Notifications
Clear all

Aleister Crowley and 'magical fascism'  

Page 3 / 11
  RSS

amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 686
10/05/2011 4:51 pm  

It's a simile - and I was merely indicating that as such it failed, at least for me, by suggesting a voluntary invocation of a restricted vision. Probably not what he intended but...the words chosen give away a lot - either he has moved through life not paying much attention to how it works or the full import of words used (not a good qualification for a teacher) or his subconscious (informed by Will?) is supplying words that indicate his m.o. or actual intention.

"Trust your natural equipment" (or Do your Will, if you prefer 😉 )


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
10/05/2011 5:11 pm  

93,
Liber VII 6:14

"There are deep secrets in these songs. It is not enough to hear the bird; to enjoy song he must be the bird."

Also,

Self-evident: "Evident without proof or reasoning".

Did anyone watch the new "Fast Five" movie? It was awesome. I could tell you how awesome it was, but you really won't know how awesome it was unless you go see it for yourself.

Then there are people who just don't like those types of movies, so they may never see it as awesome, even if they watched the movie a hundred thousand times.

But to me, it's awesomeness is self-evident. I don't need anyone else to tell me how awesome it is to them, I don't need anyone's input on the matter at all really. The movie is self-evidently awesome.

There are some who would spin their whole lives trying to convince me that it was just a stupid movie, and not worth my time or money to go see it. Is it worth my time or money to listen to these people? The movie is awesome. Sure, I can see their point of view, understand it perfectly, but I do not have to live with that point of view.

Reincarnation has neither been proven or dis-proven by modern science. It has been proven to be self-evident by mystics throughout history. I think it is very interesting how people can gather on this website, from all walks of life, in all their varying expressions of human culture, and pop up and agree on many things.

Two people are born on opposite sides of the world, and have extremely different lives and world views. They both become enlightened through different methods: one by ritual, the other by meditation. When they meet, they both agree the other has become enlightened. They are able to share their experiences with the other and completely understand one another, and even work together, without one ever experiencing the others path or practices.

A third man walks up, and he tells them that they are completely fooling themselves if they think they are making actual communication with one another, and getting anywhere, as one of them speaks Greek and the other does not. They both smile at the guy, and continue on with their working, and achieve success.

You can tell me reincarnation isn't a proven fact all you want, Los. I will tell you science has not proved that it isn't. Here's a fact: I really don't care whether it's a proven fact or not. It is self-evident to me. It is something that I have always known, and will possibly always know in future lives. Whether you believe it or not is no odds to me, and it doesn't change things. I will smile and continue my Work. If one day science proves it not to be a fact, which will most likely not happen in our lifetimes, then I will have no choice but to reconsider my view.

"If science proves something wrong about Buddhism, then Buddhism will have to change." - Dalai Lama

Buddhism isn't going to change just because some random scientist has a hunch or worse (for a scientist), a belief. But if science does prove some aspect of it wrong, of course it will have to adapt. The magick and mysticism of today is the science of the future. It has been this way throughout history.

Two monks were walking through the forest, an elder monk and a young monk. They come to a stream, and a woman was standing there helplessly, trying to figure out how to cross the stream. The elder monk simply lifted her up, took her across the stream, and let her back down, then continued walking. This bothered the young monk, as monks aren't supposed to touch women. It bothered him for miles, as they continued to walk. Finally, after 10 miles, the young monk asked the elder, "Why did you carry that woman?" The elder monk replied, "I simply helped her across the stream. But you have been carrying her for the last 10 miles."

You have been carrying the same patterns for years, Los. Maybe its good for you. Maybe its part of your Will to have those patterns. Maybe you think that it is your duty to make sure everyone understands what you are so convinced about. Maybe you will not rest until everyone agrees that there is no such thing as reincarnation.

Carry it all you like. I have other things to do. Good day.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
10/05/2011 5:14 pm  
"amadan-De" wrote:
It's a simile - and I was merely indicating that as such it failed, at least for me, by suggesting a voluntary invocation of a restricted vision. Probably not what he intended but...the words chosen give away a lot - either he has moved through life not paying much attention to how it works or the full import of words used (not a good qualification for a teacher) or his subconscious (informed by Will?) is supplying words that indicate his m.o. or actual intention.

"Trust your natural equipment" (or Do your Will, if you prefer 😉 )

In more familiar terms, you could maybe equate the flashlight analogy with the "light of genius".

Night vision is blurry.

You walk into a dark room, and your night vision begins to adjust. You see something coiled in the back of the room. You think it is a snake. Curious, you turn the flashlight on and see it is nothing more than a coiled rope.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/05/2011 5:43 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
OK, let's suppose that I find Crowley's reference to jews as "parasites" offensive. How in your opinion might that be indicative of a conflict that I have with Thelema?

As I've been saying, the question is what drives all of this energy to minimize, forget, and even censor Crowley's prejudiced statements. Why is it such a big deal to people? It's not a question of even whether Crowley was right or wrong. It's why do so many people seem to expend more energy on downplaying or refuting these statements than they do on emphasizing the radical individualism of Crowley or questioning the way guilt about prejudice or race is used by our societies.

These things suggest priorities to me. Is this situation a result of most Thelemites being more committed to equality (antithetical to Thelema) than they are to the supremacy of the individual Will?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
10/05/2011 5:47 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Did anyone watch the new "Fast Five" movie? It was awesome. I could tell you how awesome it was, but you really won't know how awesome it was unless you go see it for yourself.

That a movie is awesome is a value-judgment about it, not a demonstrable fact about reality. In the same way, you might think that one of those sugary candies tastes great while I might think it tastes gross.

That’s completely different than a question of fact, which is what we’re talking about when we discuss reincarnation.

Reincarnation has neither been proven or dis-proven by modern science. It has been proven to be self-evident by mystics throughout history.

Just look at what a confused and backward pair of claims these are. You admit that reincarnation has not been “proved or disproved” and then you turn around and claim that it has been proven after all.

Clearly, the implication here is that there’s a method of “proving” claims that does not rely on evidence-based inquiry. If that’s the position you’re taking, then the next logical question is: how did you come to the conclusion that this other method actually does “prove” things?

You might as well say, “The existence of Shiva and Jesus has not been proven or disproven by modern science. But it has been proven to be self-evident by mystics!”

The question is how exactly do you come to the conclusion that “mystics” are right about this one idea that you like (reincarnation) but that mystics are wrong about a whole bunch of other ideas that you don’t like?

Again, it’s a question of how you know that you’re not fooling yourself, in the same way that millions of people fool themselves into thinking that they’re having all kinds of spiritual encounters.

Here's a fact: I really don't care whether it's a proven fact or not. It is self-evident to me.

I suspected that this was the case. You don’t care if it’s actually true or not, you’re just going to choose to believe it cause it “feels right” to you.

That’s religion for you.

The problem I have with this is that it makes an absolute joke out of the entire quest for attainment. If you seriously think that truth is whatever already “feels right” to you, then how do you expect to learn anything, let alone see through the veils of your Khu and perceive your true will?


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
10/05/2011 6:07 pm  
"jmiller" wrote:
Why is it such a big deal to people?

93!

Honestly, I don't know anyone (and I have heard and read only of a few) for whom this is such a big deal. It's a common argument of "enemies" of Thelema and/or Crowley to quote his racist or mysogynist statements, so it's heard quite often, but I really don't see any problem for most "Thelemites". It doesn't change his message in any way, and most "Thelemites" accept the at times whacky behaviour of their "prophet". So maybe it's mostly a big deal for you?

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/05/2011 6:42 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Honestly, I don't know anyone (and I have heard and read only of a few) for whom this is such a big deal. It's a common argument of "enemies" of Thelema and/or Crowley to quote his racist or mysogynist statements, so it's heard quite often, but I really don't see any problem for most "Thelemites". It doesn't change his message in any way, and most "Thelemites" accept the at times whacky behaviour of their "prophet". So maybe it's mostly a big deal for you?

I suppose it's possible that our experiences are wildly different, but I doubt that's the case. This thread alone provides plenty of examples. Besides, my argument isn't that lots of people need to be getting very upset and denouncing Crowley. Remember that part of my argument is that the attempts to censor, minimize, and "contextualize" his comments to make him not appear misogynist are driven by the same concerns as those that drive the people who emphasize denouncing his comments.

I suppose I could, like you, just write off his comments as "wacky". Or, like I said in my first post, we could take the comments seriously and try to see where they're coming from. Perhaps such an exercise can tell us something about Thelema. I think this exercise is especially important to do and perhaps especially profitable when any of his comments make us uncomfortable or angry.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/05/2011 6:54 pm  
"jmiller" wrote:
I suppose it's possible that our experiences are wildly different, but I doubt that's the case. This thread alone provides plenty of examples.

Perhaps you could give one example of someone getting upset about Crowley's comments in this thread?

"jmiller" wrote:
Or, like I said in my first post, we could take the comments seriously and try to see where they're coming from.

What's the difference between this and putting his comments into context?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
10/05/2011 7:13 pm  

93,

"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Did anyone watch the new "Fast Five" movie? It was awesome. I could tell you how awesome it was, but you really won't know how awesome it was unless you go see it for yourself.

That a movie is awesome is a value-judgment about it, not a demonstrable fact about reality. In the same way, you might think that one of those sugary candies tastes great while I might think it tastes gross.

That’s completely different than a question of fact, which is what we’re talking about when we discuss reincarnation.

Actually, it's not. The idea of reincarnation is quite subjective at this point, don't you think?

Reincarnation has neither been proven or dis-proven by modern science. It has been proven to be self-evident by mystics throughout history.

Just look at what a confused and backward pair of claims these are. You admit that reincarnation has not been “proved or disproved” and then you turn around and claim that it has been proven after all.

Proven subjectively, not proven objectively. It is subjectively true to me that reincarnation exists. This subjective truth has no bearing on any religious or metaphysical philosophies or trainings, as you keep wanting to infer. It's something I simply know, and have known, my entire life.

That does not make it proven by science. It does not make it disproven by science. Science has neither proven nor disproven the existence of reincarnation.

It is proven subjectively, and is self-evident.

Clearly, the implication here is that there’s a method of “proving” claims that does not rely on evidence-based inquiry. If that’s the position you’re taking, then the next logical question is: how did you come to the conclusion that this other method actually does “prove” things?

There is evidence for me to believe that reincarnation exists. It is not evidence that I can hand to you, other than a typed form, in a story which you may or may not believe. It's not like I can pull it out of my head and show it to you. It is self-evident.... evidently clear to myself that I have had other lives.

"Los" wrote:
You might as well say, “The existence of Shiva and Jesus has not been proven or disproven by modern science. But it has been proven to be self-evident by mystics!”

You are placing archetypes into a discussion of processes.

"Los" wrote:
The question is how exactly do you come to the conclusion that “mystics” are right about this one idea that you like (reincarnation) but that mystics are wrong about a whole bunch of other ideas that you don’t like?

What did I say they are wrong about?

"Los" wrote:
Again, it’s a question of how you know that you’re not fooling yourself, in the same way that millions of people fool themselves into thinking that they’re having all kinds of spiritual encounters.

I'm fooling myself for knowing something that I've always known. Okay, thanks for clearing that up, Los. What would I ever do without you?

Here's a fact: I really don't care whether it's a proven fact or not. It is self-evident to me.

I suspected that this was the case. You don’t care if it’s actually true or not, you’re just going to choose to believe it cause it “feels right” to you.

No. I don't choose to believe it because it feels right to me. I choose to believe it due to certain events and series of events that have occurred within my conscious awareness while unaffected by the hindrances of what you may call "belief".

If you get hit by a car, you get hit by a car. If no one else sees it, they can tell you it didn't happen, but you know that you did. Until science can explain to me that what I perceive as a car was actually something else, I will think it is a car.

"Los" wrote:
That’s religion for you.

Actually, its logic for you.

"Los" wrote:
The problem I have with this is that it makes an absolute joke out of the entire quest for attainment. If you seriously think that truth is whatever already “feels right” to you, then how do you expect to learn anything, let alone see through the veils of your Khu and perceive your true will?

What would hinder the quest for attainment is if I absolutely refused to believe anything else. Like I said, if science was able to tell me that what I experienced was not reincarnation, then I would deal with the science.

Thus far, science will tell you that people don't gain the capacity for memory until a certain age. I find this funny, as I recall events prior to my own birth, and have been able to point out the place and circumstances of my own birth, with accuracy. I have not done this from outside sources, but from acute memory of the experiences. In scientific language, I recall events that occurred to "me" before "I" existed, as it were.

When you can hook me up to a testing machine, see those events, and tell me they were thigments of an over-active imagination on the part of a newborn infant, then I will concede there are other options. Until you can, I will continue to believe that there have been other lives, there have been gaps between those lives, and there possibly will be other lives.

This has nothing to do with religion. You keep pointing to religion, but I have not mentioned one word about karma, or the Wheel, or anything of the sort.

93 93/93

P.S. It is much easier to use the quote feature when you put some space in between what you type and what I type, but I believe we've had that discussion before too.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/05/2011 7:29 pm  
"zardoz" wrote:
Perhaps you could give one example of someone getting upset about Crowley's comments in this thread?

How did this thread start?

"jmiller" wrote:
Or, like I said in my first post, we could take the comments seriously and try to see where they're coming from.

What's the difference between this and putting his comments into context?

The historical context argument gets employed as a means of avoiding or downplaying Crowley's anti-liberal comments by saying he was just a "man of his times". This, however, ignores the already active feminist and anti-racist movements that existed in his time and of which he was well aware. Think about when the demand for this "context" is made. Whenever I hear it, whether with regard to misogyny or even magic itself, it's mostly offered up to give the person a way of distancing himself from Crowley or from getting out of doing some work.


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 686
10/05/2011 7:38 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"amadan-De" wrote:
It's a simile - and I was merely indicating that as such it failed, at least for me, by suggesting a voluntary invocation of a restricted vision. Probably not what he intended but...the words chosen give away a lot - either he has moved through life not paying much attention to how it works or the full import of words used (not a good qualification for a teacher) or his subconscious (informed by Will?) is supplying words that indicate his m.o. or actual intention.

"Trust your natural equipment" (or Do your Will, if you prefer 😉 )

In more familiar terms, you could maybe equate the flashlight analogy with the "light of genius".

Night vision is blurry.

You walk into a dark room, and your night vision begins to adjust. You see something coiled in the back of the room. You think it is a snake. Curious, you turn the flashlight on and see it is nothing more than a coiled rope.

[threadjack]

😆 1) My night-vision ain't that blurry (practise, practise) - especially when you get the hang of only using the edges of your eyes (where there are more black/white receptors).
2) The last thing I'm going to do if I think I see a snake in a dark room is shine a light at it to a) annoy it and b) fill my vision with after-images. I'll look (maybe in my pockets?) for something to chuck at the 'snake' and see if it reacts.

As for this thorny reincarnation issue - neither you nor Los can say it is True/False. Either possibility is..possible (not getting stuck in the morass of which is more 'likely'..) 🙄

I refer you both to Cromwell's pithy words:
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken".
I understand that this has now been made a rule in Bayesian statistics (one should avoid using prior probabilities of 0 or 1) which may appeal more to Los' sensibilities but I like the (literal) visceral energy of the original.

[/threadjack]

We return you to a gentle discussion of AC and 'magical fascism'. Apologies.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/05/2011 9:30 pm  
"amadan-De" wrote:
As for this thorny reincarnation issue - neither you nor Los can say it is True/False. Either possibility is..possible (not getting stuck in the morass of which is more 'likely'..) 🙄

These threadjackings are dipping dangerously toward an inquiry into the nature of the 'soul.' 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/05/2011 9:41 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
A "Thelemic" government should only have the ability to provide for and enforce one's right to do one's Will... it doesn't have to make them do their Will.

It is not for the government, or even another Thelemite, not even one's Superior, to determine what someone else's Will is and how they are, or are not, fulfilling it. One is to figure out one's own Will, and do it. Thelema then, is a mode of self-governance. Therefore, a "Thelemic government" merely has to have the ability to facilitate the doing-of-the-Will of every man and woman.

Yes, with regard to governments, they can only be more or less Thelemic by degree. None can or should be so perfectly Thelemic that it will compel each of its citizens to do their true Will. It must be done voluntarily to be done in accord with Liber AL, "to abide in this bliss or no; it is no odds."


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 361
10/05/2011 9:58 pm  

I support the Galton Institute - Eugenics Society here in England, which would probably condemn me in the eyes of liberals and champions of equality.Crowley established a dichtomy of ruler and ruled, of the strong and the weak very much akin to Nietzschean philosophy:

"We have nothing to do with the outcast and the unfit...this is the Law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world."

- Liber Legis 2:17-21

Of which AC commented:

"The highest are those who have mastered and transcended accidental environment...There is a good deal of the Nietzschean standpoint in this verse. It is the evolutionary and natural view. Nature's way is to weed out the weak. This is the most merciful way too...The worst enemies of humanity are those who wish, under the pretext of compassion, to continue its ills through the generations...We want only those who can conquer themselves and their environment...the race is auto-intoxicated by suppressing the excretory process of Nature."

-'The Law is for All' pages 175-177 & 252

I do agree with Crowley that we should champion human diversity; the rich tapestry of diverse cultures, nations, peoples and races on this planet, under threat by global uniformity being pursued by plutocracy, finance and liberal democracy. Crowley, using a mystical terminology, champions variety as the key of evolution. Citing Liber Aleph - 'De Lege Motus' he states:

"Let there be no Creature upon the Earth the same. All her Members let them differ in their Qualities, and let there be no Creature equal with another. Here also is the voice of true science, crying aloud: 'Variation is the key of Evolution'...Know then, O my son, that all laws, all systems, all customs, all ideals and standards which tend to produce Uniformity, being in direct opposition to Nature's will to change and develop through variety, are accursed. Do thou with all thy might of manhood strive against these forces, for they resist change which is life; and then they are of Death."

-'The Law is for All' page 228

Crowley advocates in contrast to global uniformity a system that would ensure the satisfaction of the bodily and mental needs of all based on a recognition of differences among humanity caused by "Race, Climate and other such conditions. And this standard shall be based upon a large Interpretation of Facts Biological."

-'The Law is for All' page 229

Crowley's description of the "ethics of Liber Legis being those of evolution itself" are clearly in a sociobiological mould, decades before the development of that 'heretical' science. He went on to explicate:

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law, biologically as well as in every other way."

-'The Law is for All' page 280


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/05/2011 10:47 pm  
"Falcon" wrote:
I do agree with Crowley that we should champion human diversity; the rich tapestry of diverse cultures, nations, peoples and races on this planet, under threat by global uniformity being pursued by plutocracy, finance and liberal democracy. Crowley, using a mystical terminology, champions variety as the key of evolution. Citing Liber Aleph - 'De Lege Motus' he states:

"Let there be no Creature upon the Earth the same. All her Members let them differ in their Qualities, and let there be no Creature equal with another. Here also is the voice of true science, crying aloud: 'Variation is the key of Evolution'...Know then, O my son, that all laws, all systems, all customs, all ideals and standards which tend to produce Uniformity, being in direct opposition to Nature's will to change and develop through variety, are accursed. Do thou with all thy might of manhood strive against these forces, for they resist change which is life; and then they are of Death."

Is it possible that you are mistaking what Crowley said of individual diversity for what you are saying about "diverse cultures, nations, peoples and races on this plane?."


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4065
11/05/2011 12:01 am  
"jmiller" wrote:
These things suggest priorities to me. Is this situation a result of most Thelemites being more committed to equality (antithetical to Thelema) than they are to the supremacy of the individual Will?

Finding Crowley's reference to jews as "parasites" offensive and stupid has nothing whatever to do with notions of equality. It's just offensive and stupid, full-stop. You suggested that to find it offensive was indicative of a conflict with Thelema. I asked you why, and you just rabbit on about how egalitarianism is antithetical with Thelema.

I don't think there's anyone on the planet who would argue that The Book of the Law is a tract advancing the case for egalitarianism. What I asked was why finding these references by Crowley offensive was indicative of a conflict with Thelema.

Could you just answer the question, please?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/05/2011 12:58 am  
"amadan-De" wrote:
😆 1) My night-vision ain't that blurry (practise, practise) - especially when you get the hang of only using the edges of your eyes (where there are more black/white receptors).
2) The last thing I'm going to do if I think I see a snake in a dark room is shine a light at it to a) annoy it and b) fill my vision with after-images. I'll look (maybe in my pockets?) for something to chuck at the 'snake' and see if it reacts.

Of course you are taking an analogy quite literally. I'm sure you know that.

"amadan-De" wrote:
As for this thorny reincarnation issue - neither you nor Los can say it is True/False. Either possibility is..possible (not getting stuck in the morass of which is more 'likely'..) 🙄

Of course neither of us are. Science hasn't proven it true or false yet, and we would both be amiss to try and confirm either way.

"amadan-De" wrote:
We return you to a gentle discussion of AC and 'magical fascism'. Apologies.

That discussion is still going? Oh shit. 😳 I thought we had wandered into some other discussion within the thread, unmoderated. Chaos! Babalon! IO Pan!

I like camels.

And Crowley was a womanizer, a racist, a miser, a squander-er, a boy, a man, a mountain climber, etc. ad nauseum.

"Dost thou fail? Are thou sorry? Is fear in thine heart? Where I am, these are not."

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
11/05/2011 1:05 am  
"jmiller" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
Perhaps you could give one example of someone getting upset about Crowley's comments in this thread?

How did this thread start?

Ok, so you can't give an example of someone getting upset about Crowley's racist comments in this thread.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
11/05/2011 3:49 am  

Crowley, occultism, and eastern religion in general was hijacked by the predominantly far-left "counterculture" in the USA in the 1960's. It went downhill from there. I like Crowley better without accessorizing him with RAW, Leary, or whatever insipid pseudo "underground" pop/rock primadonnas most people are obsessed by associating him with.

As far as Crowley's philosophical (rather than technical) writings go, I always thought he was at his best when most Nietzschean and/or "proto-Fascist."

Personally I'd like to find out in detail if JFC Fuller was pulling any occult workings into line with the BUF or Nordic League.


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 361
11/05/2011 5:46 am  

Camlion...Note where I quote Crowley as stating in 'The Law is for All' that differences among humanity are caused by,

"Race, Climate and other such conditions. And this should be based upon a large Interpretation of Facts Biological."

-'The Law is for All' page 229

(Note that editions of 'The Law is for All' vary and some of the newer editions have material omitted, so references to page numbers may be different in various copies.)

Poelzig...I know that J.F.C. Fuller wrote 'The Secret Wisdom of the Qaballah' in 1937, when he was the BUF Military Advisor, bringing his occultic expertise to use to analyse Judaism. He also wrote articles for 'The Occult Review' on the themes of 'The Black Arts' and 'War as Magick'.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
11/05/2011 6:06 am  
"Falcon" wrote:
He also wrote articles for 'The Occult Review' on the themes of 'The Black Arts' and 'War as Magick'.

Have these been reprinted?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/05/2011 4:08 pm  

5 Skandhas


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
11/05/2011 4:33 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I don't think there's anyone on the planet who would argue that The Book of the Law is a tract advancing the case for egalitarianism.

J. Daniel Gunther and James Eshelman have. I've heard it stated explicitly by others.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
What I asked was why finding these references by Crowley offensive was indicative of a conflict with Thelema.

Could you just answer the question, please?

No, you're changing the question to something different from what I'm arguing. What I'm arguing has nothing to do with whether or not Crowley was right or wrong in any of his individual statements or whether or not any individual thinks Crowley was right or wrong about them. It's a question of why all of the work to minimize, justify, censor, or attack these statements?

At least one person has argued here that none of this actually going on to any great extent among Thelemites. But I find it hard to imagine that he or she has had such astoundingly differing experiences from mine. And are HB and Regardie really so insignificant in this phenomenon?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
11/05/2011 4:40 pm  
"zardoz" wrote:
Ok, so you can't give an example of someone getting upset about Crowley's racist comments in this thread.

Sorry, I should've been less subtle.

I was referring to Falcon who started this thread by trying to downplay Crowley's statements. Though I was surprised to later see him or her now state support for eugenics.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
11/05/2011 6:14 pm  
"Falcon" wrote:
Camlion...Note where I quote Crowley as stating in 'The Law is for All' that differences among humanity are caused by,

"Race, Climate and other such conditions. And this should be based upon a large Interpretation of Facts Biological."

-'The Law is for All' page 229

Yes, I'm aware of the passage, but I suspect that you are advancing primarily a position for racism from this, whereas Crowley was advancing primarily a position for individualism - which, by the way, in no way necessarily implies the modern view of 'egalitarianism.'*

Crowley was describing the incidental environment of the individual where he references "Race, Climate and other such conditions," and yes, environment influences the development of the individual, no doubt, but in no way is the individual to mistake these environmental factors (including race) for him or herself.

In fact, a clear conscious distinction between the self and the environment should be understood by each individual. The "Facts Biological" dictate that the iguana is to be green because the jungle is green and the two must be in harmony, but the iguana is not the jungle.

One is more than the embodiment of one's environment (including race). One brings one's own individual essence (true Self) and impetus (true Will) to the equation. The individual is in error when identification with race and culture is so close that individualism is smothered by these environmental elements.

* That which is unique in its manifestation is not equal to any other, although it may be identical in essence. Truth necessarily contains within itself its own contradiction.

I am the All, for all that exists for me is a necessary expression in thought of some tendency of my nature, and all my thoughts are only the letters of my Name.

I am the One, for all that I am is not the absolute All, and all my all is mine and not another's; mine, who conceive of others like myself in essence and truth, yet unlike in expression and illusion.

I am the None, for all that I am is the imperfect image of the perfect; each partial phantom must perish in the clasp of its counterpart, each form fulfil itself by finding its equated opposite, and satisfying its need to be the Absolute by the attainment of annihilation. - Liber V


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4065
11/05/2011 7:24 pm  
"jmiller" wrote:
No, you're changing the question to something different from what I'm arguing.

My question arose from an exchange you had earlier in this thread with Los. The exchange was:

"jmiller" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
You seem to be implying that anyone who thinks it was stupid of Crowley to call Jews "parasites" must think this way because Crowley has offended their oh-so-delicate liberal, namby-pamby sense of "equality."

No, I'm arguing that it's because of the belief in equality that people get so upset about Crowley's remarks and, here's the important part, engage in a variety of tactics to marginalize either the remarks or Crowley himself. And, moreover, this reflects a conflict that they have with Thelema, a conflict that the Thelemic community needs to deal with.

In your reply to Los you suggested that if anyone found such remarks offensive, it was indicative of a conflict they had with Thelema.

I therefore asked you to explain to me why finding the reference by Crowley to jews as "parasites" should indicate a conflict I have with Thelema. It was just a remark by Crowley, for god's sake. What has it got to do with Thelema? Unless, of course, you think that Crowley = Thelema.


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 361
11/05/2011 8:43 pm  

Not sure if Fuller's articles have been reprinted. Copies of 'The Occult Review' tend to be rare collector's items. He did write a book called 'The Black Arts' as well, and one entitled 'Yoga: A Study of the Mystical Philosophy of the Brahmins & Buddhists'. I also have his biography of Crowley 'The Star in the West'.
In 'Foundations of the Science of War' and 'Decisive Battles: the influence upon history and civilisation' (1939), Fuller identified the cause of war as ultimately the clash of myths, cultures and dreams, and described his military science as being based on a three-fold nature of things within the interplay between oneself and the universe, between inertia and change. Applying numerology to military science, he posited that wars are based on three modes of force: mental, moral and physical; equivalent to the mind, soul and body of man respectively. A constant Fullerian theme is that war is a creative force to secure a more perfect peace. In 'The Generalship of Grant' he described war as "creatively destructive", not necessarily 'evil', but a means of creating something better. During the war and after the war Fuller remained pro-fascist and wrote for Mosley's post-war journal 'The European' in the 1950s. In the April 1942 issue of 'The Occult Review' Fuller explained the occult basis of his military thinking:

"Both Magick and War are coercive, propitiatory and dynamic. Their purpose is to influence events. When in his manuals the soldier states that his object in war is to impose his will on his enemy, he enters the realm of Magick, and when the magickian sets out to impose his will on his victim he steps into the kingdom of war."

In a pantheistic way we can see the divine in everything; from atomic explosions and war, to beautiful things like classical music, literature, art and sculpture.

To believe that races are different does not make one necessarily a 'bigot' or a 'hater', it makes you a realist. The Galton Institute - British Eugenics Society have published academic scientific research papers on race differences, but deny allegations that they are 'racist', which has become a term of abuse to silence debate.

Here is an interesting article on Crowley, Karl Germer, Martha Kuntzel, Lanz von Liebenfels, Hess, Himmler and Hitler. Crowley's 'anti-Semitism' is also discussed:

www.parareligion.ch/2006/pro/pene.htm


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 361
11/05/2011 9:06 pm  

'The Black Arts' book by J.F.C. Fuller was reprinted by Holmes Publishing Group in 2001.


ReplyQuote
MoogPlayer
(@moogplayer)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 86
11/05/2011 10:41 pm  
"Falcon" wrote:
To believe that races are different does not make one necessarily a 'bigot' or a 'hater', it makes you a realist. The Galton Institute - British Eugenics Society have published academic scientific research papers on race differences, but deny allegations that they are 'racist', which has become a term of abuse to silence debate.

That each race is different is a fact. No one is arguing that, and saying that doesn't necessarily make you racist. What makes you a racist, is that you believe any one race is better or worse than another.

All you have said about overcoming race and environment just emphasizes to me the point about individualism trumping any argument about equality/inequality.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
11/05/2011 11:13 pm  
"Falcon" wrote:
'The Black Arts' book by J.F.C. Fuller was reprinted by Holmes Publishing Group in 2001.

Falcon, thank you.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
11/05/2011 11:54 pm  
"Falcon" wrote:
Camlion...Note where I quote Crowley as stating in 'The Law is for All' that differences among humanity are caused by,

"Race, Climate and other such conditions. And this should be based upon a large Interpretation of Facts Biological."

-'The Law is for All' page 229

This coming from a mamber of a race (white) who, in the social and political climate of the times asserted the superiority (biological and otherwise) of the white race.
I think that ill-wind has passed for the most part, or as one enlightened Lashtalian put it, "in the minds of right thinking people." There is no substantial and scientific biological evidence that one ethnicity of people is superior over any other.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
11/05/2011 11:58 pm  

Well, i hope that all the racist indivduals who are somehow attracted to Thelema by these and similar comments and interpretations in Crowley's works don't mind all the homosexuals hanging around.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/05/2011 12:09 am  

Homosexuals!? 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/05/2011 1:08 am  
"AEternitas" wrote:
I think that ill-wind has passed for the most part, or as one enlightened Lashtalian put it, "in the minds of right thinking people." There is no substantial and scientific biological evidence that one ethnicity of people is superior over any other.

The legions of world-class sub-Saharan African philosophers, mathematicians, and physicists, as well as international Chinese and Japanese basketball stars agree with you, I'm sure. 😉


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/05/2011 1:10 am  

"Anti-racism" is the new Inquisition.

Re James Watson.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/05/2011 8:12 am  

Libertarianism would seem the political ideology most compatible with Thelema. At least from the perspective of US politics, the Libertarian emphasis on the responsiblity of the individual rather than the disaster of the welfare state which is for the most part, associated with the left, in conjunction with the individual's right to choose the way they live, sans the moral constraints associated with the right. Of course, I'm no expert on Thelema, so who knows.


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 361
12/05/2011 8:16 am  

The Nazi movement advocated a doctrine of Aryan superiority. Crowley was far more discerning than that. In private comments on Hitler's 'Mein Kampf', he said that his own preferred "master class" was above all distinctions of race. (See 'Do What Thou Wilt: A Life of Aleister Crowley' by Lawrence Sutin page 377). In 'March to Sanity' by J.F.C. Fuller (1936) he wrote:

"It is utterly untrue that the British Union of Fascists is largely a racialist movement. How can it be? For its followers are fervent believers in the British Empire, and as the Empire contains scores of races, to be anti any one race is a contradiction in terms. We believe that all races are different not that one race is superior to another. If the Jews in Britain place Jewry and Zionism first, we are against them; but if they place Britain first, they have nothing to fear. And the same applies to all other races, cults and creeds. We will not tolerate an empire within our Empire, the empire of multinational finance within the British Empire, that is our challenge, not only to Jews, but to Christians."

While there are provable biological differences between the races and statistically demonstrable performance levels in various activities, variations in average IQ and so on, it does not follow that someone can be elite, or not, simply because of the colour of their skin. Even if one comes from promising genetic stock, from ancestors who have proven their abilities to be superior in performance, this does not guarantee an individual's advancement. We should only recognise an individual as elite if they prove it by cultivating their abilities to the highest extent possible, which requires the virtue of discipline.
There are elite individuals from various ethnic backgrounds and they should be recognised for the superior beings that they are. A meritocracy should replace the practice of such injustices as "positive discrimination" and "affirmative action", and other programmes designed to punish the able and reward the undeserving.We should seek to enhance the Laws of Nature by fostering the practice of eugenics, encouraging people of talent and ability to reproduce - to enrich the gene pool from which our species can grow.

As for homosexuals they too can be racist like anyone else. Ernst Roehm was the leader of the Nazi Brownshirts and a practising homosexual.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
12/05/2011 8:47 am  
"VirginiaWoolf" wrote:
Libertarianism would seem the political ideology most compatible with Thelema. At least from the perspective of US politics, the Libertarian emphasis on the responsiblity of the individual rather than the disaster of the welfare state which is for the most part, associated with the left, in conjunction with the individual's right to choose the way they live, sans the moral constraints associated with the right. Of course, I'm no expert on Thelema, so who knows.

While this view has some merit, considering that Crowley wrote that "[a]ll restrictions on manufacture and commerce to be removed. Customs to be abolished. 'Protection' merely protects the unfit", and that "[t]he laws shall be remodeled fundamentally on First Principles. They shal be simplified to the utmost: the only offence is to restrict the Will of another, but this may be done in many ways and degrees. Thus, murder restricts the primary will of a man to live, while slander restricts only that to be known accurately by his fellows: the penalties must differ accordingly." (Considerations of An Open Letter to Labour), it also does not cover all the bases, considering that Crowley explicitely advocated the welfare of mothers and children to be looked after by the State.

"Women with child, and infants, are not exceptions, as might seem. They are doing their will, the one class to reproduce, the other to live; the state should consider their welfare to be its first duty; for if they are for the moment dependent on it, it is also dependent on them." -New Comment, AL II:72.

For those who like to quote The Scientific Solution and Crowley's notion of panels of experts, it should be noted that he is at pains to point out in that very same text that he is not talking about a technocrazy where experts micromanage people's lives. Rather (particularly gaining context from his other published and unpublished writings) he is advocating for them to step in and guide the process, when there is conflict. In fact he stress that such occurrences where such guidance is necessary will become rarer and rarer in the same document.

It is very telling I think when all one can see is a totalitarian state micromanaging the lives of people when hearing the Law of Thelema applied to statecraft, particularly since it does not really hold up under a close scrutiny as far as Crowley's presentation of the politics of Thelema goes. This can be clearly be seen in the folliowing quote from Considerations of An Open Letter to Labour, a document that attempts to outline a stance on Thelemic politics by Crowley:

"Legislation shall bear constantly in mind the first principle 'do what thou wilt'; its object shall be t assist each individual citizen to accomplish his will, as education has assisted him to discover his nature. It shall not restrict any man from damaging himself on the ground that he owes the state service; or even from damaging others, so long as that damage depends on their own consent. Thus, armed robbery is to be repressed. But racing and procuring are not to be made unlawful, on the theory that those who indulge in betting and wenching injure themselves. They have the right to do so; but a right to protection against alien pressure to do so."

I think Crowley's watchfull words about the social egineering of utopianism both in Confessions as well as Magick Without Tears ought to be, if not enough to dismiss such totalitarian thoughts, at least enough to make one suspicious of them. Rather Crowley seems to have been content to rely on what the father of moderns criminology Bentham declared to be natural sanctions (the drunkard destroys himself) to be enough to steer people towards their True Will and let legislation concentrate on what he called true crime, that is actions that restricts the Liberty of other individuals.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/05/2011 9:45 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
93,

"Every man and every woman is a star."
"The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs."

I see it as a message of essence, not equality.

"Stamp down the wretched and the weak."
"Pity not the fallen. I never knew them. I am not for them."
"This is the law of the strong."
"This is our law, and the joy of the world."

Some simple quotes that come up from memory.

Thelema asserts an Atman, a Higher Self, True Will, Essential Self, whatever you want to call it. In that every man and every woman can utilize this concept, we are equal. EveryonePatriarch,

In order that the state attend to the needs of mother and child as, [t]hey are doing their will," it would be necessary to determine the will to parent?


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 686
12/05/2011 1:48 pm  
"Poelzig" wrote:
The legions of world-class sub-Saharan African philosophers, mathematicians, and physicists black or white, as well as Ivy League intellectuals capable of surviving more than 2 days in the 'bush', international Chinese and Japanese basketball stars, teetotal Irishmen, spendthrift Scotsmen, subtle Americans, intelligent natural blondes, cheerful Swedes, German stand-up comedians, polite French waiters, white people with a natural sense of rhythm, truthful Cretans, hardworking and honest immigrants, [insert further negative stereotypes until bored] agree with you, I'm sure. 😉

Fixed that for ya.

(Basketball capability as a measure of anything useful at all........boggle)

P.S. that nice chap in your avatar just gave you a really dirty look.


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 361
12/05/2011 2:24 pm  

I also think people can have pride in their own family, race, nation and individual achievements, without wanting to persecute other families, races, nations and individuals. This is human nature not 'racism'.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/05/2011 2:54 pm  
"Falcon" wrote:
I also think people can have pride in their own family, race, nation and individual achievements, without wanting to persecute other families, races, nations and individuals. This is human nature not 'racism'.

and how does 'class' fit into this? and 'privilege'?

you paint a very simplistic picture Falcon.

(btw, Mosley and the BUF that you keep bring up throughout this thread were kicked off every street in England).

maybe they weren't selling enough CD's/T-Shirts/Books?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/05/2011 4:53 pm  

Well wasn't Fuller just a silly character, thinking that a greater peace and happiness could ever be the result of war and violence. History has shown otherwise in every example.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4065
12/05/2011 5:22 pm  
"amadan-De" wrote:
"Poelzig" wrote:
The legions of world-class sub-Saharan African philosophers, mathematicians, and physicists black or white, as well as Ivy League intellectuals capable of surviving more than 2 days in the 'bush', international Chinese and Japanese basketball stars, teetotal Irishmen, spendthrift Scotsmen, subtle Americans, intelligent natural blondes, cheerful Swedes, German stand-up comedians, polite French waiters, white people with a natural sense of rhythm, truthful Cretans, hardworking and honest immigrants, [insert further negative stereotypes until bored] agree with you, I'm sure. 😉

Fixed that for ya.

(Basketball capability as a measure of anything useful at all........boggle)

P.S. that nice chap in your avatar just gave you a really dirty look.

Thanks, amadan-De. Best laugh I've had in a while.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/05/2011 5:50 pm  
"VirginiaWoolf" wrote:
Libertarianism would seem the political ideology most compatible with Thelema. At least from the perspective of US politics, the Libertarian emphasis on the responsiblity of the individual rather than the disaster of the welfare state which is for the most part, associated with the left, in conjunction with the individual's right to choose the way they live, sans the moral constraints associated with the right. Of course, I'm no expert on Thelema, so who knows.

Well put. Agreed.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/05/2011 6:11 pm  
"Falcon" wrote:
I also think people can have pride in their own family, race, nation and individual achievements, without wanting to persecute other families, races, nations and individuals. This is human nature not 'racism'.

But both pride in family, culture, race or nation, as well as prejudice against such groups, can easily become distractions from and detriments to individualism - and therein lies the danger in an allegiance to any group other than one that promotes individualism itself. Thelemites are supposed to be one such group. It's very easy to lose oneself in the identification with one's apparent origins.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/05/2011 6:13 pm  

I agree as well, the very thought of a Thelemic state operating under the presumption of being able to recognize and decide the Will of any given individual is in my opinion a grand joke on the part of Crowley. The very concept itself seems opposed to the very nature of Thelema.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/05/2011 6:41 pm  
"AEternitas" wrote:
I agree as well, the very thought of a Thelemic state operating under the presumption of being able to recognize and decide the Will of any given individual is in my opinion a grand joke on the part of Crowley. The very concept itself seems opposed to the very nature of Thelema.

Agreed. Crowley's brief expressions on the subject, as I noted above, were in anticipation of a catastrophe that would render civilization starting over again at square one. As noted by Patriarch156, they may also have been intended as transitional assistance from experts in the field and, most importantly, these fanciful utopian notions of well intended totalitarianism have been rather strangely seized upon by naysayers to discredit any ideas at all of more Thelemic forms of government.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5056
12/05/2011 7:21 pm  
"AEternitas" wrote:
... a Thelemic state operating under the presumption of being able to recognize and decide the Will of any given individual is in my opinion a grand joke on the part of Crowley. The very concept itself seems opposed to the very nature of Thelema.

And yet this is the very thing presented in the Minerval degree: "I will venture to acquaint you with the first paradox of philosophy. In order to obtain freedom to do your will, it is necessary to submit voluntarily to discipline and organization." There it is - right out of Saladin's mouth. This is how empires are built. Do you suppose anyone (any One, like you or I) might get lost in the shuffle?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/05/2011 7:25 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
"AEternitas" wrote:
... a Thelemic state operating under the presumption of being able to recognize and decide the Will of any given individual is in my opinion a grand joke on the part of Crowley. The very concept itself seems opposed to the very nature of Thelema.

And yet this is the very thing presented in the Minerval degree: "I will venture to acquaint you with the first paradox of philosophy. In order to obtain freedom to do your will, it is necessary to submit voluntarily to discipline and organization." There it is - right out of Saladin's mouth. This is how empires are built. Do you suppose anyone (any One, like you or I) might get lost in the shuffle?

What Saladin says is true though, in my experience. One cannot know and be who one was born to be while one's mind is running amok, for example.


ReplyQuote
Page 3 / 11
Share: