Notifications
Clear all

Aleister Crowley and 'magical fascism'  

Page 4 / 11
  RSS

Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 347
12/05/2011 8:02 pm  

Mentioning Fuller doesn't mean I support his politics.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/05/2011 12:01 am  
"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. πŸ˜‰

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.

Thank You! Yes, the possibilities are endless! πŸ˜‰

One doesn't have to stereotype others, people do a good enough job stereotyping themselves.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/05/2011 6:33 pm  
"Poelzig" wrote:
One doesn't have to stereotype others, people do a good enough job stereotyping themselves.

There is some merit to this observation, unfortunately. Some people take comfort in behaving like a mere caricature of the culture into which they were born.


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 347
13/05/2011 8:36 pm  

It is evident that anti-Semitism was widely held by prominent figures on both the Right and Left in the past. Sir Winston Churchill a freemason, attacked "Jewish Bolshevism" in an article in the 'Illustrated Sunday Herald', on February 8th, 1920. And Russian Anarchist Mikhyl Bakunyin attacked "the Jewish world of communism and high finance; Marx and the Rothschilds" in his pamphlet 'Polemic Against the Jews', published in 1870. Bakunyin also wrote poetry with Satanic themes, as did Karl Marx.
Ironically, Karl Marx despite his Jewish origins, himself considered capitalism to be "Jewish" in spirit, that the bourgeoisie were imbued with the "Jewish spirit" and that "Jewish" and "bourgeois" had become synonymous. (See his pamphlet 'On the Jewish Question', 1844).
The Soviet Union became increasingly hostile to the Jews under a campaign of 'anti-Zionism' in the post-war period, and Stalin had planned to deport Jews to Siberia prior to his death.

So if Crowley was 'anti-Semitic' and 'racist' were his views so out of place at the time? Even if he was, he was still a great magickian and occultist and very influential to this day.


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 686
13/05/2011 11:08 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
"Poelzig" wrote:
One doesn't have to stereotype others, people do a good enough job stereotyping themselves.

There is some merit to this observation, unfortunately. Some people take comfort in behaving like a mere caricature of the culture into which they were born.

On the other paw, and even more unfortunately, considerably more people take comfort from only relating to others through the stereotypical bigoted caricatures provided by their cultural environment.

I write as someone with the dubious honour of having been physically attacked at various points for being (in no particular order); 'American', 'English', 'French' and 'Scottish'. None of which I consider myself to 'be'. Load of nonsense.
Pox on all your houses :mrgreen: .


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/05/2011 5:47 pm  

"Although Crowley was later convinced that Hitler knew of the ideas of Liber Legis, there’s little evidence that Hitler even read the Book, let alone was influenced by it. Despite all those stupid shows on the history channel about the β€œoccult” connections of the Nazis, I find it very difficult to believe that Hitler would have accepted anyone – especially an eccentric Englishman – as β€œmystical master” of the world."

I remember reading somewhere in Leni Riefenstahl's writings with regards to Liber Al that both she and Hitler had read it and were followers. Leni at the time was trying to get Hitler to adopt the Book as the sacred book of the Reich, but Hitler seemed to need more persuading. I will try to find the source again and post it here.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
15/05/2011 7:49 pm  
"kamutef" wrote:
I will try to find the source again and post it here.

93.

Please do. Because it is the first time that I hear about that and cannot imagine she ever wrote something like that.

Thanks

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 347
18/05/2011 1:46 pm  

I recently read 'Lucifer Rising' by Gavin Baddeley (Plexus Publishing Limited, London 2010). It has chapters on Crowley and alleged 'occult-fascists' like Boyd Rice, Michael Moynihan, Nikolas Schreck, and the Luciferian Light Group.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/05/2011 2:47 am  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
Interestingly enough (considering Guenon's dismissal of Crowley as counter-initiatory and what I consider to be an inherent incompatibility between the two systems, Crowley's one actual contribution to actual political discouse has been in the form of Traditionalism (third way as referenced by Falcon) in the form of he far right and accomplished politician in Russia Dugin:

[...]

Well - Aleksandr Dugin's National Bolshevik Party also performed public recitations of excerpts from Liber AL along with some rather bizarre sort of hand puppet theatre performance that was meant to illustrate magical principles during their election campaign for the Russian parliament in 1995.


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 127

ReplyQuote
thiebes
(@thiebes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 164
25/05/2011 5:36 pm  

I agree with Keith418 when he says that we should turn to the writings of Aleister Crowley to discover how Thelema treats the questions of racial prejudice and class consciousness. For example, in his commentary on Liber AL vel Legis, he writes the following:

"...each human being is an Element of the Cosmos, self-determined and supreme, co-equal with all other Gods."

"Therefore you have an infinite number of gods, individual and equal though diverse, each one supreme and utterly indestructible."

"Although each star has its own number, each number is equal and supreme. Every man and every woman is not only a part of God, but the Ultimate God."

And in Magick without Tears, he writes that class consciousness is based "... upon the universal sense of individual weakness. ... It’s fear at the base of the whole pyramid of skulls." and "The submergence of the individual in his class means the end of all true human relations between men." He also says that denying class consciousness the right to exist is the only way to reconcile AL II:25 and similar verses with I:3.

While AC makes it plainly clear with the above and other statements that class consciousness and racial prejudice are based in fear and therefore contrary to the Law of Thelema, nevertheless as individuals we must be free to enslave ourselves to fear and have racial prejudice. "The slaves shall serve."

Again from Crowley's commentary: "The sole test of one's lordship is to know what one's true Will is, and to do it."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/05/2011 6:24 pm  

Well put, Thiebes and Crowley, well put.


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 347
26/05/2011 9:22 pm  

Occultism as a tradition is both elitist and irrational; in contradistinction to democracy, which is egalitarian and rational. The irrational is that which is evolved from instinct, feeling, intuition, the blood, tradition, ie. the Unconscious - that which is truly daemonic in the Greek sense. The rational is that which is derived from Conscious speculation - generally transient theory, superficial, and giving rise to ideologies such as communism, capitalism and liberalism, all of which seek to repress the emanations of the Unconscious.

Nietzsche wrote in 'Twilight of the Idols' that,

"Christianity, growing from Jewish roots represents reaction against the morality of breeding of race, of privilege - it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence: Christianity the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of Chandala values, the evangel preached to the poor and lowly, the collective rebellion of everything downtrodden, wretched, ill-constituted, under - privileged against the race - undying Chandala revenge as the religion of love." (Crowley wrote a pamphlet entitled 'Vindication of Nietzsche' endorsing the philosopher).

I now accept that Crowley was probably 'racist' at times - he described Jews as "parasites" and "vermin", said that "only the lowest type of Negro savage in Africa accepts Christianity", that we should "treat the Chinese of the lower classes with absolute contempt and callousness" and stated that "the Indian student" should be prevented from coming to England to protect "white women", etc, etc. (Churchill called for "control of coloured immigration" in the 1950s). It seemed to be a feature of Crowley's character and Weltanschauung. On other occasions he wrote of the Law of Thelema as being "the sole cure for political, social and racial unrest", that "Universal brotherhood and the greater moral principles, independent of personal, racial, climatic and other prejudices, naturally formed a background which would assure individual security and social stability for each and all" and that "racial prejudice, passion and the Yankee fear of the Negro gave rise to the sinister rise of the Ku Klux Klan, which by methods of secret society boycott and assassination, was as objectionable as Roman Catholicism and freemasonry", which suggests an anti-racist position, and Crowley intended Thelema for all races of the Earth.

Judaeo-Christianity is the slave religion as opposed to Nietzschean elitism. Thelemites should revel in the strength and solitude of the Overman-Superman, while pouring scorn on democracy and the herd. What is 'good' is whatever strengthens; what is 'bad' is whatever weakens. Crowley's Aeon of Horus is an age of Force and Fire where the strong (who have realized their true Will) shall rule over the slaves (whose weakness causes self-enslavement). Thelema is a fighting creed. It is now vital for Thelemites to declare our holy war upon the vestiges of the Old Aeon; to clear the way for the New, the aeon of Force and Fire, of the Crowned and Conquering Child.

"There is no need for the fraud of divine right or the cant of democracy. the right of the ruler to rule depends solely upon the scientific proof of his fitness to do so...Evolution makes its changes by anti-Socialistic ways. The "abnormal" man who foresees the trend of the times and adapts circumstance intelligently, is laughed at, persecuted, often destroyed by the herd; but he and his heirs, when the crisis comes, are survivors...Every new measure of the most democratic and autocratic governments is Communistic in essence. It is always restriction...Consider the outcrop of dictatorships, only possible where moral growth is in its earliest stages, and the prevalence of infantile cults like Communism, Fascism, Pacifism, Health Crazes, Occultism in nearly all its forms, religions sentimentalized to the point of practical extinction...Democracy dodders. Ferocious Fascism, cackling Communism, cavort crazily all over the globe...They are abortive births of the child, the New Aeon of Horus...Fascism is like Communism and the dictators suppress all art, literature, theatre, music, news, that does not meet their requirements; yet the world only moves by the light of genius. The establishment of the Law of Thelema is the only way to preserve individual liberty and to assure the future of the race...Ignorance of the true meaning of this new Law has led to gross anarchy. Its conscious adoption in its proper sense is the sole cure for the political, social and racial unrest which have brought about the World War, the catastrophe of Communist Russia, and the threatening attitude of China, India and Islam...And when the trouble begins, we aristocrats of freedom, from the castle to the cottage, the tower or the tenement, shall have the slave mob against us...The absolute rule of the state shall be a function of the absolute liberty of each individual Will."

(Crowley quotes from 'The Law is for All' and his Introduction to the 1938 edition of 'The Book of the Law')

Note that the Master Therion proposes to enlist in a Thelemic revolution all classes, from noblemen to workmen, who abhor servility. The rulers will be those who have discovered and pursued their True Will, and who pursue a "consistent policy" without being obliged to pander to the whims of the mob "the natural enemy of good government." The strong shall have joy and the slaves shall serve in the New Social Order of the future Thelemic State.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
26/05/2011 10:33 pm  

93,

"Falcon" wrote:
Occultism as a tradition is both elitist and irrational; in contradistinction to democracy, which is egalitarian and rational. The irrational is that which is evolved from instinct, feeling, intuition, the blood, tradition, ie. the Unconscious - that which is truly daemonic in the Greek sense. The rational is that which is derived from Conscious speculation - generally transient theory, superficial, and giving rise to ideologies such as communism, capitalism and liberalism, all of which seek to repress the emanations of the Unconscious.

Why stop at the Unconscious?

"Falcon" wrote:
Note that the Master Therion proposes to enlist in a Thelemic revolution all classes, from noblemen to workmen, who abhor servility.

Is abhorrence necessary? Suppose said Thelemites have "evolved beyond" ideas like abhorrence?

The rulers will be those who have discovered and pursued their True Will,

Assuming part of their True Will is to oversee this idea.

and who pursue a "consistent policy" without being obliged to pander to the whims of the mob "the natural enemy of good government."

Assuming they can all agree on a consistent policy.

The strong shall have joy and the slaves shall serve in the New Social Order of the future Thelemic State.

I should hope these great mountains of men, whoever they may be, don't use the word "state".

Of course, these ideas are presented by Crowley and others as ideas only, creative bursts of mind centered around a pre-designed theme. Application is another story.

Since we are talking about ideas, I think it might be a good idea for whoever picks these "rulers" to make sure the rulers are in themselves actual Thelemites, and not products of the pop-occultism form of Thelema.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 686
26/05/2011 10:41 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Assuming they can all agree on a consistent policy.

I would so love to be a (gad)fly on the wall at that board-meeting. πŸ˜†


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 347
27/05/2011 9:41 am  

In 'Confessions' Crowley wrote that he penned an article for Austin Harrison's 'English Review' in support of the fascist revolution in Italy, with the help of "a representative of Fascismo in London, from whom I could obtain documentary material for my article...For some time I had interested myself in Fascismo which I regarded with entire sympathy...I was delighted with the common sense of its programme." (Crowley's article was never published much to his disapointment, but the representatives was). Crowley later wrote anti-Mussolini epigrams, and Julius Evola, the radical traditionalist, occultist, critical supporter of fascism and inspiration for today's far-right, became disillusioned like Crowley, with Mussolini's compromises with the Vatican.
Have Crowley's pro-fascist writings and article, and anti-Mussolini epigrams survived, have they been reprinted?


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 501
27/05/2011 11:03 am  

The anti Mussolini material was published in 1923 as a pamphlet called Songs for Italy (two versions). This was reprinted several times in the 1990s. AC also contributed a line or two to Authors Take Sides on the Spanish War (1937 reprint 2001) where he is 'for the government' but anti Franco.

OK


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 347
27/05/2011 11:57 am  

Many thanks.

'Songs for Italy' (1923) by Crowley:

www.darkbooks.org/pp.php?v=777662271

'Authors Take Sides on the Spanish War' (1937) Contribution by Crowley:

www.100thmonkeypress.com/biblio/acrowle ... rowley.pdf


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 347
30/05/2011 5:25 am  

'The Cult of the Superman' by Lebanese diplomat Abir Taha mentions Crowley, Gurdjieff, Jung, Guido von List, Karl Maria Wiligut, Hans Hoerbiger, Rudolf von Sebpttendorf leader of the Thule Gesellschaft and Lanz von Liebenfels founder of the Ordo Novi Templi (Order of New Templars), as "direct or indirect spiritual mentors of the Nazi movement".

I doubt though whether Crowley was much of an influence through Martha Kuntzel of the OTO and NSDAP.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/05/2011 10:57 am  

ONT is the Order of the New Temple, just to avoid confusion.
Besides, does N. Goodrick Clarke's book 'The Occult Roots of Nazism' mention Crowley at all?
I highly doubt that, although I really should check out. In my opinion it is the most authoritative work on what you name 'spiritual mentors' of the Nazi movement.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/05/2011 5:15 pm  
"FraterLucius" wrote:
ONT is the Order of the New Temple, just to avoid confusion.
Besides, does N. Goodrick Clarke's book 'The Occult Roots of Nazism' mention Crowley at all?
I highly doubt that, although I really should check out. In my opinion it is the most authoritative work on what you name 'spiritual mentors' of the Nazi movement.

Just in the last chapter of the book as a synopsis of Trevor Ravenscroft's Spear of Destiny


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 347
31/05/2011 4:01 pm  

"According to Hitler, Pretzsche was himself present when Guido Von List attempted to materialize "the Incubus" in a ritual designed to create a "Moon Child". There is not a shred of evidence for such rituals. The nature of the rituals Ravenscroft described indicate the inspiration of Aleister Crowley, especially with regard to the creation of a 'Moon Child'.

-'The Occult Roots of Nazism' by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (pages 223-224)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
31/05/2011 4:54 pm  

Yeah Falcon, the way you put it it seems as though Goodrick Clarke is making these points, while he is merely summing up Ravencroft's wacky statements, as jcyn had pointed out. On the same page (223, Tauris Park Paperback, 2005), GC goes on to write about Ravencroft: 'This jumble of links between twentieth-century occultism and ninth-century Sicily was crowned by the claim that Hider believed himself to be the reincarnation of Klingsor-Landulf. Ravenscroft concluded that Eckart and Haushofer initiated Hitler into black rituals designed to establish contact with evil powers.'

I wouldn't think Goodrick Clarke would admit to any link between the occult origins of Nazism and Aleister Crowley.


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 127
04/06/2011 11:40 pm  

Part of the problem Crowley's aristocratic individualism presents is that while it condemns the "herd" values of those like the Nazis (who have few supporters in today's society) it also condemns the herd, or identity politics agendas of "historically oppressed" minorities and other groups as well. It's easy to cite Thelema in order to dismiss fascists and Nazis. But who will risk angering liberals and leftists who want to use ethnicity, class, and other points of "solidarity" to advance their own agendas? Likewise neocon "patriots" often point to Crowley's own expressed patriotism as a rationale for their own feverent nationalism.

Yet if minority, and/or conventionally approved, "identity politics" activists remain unattacked and uncondemned by Thelemites, then these omissions invite the suspicion that Thelemic individualism is only opposed to "identity politics" when espoused by those deemed socially unacceptable - and that when groups approved of by mainstream liberals and the left indulge in herd morality, it is not the same thing. if Thelemites fail to attack every offender for their herd values, including those insisting on their status as victims, then they are going to be accused of being the agents of one herd group vs. another.

Crowley rightly condemns any who use herd thinking to bolster their group at the expense of others. But is that the only kind of motive that lies, for example, in any "racist" remark of observation? Was Crowley's own "lapses" - for example - merely a way for him to advance his own group's interests, and its customs, morality, and values, and to dominate over other groups - because he felt "weak"? Was Crowley himself a victim of this "herd thinking" tactic? Or did his value judgments originate in another place?

In Crowley's time, people were made to feel guilty and condemned for being gay. Now, people are made to feel guilty and condemned for being racists, sexists, or homophobic. One guilt-trip has replaced another, but if Thelema is opposed to guilt trips, then shouldn't those pushing guilt be critically examined by people who are supposed to be opposed to all guilt trips? If we accept that it's wrong to be guilty about being gay, then why would we insist that people should feel guilty about being racists or sexists? If all Thelema does is reinforce conventional morality, it is not needed at all - since most other forces in contemporary society also reinforce these values. Thelema only has value if it challenges conventional thinking. Being opposed to racism ain't that "cutting edge" any longer.

The critical test, as I see it, for Thelemites, is not how well they stand up to racists - since our society condemns them outright anyway. Instead, the test comes when we see how well they can stand up to anti-racists who are, quite often, pushing an agenda of one kind of identity politics or another to replace the racism of other groups. Making Nazis and fascists unhappy is no great act of bravery - since the majority (herd) already hates them. But being willing to criticize the identity politics of popular groups, or those that have broad sympathies? That's another story.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 4493
05/06/2011 3:57 am  
"Keith418" wrote:
Part of the problem Crowley's aristocratic individualism presents is that while it condemns the "herd" values of those like the Nazis ... it also condemns the herd, or identity politics agendas of "historically oppressed" minorities and other groups as well.

Most "historically oppressed" minorities, and other specific groups as well, became or become or are becoming oppressed, ridiculed, segregated and persecuted because they radiate some aspect of superiority or fear. In general, the common herd fears "occultists" of any kind, fuelled no doubt by Saturday Night at the Horror Movies.

A prime example would be the Hebrews, who openly claim they are "the chosen people." They adopt specific customs and maintain strict genetic bloodlines in order to keep their separate status from the others well-defind and distinct. Very Old Testament in its manifestation. Modern sabras in Israel tend to think these concepts are old-fashioned and antiquated and they laugh at the Orthodox Jew. Anyway, the rest of humanity, acting along the lines of the second, territorial, neurocircuit, moves in to level this openly-proclaimed and displayed attitude. Such cause and effect can be avoided by following the old Rosicrucian rule to "wear the robe of the country in which you are travelling," or by observing the Japanese mantra: "The nail that stands up gets pounded down!" Blending in is always easier [in the effects department] than Standing Out.

The rest of your well-presented post examines the subject in great depth. It may well serve some readers as a basis for examing their own concepts of Yama and Niyama. And maybe their motivations as well.


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 127
05/06/2011 5:42 pm  

"And according to His Original Nature will that law be shapen, so that one may declare gentleness and quietness, being an Hindu; and another fierceness and servility, being a Jew; and yet another ardour and manliness, being an Arab. Yet this matter toucheth the mystery of Incarnation, and is not here to be declared."

- Liber B vel Magi sub Figura I: 14

The book here is, I'll remind people, a "Class A" text. Directly, clearly, and unambiguously, Crowley is attributing the messages of these figures to their "original nature" - a nature which is described in racial and ethnic categories. If Thelemic individualism wipes away these group and hereditary distinctions, then why would we find categorical descriptions like this in... in... in a "Holy Book"?

If anyone's racial and ethnic background aren't important, or if it's always totally mutable, why make these kinds of distinctions in the Holy Book? Why link anyone's "original nature" to their ethnic group if it isn't important? The verse is saying Hindus are quiet, Jews are servile, and Arabs are manly. You can argue all you want about these categorizations, but no honest person can deny that categorizations, based on ethnicity, are exactly what they are. You may want to insist that your ethnic background has nothing to do with your "original nature" but that sure isn't what this book is saying. It is saying the opposite.

Committed anti-racists are usually committed egalitarians. Are they going to accept Crowley's anti-egalitarian message, also found in "Magick Without Tears"? I don't think too many of today's anti-racists will be happy with his dismissal of egalitarianism, nor will they be happy with Crowley's "non-racist" ideas of a "master race." Will the Thelemic community go up against these people and risk making them unhappy? Or will it seek to gloss over the problem in an attempt to appease the dominant point of view?

People are usually quick to point out that AC was "a product of his time." This is a way to wave a hand over his comments and teachings that we don't like. But these same people seldom stop to think that they too are products of their own time, and that their anxieties and conflicts are often rooted in the morals and values of their own time too. To suggest that we have reached a kind of glorious, final, and objective plateau, and that our evaluations and reactions to Crowley aren't influenced by the society in which we live, seems conceited and fatuous.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
05/06/2011 10:45 pm  
"Keith418" wrote:
But who will risk angering liberals and leftists who want to use ethnicity, class, and other points of "solidarity" to advance their own agendas?

I do so, often, to the annoyance of many self-identifying "Thelemites." πŸ™‚

As for from quoting Liber I, especially a single paragraph out of context - or really at all in a general discussion such as this one, it is good to remember that this is very specialized sort of Holy Book, as are several of the others, imo.

Other than that, you make some very interesting points, Keith, which stand out in this thread in that they remain relevant to things as they are today, which is always good. Grandfather's European fascism is not really an issue today, beyond a few fringe lunatics.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
05/06/2011 11:39 pm  
"Keith418" wrote:
People are usually quick to point out that AC was "a product of his time." This is a way to wave a hand over his comments and teachings that we don't like. But these same people seldom stop to think that they too are products of their own time, and that their anxieties and conflicts are often rooted in the morals and values of their own time too. To suggest that we have reached a kind of glorious, final, and objective plateau, and that our evaluations and reactions to Crowley aren't influenced by the society in which we live, seems conceited and fatuous.

Why do you assume, Keith, that we are so thick that we cannot work out that, just as people in the past were to some extent products of their time, then so are we to a similar extent products of our time? The only thing to be wondered at here is your apparent conviction that this has occurred to few of us other than your august self. It's a bit obvious, isn't it?

I doubt that many people imagine that we have reached a (kind of) "glorious, final, and objective plateau", or that our reactions aren't influenced by the society in which we live.

Still, straw dogs make easy targets, innit?

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 127
06/06/2011 12:27 am  

Micheal,

I've seldom heard anyone, after seeking to write off AC's unhappy-making comments with a "product of his times" line, also remind their readers or listeners that our objections to him might also be dependent on the "times" in which we all live. If your experiences are different, more power to you. As it is, I don't think my criticism is firing shots at a straw man. Instead, it may be a reminder that our criticisms of him might seem just as "objective" and "natural" to us as his contemporaries' objections to his teachings seemed natural and objective to them.

Who knows? In 100 years the people of that time might find totally new and different things to object in the Thelemic canon that might seem quite strange to us, but will appear as "common sense" and "objective" to them.

Crowley's individualism is, in my estimation, unassailable. The "good" part of that position is that he rightly points out that only weak people need groups to feel stronger and more secure about themselves - see the (in)famous chapter in MWT. We see this with the kind of losers who are typically attracted to white racist groups - neo-Nazis, the KKK, etc. But the "bad" part of this individualism, as I have pointed out before, is that it gives no aid, nor any comfort, to those in "oppressed" groups of any kind - self-proclaimed "historic" victims of prejudice and bigotry - who are seeking to find in group solidarity the same kind of "strength in numbers." Crowley doesn't valorize ANY group. Neo-nazis don't get a pass, but neither do the folks in "La Raza" nor, as it happens, Zionists. They too are seeking "strength in numbers" and they too are working a variation on "vicarious atonement."

This "bad" part of the formula is what I would like to draw people's attention to. Modern Thelemites have no problem telling the KKK rednecks that Thelema is an individualistic formula that has no time for their racism. They do, on the other hand, seem to have a problem with the second part of this equation. Therefore, that's the part we need to spend time with. After all, telling off despised racists at the lowest rung of society is pretty easy. Telling off activists in "victim" groups? Man, that's a whole 'nother story, ain't it?

"As soon as you put men together, they somehow sink, corporatively, below the level of the worst of the individuals composing it."

- Crowley

Opposition to racism can come from a belief in human equality. It can also arise from an individualistic disinclination towards strategies that center around group strength and domination. These two oppositions, however, are rooted in very different, and opposing, sets of values. It's easy to tell redneck racists that they are feeling individually weak and are seeking some kind of compensatory "strength in numbers." But who is going to say that to a member of an "oppressed" minority group who is advocating for "affirmative action"? A true individualist would certainly have contempt for any and all group-strength strategies - no matter who was engaged in pursuing them. The Thelemic community is great at invoking "Thelemic anti-racism" when it comes to Nazis and other white losers. It's not so great when it comes to reminding those in oppressed minority groups of the bogus and debilitating nature of their "group survival" strategies and "identity politics" too.

I am also puzzled about what the proper, "Thelemic" response is to someone who doesn't like any group - and see them all as suffering from the same "lowest common denominator" problem Crowley pointed to in Magick Without Tears. If someone were to tell the people in the Thelemic community that this "sinking below the lowest level" phenomena is true for KKK members, no one would argue with them. But if someone insisted that this "corporate descent" also applied to Jews, Latinos, African Americans, Native Americans, Asians, the Romany, handicapped people, etc.? What would people say then?

What looks like a restatement of basic Thelemic individualism is, I think, often merely a smokescreen for reimporting liberal, democratic values back into Thelema. The emphasis is always on attacking the pretensions of one group (white racists) instead of attacking the corporate behavior of all groups ("saintly" minorities included). When the tactics of "protected" and sentimentalized minorities are spared any harsh scrutiny and condemnations, we can immediately discern a crystal-clear agenda. We may immediately measure how sincere people are in their "Thelemic beliefs" by noting how willing they are to shoot at contemporary liberal society's "sacred cows." Until they show us they are willing to make liberals and "nice middle class people" very unhappy, we can conclude they aren't very sincere.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
06/06/2011 12:36 am  
"Keith418" wrote:
We may immediately measure how sincere people are in their "Thelemic beliefs" by noting how willing they are to shoot at contemporary liberal society's "sacred cows." Until they show us they are willing to make liberals and "nice middle class people" very unhappy, we can conclude they aren't very sincere.

Very, very well put.


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 686
06/06/2011 1:27 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
"Keith418" wrote:
We may immediately measure how sincere people are in their "Thelemic beliefs" by noting how willing they are to shoot at contemporary liberal society's "sacred cows." Until they show us they are willing to make liberals and "nice middle class people" very unhappy, we can conclude they aren't very sincere.

Very, very well put.

I assume that the option of shooting at 'Thelemite society's' sacred cows is also to be actively encouraged.

All these 'individualists' desiring to be in the grouping 'Thelemite' and even *shudder* joining groups of like-minded types...oxymoronic or just another herd?

What of the belief that AC had "reached a kind of glorious, final, and objective plateau" - surely a prerequisite for anyone writing 'Holy Books' - is that open to the same harsh examination and dismissal?


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 347
06/06/2011 12:53 pm  

Here is an interesting perspective by the Social-Darwinist industrial musician Boyd Rice, of the group known as NON. (This is not an endorsement by the way, but I think his view is a valued contribution to the debate):

"Nature is typified by strength; humanity by weakness. Nature adheres to an immutable order; humanity to an ever-increasing chaos. Nature recognizes no equality at any level of its order; humanity preaches to an all-pervasive equality and freely hands-out unearned "rights", in an attempt to make its doctrine a living reality. In short: humanity is Democratic, nature is a Fascist...Life is one unending war-a war in which the strong devour the weak. The destruction of one underwrites the existence of the other. So it is throughout the natural order. Grasping this simple, pivotal, brutal truth is the only basis for understanding the primal law that defines nature's eternal Fascism; and her eternal wisdom...When man truly discovers nature's will dwelling within his soul, and his actions become an expression of that will, nature's power becomes his power. Every pure action ever undertaken by man represents an instinctual yearning for this union and this power. Every act motivated by purity of impulse inevitably results in serving the will of nature. The wolf which attacks a lamb and rips it to shreds, serves both nature and himself. Likewise the lamb thus ripped apart is also serving nature. This is but one example of primal law in action. It is based upon the balance and interaction of creative force and destructive force...Don't shrink from nature's brutal perfection. Take joy in it. Embrace it. Understand it and revel in it. Respect its strength, its wisdom, its brutality and its all-encomposing power. The highest law has always been, and shall ever be, nature; and the greatest wisdom forever lives in and through nature's eternal Fascism."

- 'Nature's Eternal Fascism' (WAKE magazine)and'The Faustian Spirit of Fascism' (Black Flame satanic journal)


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 127
06/06/2011 3:40 pm  
"amadan-De" wrote:
I assume that the option of shooting at 'Thelemite society's' sacred cows is also to be actively encouraged.

I always wonder what those "sacred cows" actually are and how they get determined. Since Crowley's "right wing" stuff is so roundly condemned by the people in the Thelemic community, would a criticism of Crowley's politics really constitute shooting at the community's "sacred cow"? If most of the people in the community don't get offended when Crowley is mocked, but do get offended when, say, Martin Luther King Jr. is, would King and not Aleister be a community "sacred cow"?

What is "sacred" is, after all, that which you can't mock or make fun, or question harshly. If most of the people in the Thelemic community are liberals, and if they are conflicted about Crowley, then it's easy to see that their sacred cows are going to be the same sacred cows that liberal, democratic, modern society protects.

Any humor has its own standpoint and point of attack. Liberals mock Right wing politicians and figures and those on the Right make fun of those on the Left. When we look at the humor in any community, what can we see as the common stand point that informs and directs it? Often, I think that the humor in the Thelemic community betrays the way the people in the Thelemic milieu are caught between liking parts of the Thelemic canon, and being anxious or unhappy about the implications of other parts. This conflict is revealed in the endless desire to make Thelema safe and acceptable to those mired in the democratic, egalitarian values of contemporary middle class society. The "humor" - such as it is - often reveals this need.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
06/06/2011 5:22 pm  

"Nature is typified by strength; humanity by weakness. Nature adheres to an immutable order; humanity to an ever-increasing chaos. Nature recognizes no equality at any level of its order; humanity preaches to an all-pervasive equality and freely hands-out unearned "rights", in an attempt to make its doctrine a living reality. In short: humanity is Democratic, nature is a Fascist...Life is one unending war-a war in which the strong devour the weak. The destruction of one underwrites the existence of the other. So it is throughout the natural order. Grasping this simple, pivotal, brutal truth is the only basis for understanding the primal law that defines nature's eternal Fascism; and her eternal wisdom...When man truly discovers nature's will dwelling within his soul, and his actions become an expression of that will, nature's power becomes his power. Every pure action ever undertaken by man represents an instinctual yearning for this union and this power. Every act motivated by purity of impulse inevitably results in serving the will of nature. The wolf which attacks a lamb and rips it to shreds, serves both nature and himself. Likewise the lamb thus ripped apart is also serving nature. This is but one example of primal law in action. It is based upon the balance and interaction of creative force and destructive force...Don't shrink from nature's brutal perfection. Take joy in it. Embrace it. Understand it and revel in it. Respect its strength, its wisdom, its brutality and its all-encomposing power. The highest law has always been, and shall ever be, nature; and the greatest wisdom forever lives in and through nature's eternal Fascism."

Falcon,
This being all very well if you are at the top of the tree and not so well if you are not. Therefore we create society to be wisely constructed to permit all to have rights and protection from themselves as well as the wolves.I believe the arguement that mankind is weakness and nature is strength in contradiction does not bear out the observed facts of a non sheltered life where nature is to some or indeed most the all too obvious condition of mankind. Natural fascism has benefits to some as does democracy to others. An entire order based upon either has been show to have flaws in either case, however given the choice I know which I would prefer. I always laugh when ideas are expressed promoting the survival of the fittest as a political or natural doctrine to be emulated, after all the arena was a Roman expression of you're either with us or you're in the ring. Perhaps fun for the spectators but sooner or later the observer is the observee, then it's not much fun.
We have a duty to be patriots of our world and protect it by strength if need be but not at the cost of the world itself, surely we have matured towards this perspective, or is it always going to be down to who has the biggest weapon.

Kindest regards,

RTh


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
06/06/2011 7:37 pm  

93, Keith!

I think one should not forget that AC's "right wing stuff" is not the right wing stuff most people have encountered so far. He himself roundly condemned it in his later years. When it comes to actual politics (not theoretical political philosophies) it seems correct to say that what you call liberal, democratic and middle class (with all its huge flaws) provides the most personal freedom for the individual, even if it is far from "real freedom". Most totalitarian systems (right or left) don't even let you read the books you like or listen to the music or words you like, which would be at or near the top of my personal freedom list. So in my opinion it is not AC's "right wing stuff" people condemn, but it is what "right wing stuff" has become. Also, even if acknowledging racial differences makes you a racist today, it is not the kind of racist most people condemn. By the way, that doesn't make AC's racial generalisations (be they part of Class A texts or not) any less ridiculous. Whereever christians and muslims meet, the christian will be lower class? Wishful thinking of AC. I think his polical ideas must be newly appreciated outside of any right-left labels but they are anyway as utopian as most other political ideas.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 4493
06/06/2011 8:22 pm  
"RemeaviThantos" wrote:
We have a duty to be patriots of our world and protect it by strength if need be but not at the cost of the world itself, surely we have matured towards this perspective, or is it always going to be down to who has the biggest weapon?

The reference to always being disregarded (because everything is always subject to change), right now, in physical reality on the dense, hard, physical plane, the guy with the biggest gun gets to hold the gold. The golden rule says, "He who has the most gold gets to make the rules." Yeah, bigger is better and stronger and dominant.

Then this whole king-kong rulership gets unhinged by some solo guerillla ninja infiltrator who uses some simple primitive trick. Example: Suicide bombers (walking time bombs - scarier than Boris Karloff or To Mega Therion) disrupt larger, orderly processeses; a single pathogenic virus can destroy a human being, including you or me; a rogue trojan highjacker can capture and disable your very computer - your extended brain - and you will say "WTF" ?

Yet, allocating these unusual exsceptions to mere potentials, it is true - now and for the reasonably forseeable future - the biggest gun will hold sway.

I imagine (no I see) that the most fearful subconscious thoughtforms are two (with any third of your choice):

(1) Global warming will wipe out my beachfront cottage and other undesireable consequences. The phenomena are already being well displayed in the mass media; alas for he coming generations.

(2) Allah-driven Ayatollahs will send their divine messengers, the ecstatically obsessed suicide bombers, into major population centers (probably especially in the USA and the UK) with Russian-developed [made in the USSR] black-marketed nuclear bombs built into suitcases.

Note USA+UK = 93. Maybe we English-speaking lineage holders (combined) are carrying some Will in these matters?

(3) Insert Bird Flu, Planetary Polar Switch, Planetary Polar Shift, Invasion by reptile aliens from the 5th dimension [or Sirius]. Maybe Return of the Star People, our parents, in Dec 2012 -either in vimanas (flying machines) or through the rending of an electromagnetic (etheric) veil or web that currently [quarantines] separates us [our reality] from the next-door dimension [currently not "real" except to certain perverted people called mystics or occultists or shamans.
Or insert any other mythical prophecy of your choosing or genetic programming. Let's not forget the possibility of the Apacolypse of the Battle of Armageddon, the vast Battlefield of Kurukshetra [Gita], and the vengeant war of Ra-hoor-khuit.

Say now, what is this vengeance about? It is not well defined in Liber AL, is it? It is implied that the "low men" will be trampled, that the "slaves" shall serve, and that the chosen ones [that includes you, right?] are "against the people." WTF? This looks like trouble to me. "Ye shall have trouble and danger," Oh, all right, I see. It was all there in the fine print of the prelimary disclosure, wasn't it?

The answer, of course, is plainly visible in the background archetype of Horus. Remember, Osiris was slain by his brother Set. Set then assumed the rulership of the Aeon of Osiris. Set is chaos, and that's why everything became so confusing. In the heart of the darkest part of the dark ages, the Templars arose bringing the magick of Horus - The SON (Sun) of Osiris. They sowed the seed; Aiwass announced the formal changeover of the fixed, archetypal Aeons in 1904 - "Ra-hoor-khuit hath taken his seat in the East at the Equinox of the Gods."

Now Horus, having taken his seat so to speak, has a score to settle with his Uncle Set, who previously usurped the throne and threw civilization into a stormy materialistic hell, doing so by murdering and mutilating Horus' daddy, the real Osiris.

The war scenes and rituals, the call to arms and boosting of courage, all that bloody stuff, the War and the Vengeance are directed at Set and his minions, his forces, his powers, his followers - the congregation of the materialists, the dreaded Establishment so well-identified in the sixies through acid-perception.

This is all played out within the Temple of the individual candidate. Take it outside and one will surely encounter conflict and confrontation. Run it inside, and then watch as it unfold outside - without getting caught up in the drama [dharma]. This is the essence of "Pure White Magick" as enacted upon the abstract mental plane. There is no link into physical matter, except that item which is on a [strictly limited] temporary loan from the cosmic library: your physical brain.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
06/06/2011 9:51 pm  

Shiva,

As always a twice read post (that's a good) . So chaos must follow there is no escape. Trouble and danger are no strangers but you kind of get tired of it after so long and think that the rest would too but I suppose we'd be nowhere if it waasn't for our delightfull will to power, death and destruction eh πŸ™ . It would be nice if Horus would find it in his heart to forgive his errant uncle but I suppose this is not likely to happen anytime soon. So best we get used to it...touble and danger it is then πŸ™‚ . At least I feel better knowing I can give up on all that harmonius crap πŸ˜‰

Kindest regards,

RTh


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 127
07/06/2011 1:23 am  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
I think one should not forget that AC's "right wing stuff" is not the right wing stuff most people have encountered so far. He himself roundly condemned it in his later years.

Really? AC became a nice democrat and liberal-lefty in his later years? Can you provide some citations revealing this, because it sounds to me like wishful thinking. I have the recently published Curwen letters and his remarks in there don't seem very, you know, PC. MWT was also written in his "later years" (1940s) and it's there that he offers praise for both Nietzsche and Gobineau.

If anyone really loves democratic, liberal society, they are going to have a hard time reconciling that ideal, and its informing values, with Thelema. This conflict, I think, is what keeps the larger Thelemic community so marginal. On the one hand, people are attracted to Crowley and Thelema. On the other hand, they are unwilling to let go of, and even challenge and criticize, the underpinnings of modern society. The result is the conflict we see.

I keep wondering when, at what exact point, it became so difficult for people in the Thelemic community to look critically at the larger society they lived in and start to question its assumed values and beliefs. Was it 1991 e.v. that the process of simply accepting the dominant paradigm became solidified? Now, as a friend notes, it's impossible for many people to suggest that Thelema can, or even should, over-ride the sustaining beliefs of the conventional, quodian world.

"I shall not expect the tyrants to hand up bouquets on the stage, not until Time has honored me beyond their cavil, and they think it better policy to prove that the 'great poet,' and 'master' has been woefully misunderstood, that he was a True Christian; advocated prohibition and chastity and the 14-hour day; loved home, hymn-books, and hypocrisy; believed in banking, conscription, newspaper education, progress, and the Bible; and doted on Dickens, democracy, and decency; demanded state-slavery, the vote, and the suppression of pleasure; bent his head to authority, his back to labour, and his knee to the Jew."

- Crowley 7/5/1920 e.v.

Given Crowley's remarkable prescience in this passage, can we then safely suggest that, were he alive today, he would be a True Liberal, that he would advocate for "drug free zones" and "safe sex" and Affirmative Action and the rigorous enforcement of ADA laws; that he would love home, NPR, and egalitarianism; that he would believe in environmentalism, "Green consumerism" (and that he would conscientiously drive a hybrid), believe in socially conscious investing, "National Service" legislation, The New York Times, progress, and therapy, and that he would dote on Maya Angelou, democracy, and multiculturalism, that he would demand adherence to the Patriot Act, Civil Rights legislation, and stricter gun control laws; that he would bend his head to all authorities, his back to labour (and labour unions), etc.?


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 4493
07/06/2011 3:15 am  
"RemeaviThantos" wrote:
It would be nice if Horus would find it in his heart to forgive his errant uncle but I suppose this is not likely to happen anytime soon.

It's kinda hard to do any forgiving when Set (in his Devil-Material-Stormy mode) is still either sitting on the throne of Malkuth or attempting to dethrone Horus at every chance on the mental plane.

Let's look back at the ancient archetype: Neither is able to win the war. Every dawn and every sunset sees these two engaged in combat. Every incarnation exposes the pilgrim (you and me) to the rending clash of duality. Yin-yang and all that.

It's just that Right Now this battle is being brought into the hearts of men (and the ladies, too). The Solar (heart chakra) Horus is confronting uncle Set, who being of chaos and desire must surely be found in a lesser chakra.

There is hope towards the end of the tunnel (I cannot see any "light" yet, can you?). The symbology of the double-wanded one and the association of Ma'at in the subsequent (next) Aeon imply that something will come into balance: with the archetype of Horus vs Set moved aside in favor of equlibrated Hrumachis ("Lord of the TWO Horizons" if I'm not mistaken), it looks like there is some sort of reconciliation in the future.

Play this out along the external calendar of months and Aeons, and none of us will see it happen in our present forms. Unleash this process within and anyone can become equilibrated in this very lifetime of mine and yours.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
07/06/2011 8:43 am  
"Keith418" wrote:
Really? AC became a nice democrat and liberal-lefty in his later years? Can you provide some citations revealing this, because it sounds to me like wishful thinking.

93!

Keith, that is not what I wanted to say, probably due to my bad English. I wanted to point out that AC was very unpleased with the manifestations of right-wing politics in actual life, be it the German, Spanish or Italian flavor. I guess there are enough passages in his work to show this disappointment. He was not condemning what he himself wrote earlier, but what governments, who initially seemed to be "on the right path" for AC, made out of the "right-wing stuff". And I think this is also what most people think of when they hear the words right-wing or fascism. Was this any clearer to you?

Hopefully...

"Keith418" wrote:
can we then safely suggest that, were he alive today, he would be a True Liberal

Of course not, but it's equally safely to suggest that he wouldn't endorse any of the right-wing, neo-con, fascist or whatever anti-left movements either. As you yourself said before, the humour - such as it is - of your descriptions of what you think today's Thelemites are, pretty clearly reveals your own needs and dissatisfactions with society. If you think it possible and even essential for Thelema to override the sustaining beliefs of the conventional world during your life-time, I am afraid you will be disappointed.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
07/06/2011 2:08 pm  

It's kinda hard to do any forgiving when Set (in his Devil-Material-Stormy mode) is still either sitting on the throne of Malkuth or attempting to dethrone Horus at every chance on the mental plane.

Well yes I agree. But lets buck the trend (again) what the hell it gets you nailed up and sooner or later people get interested in what you actually were or did actually say as much as they are permitted to at least. Sooo perhaps complete point taken. Quick aside Siva got your book (about time) looking forward to the jump sans parachute.

The Solar (heart chakra) Horus is confronting uncle Set, who being of chaos and desire must surely be found in a lesser chakra.

If I understand you correctly then bless you my son.

There is hope towards the end of the tunnel (I cannot see any "light" yet, can you?).

The light shines eternal. πŸ™‚ thank you for being a bearer.

If anyone really loves democratic, liberal society, they are going to have a hard time reconciling that ideal, and its informing values, with Thelema. This conflict, I think, is what keeps the larger Thelemic community so marginal. On the one hand, people are attracted to Crowley and Thelema. On the other hand, they are unwilling to let go of, and even challenge and criticize, the underpinnings of modern society. The result is the conflict we see.

Keith,
Perhaps the problem stems not from being unwilling to let go of the infrastructure, more that the critical formula only works if a viable alternative has been tried and proven as effective, and lets face it the hedgemony of the current big guns won't let any alternative flourish without a fight. In fighting you need warriors and well sometimes the vast majority of warriors are (would it be fair to say indoctrinated) to play for the guys giving them the big guns.

Given Crowley's remarkable prescience in this passage, can we then safely suggest that, were he alive today, he would be a True Liberal, that he would advocate for "drug free zones" and "safe sex" and Affirmative Action and the rigorous enforcement of ADA laws; that he would love home, NPR, and egalitarianism; that he would believe in environmentalism, "Green consumerism" (and that he would conscientiously drive a hybrid), believe in socially conscious investing, "National Service" legislation, The New York Times, progress, and therapy, and that he would dote on Maya Angelou, democracy, and multiculturalism, that he would demand adherence to the Patriot Act, Civil Rights legislation, and stricter gun control laws; that he would bend his head to all authorities, his back to labour (and labour unions), etc.?

I think that, as are we all, he was a work in progress No greater or less, but didn't he shine. Hell yeh. I think he would share our current concerns for the future and as when alive he would be equally impotent to alter the way things are. Except we don't believe that do we. Seeds were sown and the fields are eventually going to ripen. Let's make sure that it's a vintage year eh.

As always kindest regards,
RTh


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 347
07/06/2011 2:57 pm  

RemeaviThantos...I would agree that it seems more attractive and fun to be a predator than prey, to be a wolf rather than sheep.


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 686
07/06/2011 3:30 pm  
"Falcon" wrote:
RemeaviThantos...I would agree that it seems more attractive and fun to be a predator than prey, to be a wolf rather than sheep.

...and when everyone is a wolf you either starve or eat wolf/brother.

(Wolves are probably a bad simile for Thelemites in Keith418s terms - they are pack animals and operate and survive best in groups. The much touted 'lone wolf' is one that has been cast out due to age, infirmity or anti-social tendancy and frankly doesn't survive too long or well - maybe they are a good simile after all if one has eyes to see and mind to think and a box to be outside of. Re: the Boyd Rice quote above - he may be many admirable things but he is a pretty lousy biologist.)


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 127
07/06/2011 3:33 pm  

Fuller, like Crowley, despised democracy:

"Though democratic government is government by mediocrity, it is useless kicking against these pricks, therefore it is useless suggesting autocratic control of the instrument, for this would necessitate the selection of a genius as the controller, and nothing a democracy hates and fears more than genius; to the democrat genius is
a Satanic force."

Fuller, like Spengler, Heidegger, and many others, saw modern egalitarian beliefs as an outgrowth of Christianity:

"It is internal degeneracy, and not external cataclysms, which has hitherto littered the world with destroyed civilizations, and which to-day, as I will now show, is far advanced in all lands in which democracy in its several forms holds sway. Democracy is based on the fundamental fallacy that the vote is the right, and not a function, of the governed. This right is based on the Christian ideal that all men are equal, and this ideal is the foundation of modern socialism. This fallacy leads to the political system of government of the people, by the people, for the people, or, more intelligently put β€” of the ignorant, by the ignorant, for the ignorant. Ignorance is apotheosized, and, as all men are equal, humanitarianism is founded on the fallacy that all lives must be saved, and philanthropy (crowd cowardice) upon another β€” namely, the poorest must be helped not according to their worth but according to their needs."

According to Crowley, Fuller was an early opponent of Christianity, but not a "liberal" one:

"[Fuller] was entirely at one with me on the point of my attitude to Christianity. We regard it as historically false, morally infamous, politically contemptible and socially pestilential. We agree with Shelley, Keats, Byron, Swinburne and James Thomson as far as they went. We agree with Voltaire, Gibbon, Strauss, Huxley, Herbert
Spencer, Tyndall, J. G. Frazer, Ibsen and Nietzsche as far as "they" went. But we were absolutely opposed to any ideas of social revolution. We deplored the fact that our militant atheists were not aristocrats like Bolingbroke. We had no use for the sordid slum writers and Hyde Park ranters who had replace the aristocratic infidel of the past."

Think about how no one in today's Thelemic community makes these kinds of points, or argues against democracy in favor of an aristocracy. Note also the reference to Nietzsche.

How did Fuller feel about religions in general?

"[Fuller's] hatred for Christianity extended to the idea of religion
in general. He had, of course, a sympathy in his heart for Islam; the
manliness of the Mohammedan makes it impossible to despise his belief
in Allah. Islam is free from the degrading doctrine of atonement and
the glorification of the slave virtues."

What does it mean to insist that Christianity was "socially pestilential"? Fuller explained:

"The intellect of the few is, in fact, being exploited by the ignorance of the many, an ignorance controlled by a fundamental fallacy β€” the myth of Christian morality. What is morality? Morality is physical, intellectual and moral fitness, a healthy body, a healthy mind and a healthy soul ; above all, a joy in virility, wisdom and
beauty. The Christian Church anathematized these three, basing its dogmas upon the doctrines ex-pounded by Christ in The Sermon upon the Mount and by St. Paul in his Epistles. Poverty is exalted, marriage decried, evil is not to be resisted, and no thought is to be taken for the morrow. Not only did these subversive doctrines go far towards wrecking the Roman Empire, but to-day, in their final forms of democracy, socialism and communism, they are likely to wreck Western civilization more certainly than famine, plague and war."

"To the multitudes, thinking is torment; consequently new thoughts are
of Satan, the Prince of Lies. A new thought is a hell to them because
they cannot understand it, or are too indolent to do so. Bound fast by
the lecheries and conventionalities of everyday life, each new idea
opens an abyss which they dare not explore; consequently, to rid
themselves of it, they resort to exorcism and anathema."

"To-day political parties depend for their power upon the votes of the
masses β€” the most ignorant. On these same masses does the Press depend
for its profits. Consequently by politician and pressman, the mass,
mob or proletariat is deified and worshipped, and liberty of opinion
is nothing more than a self-satisfying illusion. To talk of the
freedom of the Press is in fact to talk of something which does not
exist."

One of the most striking aspects of Fuller's time with Crowley is that
he accepted Liber Al instantly (see Confessions, Chapter 60). Despite
his issues with magick, and despite everything in the book that made
even Crowley himself leery regarding it, Fuller nevertheless needed no
convincing that it was the work of the "masters." I would suggest that
it is that very eager spirit, the spirit that embraced the message of
Thelema so easily and without the usual resistance, that renders
Fuller's work and his legacy so deeply troubling to modern Thelemites.

"A hundred and one years ago Macaulay asked this question: 'On what
principle is it, that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us,
we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?' The answer is
obvious : because the masses dislike improvement; improvement means
personal endeavor, activity of mind, plunging into the dark, invoking
chasms and learning how to bridge them. It demands moral courage as
well as physical courage, and reliance on self more so than reliance
upon others. Such things terrify the people, and to shut them out from
their lives they predict a gloomy future; a deterrent to those who
would sail uncharted seas in search of disturbing Utopias and
Eldoradoes. Such a man was Macaulay."

- JFC Fuller

"This dynamite is democracy, the Demogorgon of the West, the
emotional, unthinking animal in man, the weight of numbers, quantity
without quality, vast human bulk endowed with a speck of human spirit.
In democracy, as it is conceived to-day, we reach the age of the
political saurians β€” a maximum of body and a minimum of brain. When
the franchise was restricted to a minority of the people it had some
sense, but when, as now in England, it includes practically every
adult β€” that is approximately half the population β€” it is literally
endowed with nonsense.

"Majorities must by their very nature be out-of-date, because every
original idea begins its life in a minority of one. Not only are
majorities worshipers of out-of-date myths, but they restrict the rise
of original thinkers and so politically deprive a country of the
services of its great men. Democracy may be defined as the religion of
out-of-datedness, and its priests are increasingly recruited from the
ranks of mediocrity."

- JFC Fuller (from Revolt In india)

"I do not believe that a panic-ridden Government is free, nor a
loan-shackled world, not a press-shackled populace. Instead, I believe
that I must begin with myself, discipline myself, organise my life and
act creatively. Then, as a free agent, I can pass on to my daily work
which I share with other men, and through the nation to which I belong
to the world which embraces us all. In each of these spheres of living
will I seek truth, act impartially and assist in establishing order."

- JFC Fuller (from Memoirs of an Unconventional Soldier)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
07/06/2011 3:34 pm  

RemeaviThantos...I would agree that it seems more attractive and fun to be a predator than prey, to be a wolf rather than sheep.

Falcon greetings. Sooner or later the predated evolve. And perhaps that would not be the correct channel to herd them towards. Whoever else does all the real work. Besides don't you enjoy the company deep down πŸ™‚


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
07/06/2011 3:59 pm  

Fuller, like Crowley, despised democracy:

Keith greetings,

In my view Mr Crowley was as are we all one who treadsa path by one step follwed by an evaluation of the next required step, he therefore dispised nothing he merely avoided obstacles. Hence his statement to this effect.

Those who oppose revolution are those who would not be fit to turn the wheel else they would turn it. A true aristocracy would be one founded upon wisdom to appreciate those bricks upon which it is foundated, which it unfortunatly (seldom) does.
Mohamedism is simply closer to the source than the competition and this alone having degraded beyond the words spoken (now lost or also degraded) , is no cause to support this stream over any other.

Those who used Christian doctrine upon which to shore up their house were no better or worse than all the others who have before or since equally relied upon the ignorance and expendable nature of those same bricks used.

So it is, and shall continue until equilibrium is established ad nausaem. The cat's tail waves.

That said who's up for buying Taransay?


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
07/06/2011 4:21 pm  
"Keith418" wrote:
I would suggest that it is that very eager spirit, the spirit that embraced the message of Thelema so easily and without the usual resistance, that renders Fuller's work and his legacy so deeply troubling to modern Thelemites.

And I thought that it was maybe the fact that in 1939 he was an honoured guest at Hitler's birthday party, at a time when it was perfectly obvious to everyone that Hitler and the Nazis suppressed their people's freedom greatly and threatened to suppress the freedom of other peoples also. Or the fact that he feared AC a) would endanger his social status or b) did not stand up for his friends in public (whichever you prefer).

Fuller surely was a great thinker - although he was not so impressed with AC's frequent obsceneties - and he is totally right about much of democracy's and christianity's shortcomings, alas, he fails to explain how in aristocracy or dictatorships or other undemocratic systems real genius would come to rule. In fact, the history of the last centuries shows clearly that no dictatorship etc. ever was inspired by genius, quite the contary I would say. Of course I am no professional, but at least I never heard of one.

"Fuller" wrote:
"I do not believe that a panic-ridden Government is free, nor a loan-shackled world, not a press-shackled populace. Instead, I believe that I must begin with myself, discipline myself, organise my life and act creatively. Then, as a free agent, I can pass on to my daily work which I share with other men, and through the nation to which I belong to the world which embraces us all. In each of these spheres of living will I seek truth, act impartially and assist in establishing order."

You know what: If all people would adopt this attitude there would be not much of a difference by what political system one would be governed. So maybe it is better not to complain about the political choices of Thelemites but to make sure that they become "free agents".

By the way, I am not defending democracy, establishment, middle-class, lefties or whatever here, I am just pointing out that the alternatives have not been very convincing so far. And I think you underestimate most Thelemites.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
07/06/2011 5:11 pm  

Here, here sir,

Thats the ticket forward to battle line station.

Now all, including myself, relax and contemplate the situation (strategic analysis) before we move forward into cavalry=indian country. We the enemy of the natives (as currently percieved no doubt), how can we understand that they don't want out version of freedom over theirs. Nuff...

Do we fight out our claim, do we argue our POV or do we say what the hell is it ever going to matter or indeed given the situation are we ever right in one point of view forever subject to erosion. Me, I enjoy this version of reality with all views freely spoken and listened to (regardless of how ignorantly I (they) may be expressed.

Democracy only works as long as the majority vote with you yes? Giving a minority a view and perspective allows assimilation and evolutionary potential as well as a clear (ish) concienceous (spell check or a proper education required) , so folks always keep your perspectives open (if only in the sunshine).

Salute.

RTh


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
07/06/2011 9:17 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
By the way, I am not defending democracy, [...], I am just pointing out that the alternatives have not been very convincing so far. And I think you underestimate most Thelemites.

I will happily defend democracy (properly reformed) as the best system extant from which to proceed, unless anyone has any better ideas that don't involve tearing down civilization and starting from scratch. (Which would be so messy and time consuming.) πŸ™‚


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
07/06/2011 9:41 pm  
"Keith418" wrote:
Given Crowley's remarkable prescience in this passage, can we then safely suggest that, were he alive today, he would be a True Liberal, that he would advocate for "drug free zones" and "safe sex" and Affirmative Action and the rigorous enforcement of ADA laws; that he would love home, NPR, and egalitarianism; that he would believe in environmentalism, "Green consumerism" (and that he would conscientiously drive a hybrid), believe in socially conscious investing, "National Service" legislation, The New York Times, progress, and therapy, and that he would dote on Maya Angelou, democracy, and multiculturalism, that he would demand adherence to the Patriot Act, Civil Rights legislation, and stricter gun control laws; that he would bend his head to all authorities, his back to labour (and labour unions), etc.?

Keith, you seem to be suggesting that in order to be a Thelemite, one cannot support or like any of those things. Is this the case?

If it is, how do you reconcile that belief with the fact that Thelema is an entirely individual philosophy that is unconnected to politics?


ReplyQuote
Page 4 / 11
Share: