matters. The flesh is something that he, I, and you will forever indulge in as long as we are able to. I am of mixed ancestry and understand that if it were not for people of different dna fucking , i would not be writing this now. Opposites have a way of finding each other to create a third ( simple occult concept ) . The nazi stuff is just another skin on skin. A strict ideology that can be borrowed from and thrown off like any other. Crowley must have been using trends in politics like any other religion he synthesized from in order to fulfill the higher purpose he was here for. I do believe he had participation in the outcome of ww2. The book secret agent 666 seems worth a read .


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
03/08/2011 8:46 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
Charitable apologists may see a relationship between Keith's comments and "Duty," but I certainly don't.

Sometimes a good dose of 'outrageous villainy' is food for thought. 🙂

'Outrageous villainy' would be a nice change.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
03/08/2011 9:21 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
Great, but you might try fixing the quote so that reads as a quote of Keith rather than of myself, thanks.

I noticed that earlier this morning, too. Unfortunately the window for editing is only 10 minutes.

...And I almost did it again, seeing how I quoted your quote of my quote, and it turned out in a similar fashion. 🙂 Fixed.


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 127
05/08/2011 4:49 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
Keith, what do you think of Jim Wasserman's political views?

I think he needs to study the history of political conservatism in America and in Europe more than he has. While I admire the way he sometimes seems to want to shake things up, I wish he could incorporate thinkers like Nietzsche more easily into his work than Ayn Rand, or Pareto more than, say, Heinlein.

That said, I have discussed politics with Jim in the past and would like to do so again.


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 361
02/01/2012 1:56 pm  

I have just pre-ordered the English language edition of 'Aleister Crowley and the Temptation of Politics' by Marco Pasi. It looks most interesting with chapters including 'Political Radicalism and Totalitarian Regimes', 'J.F.C. Fuller' etc.

www.philosophypress.co/equinox/books/sh ... p?bkid=310


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5325
02/01/2012 2:31 pm  

I note its publication date is now listed as December 2012.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
03/01/2012 1:18 am  

thats really unfortunate RE. Pasi's Book, anyone have any idea what the delay is?  It seems like i have had it pre-ordered for eternity!!


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 361
03/01/2012 6:18 am  

Curiously in an email I received on 31/12/2011 from Equinox Publishing Ltd/Marston Book Services Ltd, I was informed the Pasi book would be despatched in June 2012, yet the publication date is given on the website above, provisionally as December 2012.
Contact:

books@equinoxjournals.com


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
19/06/2012 12:43 am  

I'm reading a historical account of the 3rd Reich - "in the Garden of The beast" by Erik Larson who credits a lot of his research to his readings of Christopher Isherwood, a roomate of Crowleys and a great adept in his own right.  A lot of people were fooled by Hitler and Mussolini, including the father of John F. Kennedy, Joseph Kennedy, (Ambassador to England at the time) Henry Ford, Charles Lindburgh.  It really pays to study the mistakes of your guru, and, they all make them.  Ghandi reccommended that we give Hitler everything he wanted for instance.  Great diapered pacifist Git!


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 361
25/07/2012 1:03 pm  

'Hitler and the Age of Horus' by Gerald Suster (Sphere Books Ltd 1981), argues that Hitler's philosophy was similar to that contained in Crowley's/Aiwass's 'Book of the Law':

http://www.realpeacework-akademie.info/sofia/Englisch/E-betterworld/E_DiverseScriptures/Hitler&TheAgeofHorus.pdf


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
25/07/2012 2:10 pm  
"Falcon" wrote:
'Hitler and the Age of Horus' by Gerald Suster (Sphere Books Ltd 1981), argues that Hitler's philosophy was similar to that contained in Crowley's/Aiwass's 'Book of the Law':

http://www.realpeacework-akademie.info/sofia/Englisch/E-betterworld/E_DiverseScriptures/Hitler&TheAgeofHorus.pdf

Neitzsche was an influence they both had in common.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4053
25/07/2012 3:30 pm  
"Falcon" wrote:
'Hitler and the Age of Horus' by Gerald Suster (Sphere Books Ltd 1981), argues that Hitler's philosophy was similar to that contained in Crowley's/Aiwass's 'Book of the Law':

http://www.realpeacework-akademie.info/sofia/Englisch/E-betterworld/E_DiverseScriptures/Hitler&TheAgeofHorus.pdf

This is so sweeping a statement as to be of little value, and I doubt that Gerald Suster - an intelligent man and a committed Thelemite whom I knew for many years - would have subscribed to such sloppy thinking. There are many different voices and philosophies in The Book of the Law. I doubt, for instance, that Hitler's philosophy had much in common with the first chapter. There is a very superficial resembance in terms of harshness and ruthlessness to aspects of the third chapter, but that's it.

Well, the chap with the funny moustache certainly did stamp down "the wretched and the weak" in his attempted genocide of Jews, gypsies and other representatives of what he categorised as the untermensch[/i, but I really doubt that he had a great deal in common with The Book of the Law.

"Azidonis" wrote:
Neitzsche was an influence they both had in common.

I really don't think that Hitler was influenced by Nietzsche, who had little time for anti-Semites. This was more to do with his sister, Elizabeth Forster-Nietzsche, rebranding his work to suit her own political outlook.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
25/07/2012 4:19 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Neitzsche was an influence they both had in common.

I really don't think that Hitler was influenced by Nietzsche, who had little time for anti-Semites. This was more to do with his sister, Elizabeth Forster-Nietzsche, rebranding his work to suit her own political outlook.

Best wishes,

Michael.

Yes. But I hardly believe Hitler would be so blind to not look at all of Nietzsche's work, and only listen to his sister. Evil genius, but genius nonetheless. Here is an interesting essay on the subject that confirms your assertion, as well as showing other angles.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4053
25/07/2012 11:46 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Yes. But I hardly believe Hitler would be so blind to not look at all of Nietzsche's work, and only listen to his sister.

I agree with you; I'm sure he did read Nietzsche for himself. However, it is of course a question of interpretation, in this case Hitler's. It raises questions as to how we assimilate the work of others.

For instance, in the 1970s I read a great deal of Nietzsche's work, much of which resonated with me, some of which didn't. Obviously I gave a great deal of thought to those aspects which didn't resonate with me. In the final analysis, though, I saw no reason to regard Nietzsche as an entirely, to be either embraced or rejected wholesale, whether or not that might seem cherry-picking. I have the same approach to Grant, to Crowley, to Spare, to Gurdjieff. I like most of Spare's artwork that I have come across, but there is some that I don't like.

Hitler would have selected that of Nietzsche which he liked, and rejected the rest. It's safe to assume, for instance, that he would have rejected Nietzsche's remarks about anti-Semites. Just how much might he have taken from Nietzsche? To what extent was Nietzsche an influence? Others like Wagner and Chamberlain were much greater influences, in my opinion.

MS


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
26/07/2012 5:28 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Hitler would have selected that of Nietzsche which he liked, and rejected the rest. It's safe to assume, for instance, that he would have rejected Nietzsche's remarks about anti-Semites.

Keep in mind that, while Nietzsche had a powerful disgust for anti-Semitism, he didn't express it all in one place: it's spread out over a lot of works, and some of it is found in private correspondence that wasn't published as part of his philosophical works. And, given Nietzsche's tendency to criticize everyone and everything, there are plenty of places in which he criticizes the Jews and which it may appear -- to a reader who brings to the text anti-Semitic biases or who is looking to crucify Nietzsche for being an anti-Semite -- that Nietzsche himself is an anti-Semite.

For example, take that section from Human, All Too Human that I posted in the other Nietzsche thread ( http://www.lashtal.com/forum/index.php/topic,5461.msg71083.html#msg71083 ) in which Nietzsche advocates “the production and training of a European mixed race of the greatest possible strength” in which “the Jew is just as useful and desirable an ingredient as any other national remnant.” Obviously, this is not the writing of a man who is a virulent anti-Semite. We even get comments like, "Every nation, every individual, has unpleasant and even dangerous qualities, it is cruel to require that the Jew should be an exception." But in that same section, we also get throwaway lines like "perhaps the young Stock Exchange Jew is in general the most repulsive invention of the human species."

Or take this amusing ditty from Zarathustra (translated by Walter Kaufmann, who was by far the best Nietzsche translator, incidentally):

"Once -- in the year of grace number one, I think --
The Sibyl said, drunken without any drink,
'Now everything goes wrong! Oh woe!
Decay! The world has never sunk so low!
Rome sank to whoredom and became a stew,
The Caesars became beasts and God -- a Jew!'"

If you go through Nietzsche's work, you can find all sorts of little comments like these. As I said in an earlier post on this site, these expressions really need to be understood in the context of Nietzsche wanting to piss off Christian anti-Semites by reminding them that their god is a Jew that they worship a Jew and that their religion was even more Jewish than Judaism. He never ceased to rub the Jewishness of Jesus in the faces of the Christians.

In other words, a comprehensive study of Nietzsche's work reveals what he's doing in these places, but it all needs to be understood in that wider context. It's very possible that someone just picking up "The Genealogy of Morals" will walk away with the conclusion, "Boy, this guy didn't like the Jews...no wonder he got Hitler so fired up" -- and such a person would come to that conclusion because reading one work in isolation can give a person a skewed perspective.

There's this idea fashionable in some circles -- and just to be clear, I'm not talking about anyone posting on this thread -- that every interpretation (or most interpretation) is "cherry-picking." You run into this with Crowley, by the way. More than a few times, I've had slobbering nincompoops (not naming any names) accuse me of "cherry-picking" Crowley when I do something like, for example, point out how he consistently advocated discovering the True Will by paying attention to it in the moment without the distorting influences of the mind ( http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.com/2012/05/thats-what-he-said-ii-distorting.html

Certainly, there are some writers where there is a legitimate change in position over time or simple contradiction, but in a lot of cases -- when there is a clear, consistent position sketched out that runs through all of a writer's major works -- it's not "cherry-picking" to point this out.

It's not the case that a writer is nothing more than an incoherent collection of thoughts that we can each interpret with equal legitimacy by picking and choosing. Certainly, we may legitimately say, "Here's the part of this writer's work that I find most interesting," as Michael does above, and that's perfectly legitimate. But we may not do that as a means of interpreting the writer. It would be false to say, "Hitler cherry-picked Nietzsche one way, and we'll cherry-pick Nietzsche another way, and the truth of the matter is who knows because hey it's not like there is a truth anyway."

[And just to be extra clear, I'm not saying that anyone on this thread has advocated that position: no one here has (at least not yet), but there are people who do advance such positions, and my comments are directed toward them]

But sometimes there absolutely is an answer in interpreting a writer. In this case, for instance, the preponderance of evidence points very clearly to the facts that Nietzsche was against anti-Semitism, was not a "nationalist" in any sense of the term, did not consider the Germans to be a "master race" (and far from it, went out of his way to insult them as much as he could), etc. But in order to figure this out, one has to be relatively well-versed in his entire body of work and make a systematic study of it.

One swallow does not make a summer, and one disparaging remark about Jews -- without understanding it in the proper context of Nietzsche's works -- doesn't lend credence to the idea that Nietzsche was an anti-Semite.

There's this awful tendency that some people have whereby they just read things into various works, rather than read the words in front of them.

Crowley once remarked that few people have "seen" a bullfight -- his scare quotes in the original. What he meant was that even though lots of people have physically looked upon a bullfight with their eyes, most of them were too busy paying attention to their mental representation of the bullfight -- or even their "idea" of a bullfight or their "opinion" of a bullfight -- such that they missed the intricacies of what was going on in front of them (and, more to the point from the perspective of Thelema, missed their authentic reaction to it).

Something similar happens when people read Nietzsche and assume he was an anti-Semite or when people read Crowley and assume he accepted some of the things "New Agers" today accept: they don't "read" the author in question (scare quotes)...they read their own mental conception of the author.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
08/09/2012 8:30 am  

I was reading an article about Hitler's personal library in a Smithsonian Magazine.

Evidently the Americans captured Hitler's personal library after the war.

Authors from that time period used to send Hitler copies of their books.

So, most volumns in Hitler's extensive personal library appear to be unopened, unread.

Except for this one book about liberal protestant Christianity.

The book is heavily annotated and underlined. 

The only book in his personal library that is heavily annotated and underlined.

Makes perfect sense to me.


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2077
08/09/2012 1:05 pm  
"ApeOfTheApeOfThot" wrote:
I was reading an article about Hitler's personal library in a Smithsonian Magazine.

Evidently the Americans captured Hitler's personal library after the war.

Authors from that time period used to send Hitler copies of their books.

So, most volumns in Hitler's extensive personal library appear to be unopened, unread.

Except for this one book about liberal protestant Christianity.

The book is heavily annotated and underlined. 

The only book in his personal library that is heavily annotated and underlined.

Makes perfect sense to me.

What makes perfect sense? and was the book in question?

I do not think Hitler was punishing the Jewish faith because they denied Jesus and assisted in his death.


ReplyQuote
Markus
(@markus)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 257
08/09/2012 4:53 pm  

No, it makes no sense whatsoever: Hitler is known to have been an absolute bookworm and extremely well read.

Markus


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0

ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2608
30/09/2013 7:24 am  

Hitler was a catholic anyway, so I agree with markus that that article sounds like bunkum.  He also disagreed heavily with Himmler's 'mysticism of the SS' and thought the Church should be kept intact as a social outlet , and energetic one for the 'common folk.' 
This falls in line with the topic at hand, that although Crowley liked to ingratiate himself with any political power he could, that Thelema would have been a poor fit for NSDAP Germany because it was an extremely practical (to the point of neuroses) and compartmentalised society.  There may have been pseudo science going on (re: Hoerbiggers (sp) welt eis lehre for example) but I for one believe it was far less rampant than current speculation and pop culture would have us believe.  Anyone? 


ReplyQuote
Sothoth
(@sothoth)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 16
30/09/2013 9:04 am  

Hello friends,
Thelema, may have seemingly supremacist themes which can be extrapolated to 'prove' it is fascist for the so inclined. Further, the enemy of Aleister and all his work has, and will continue to highlight this crooked thinking.
If we have felt a calling toward the Path of the Master, we must consider how we may support and honour his work; even defend it...hence progressive sites like this one.
Fortunately, the diatribes are fading. You just can't keep a good man down!
Best wishes


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2608
30/09/2013 10:37 am  

I like to think thelema takes the good points of all political ideologies, fascism included.  But you can twist anything to meet your own particular bent no matter what political belief it is. 


ReplyQuote
Sothoth
(@sothoth)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 16
30/09/2013 11:47 am  

Hi,
The notion of think what you will remains solid and true provided one has competed successfully the union with the HGA; the fulfillment of the 0=2 equation.
Otherwise, one is open to partisan passions and opinions. that change as frequently as the weather. The Truth is not dependant on how many people vote for it.
I realise however, that this may not be to everyone's taste.


ReplyQuote
Page 11 / 11
Share: