https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Believing that there was once a primitive Golden Age devoid of property and inequality and taking his cue from Locke and Adam Smith Marx presumably believed that it all went wrong when land ownership is enforced and division of labour arises so workers did the work whilst a minority of non- working overseers skimmed the surplus value from them.
This isn't Marx, in fact it's more like what Marx and Engels would have criticized as "infantile" socialism.
Marx in a nutshell: the way things are made at a technological level has a strong influence on the social roles a society has - some are winners (the people who control the means of production) and some losers (the people who don't). The winners' position is inevitably cemented by cultural enforcement (since they can control incentives). Essentially what happens is that as the technology changes, there are potentially new winners and losers, the new winners take over society, social roles change and shuffle, and the new winners then shape culture to their benefit. This process is in part self-conscious, but also in part unconscious (it's "determined" by the underlying cause of change in the means of production, and while one can't predict the exact way things will change, one can predict the general trends).
The transition point is what interested Marx. He thought that as the means of production changes, "contradictions" start to appear (which doesn't mean literal verbal contradictions, but rather tensions between previous ways of doing things and the social order that arises from them, and the new upcoming ways). He thought something like that had happened in the previous round of revolutions, for example when in the 16th and 17th centuries, the new, liberal industrial-based bourgeoisie started taking over from the old military-church-aristocracy (land-based, agriculture-based) system; and he thought he was seeing analogous contradictions arising in his contemporary situation, between the bourgeois order and a new force that the bourgeois order had created from within itself - the mass of labourers, who had been unified into a single class by the same industrial processes that had enabled the industrial revolution and the enrichment/social power of the bourgeousie.
The working class had been unified de facto, but they needed to be brought to self-consciousness about their new-found position of power, so they could become the new winners, and that was the job of the socialist revolutionary vanguard.
In order to do that, the vanguard had to present labour with a scientific understanding of the manner in which they were being exploited, and how that exploitation depended on a unity of class that could be flipped into being the source of their power in being able to shuck off the capitalists' power over them. (And that's where the socioeconomic analysis of Capital comes in.) It's important to remember that the argument about surplus value is much more intricate than "capitalists pay workers less than they should." Marx would never have said that in such simplistic terms, for the system already includes a formal commitment to paying the labourer the full value of their labour (i.e. to avoiding what people would call "exploitation" in the everyday sense). Liberal systems are already against that, and try to guard against it. Rather, it's that the system masks a certain kind of subtle exploitation whereby what the system thinks is the full recompense given to the worker for the value of their labour actually isn't when you look really closely into it. And that's what the 3 volumes of Capital (the first volume on its own just lays out the groundwork) purport to show (although of course famously Marx never got to publish all 3 volumes in his lifetime, although they were largely completed, and Engels later published them).
One has to understand that Marx's view was a development of the classical liberalism he started off with: his main concern, as with all liberalism and the socialism that developed from it, is the freedom of the individual (same as Rousseau's before him). This seems paradoxical in view of the top-heavy state aspects of actually-existing socialisms, but for most socialists at the time the "dictatorship" phase was thought of as a necessary phase on the road to a situation where everyone's energies would be liberated. This is, indeed, at the root of the moral fervour that socialists have - they genuinely feel their system is liberative.
Also, while the older socialisms were a bit grug and sort of envy-based, Marx's socialism, while it didn't spare criticism of capitalists, and was of course sympathetic to the plight of the worker, was also understanding that the system shapes everybody. Social roles take on a life of their own, and shape us to behave in ways we otherwise might not have, and that includes capitalists.
Now this does indeed go some way along with Thelema. Think for example of the several chapters about this sort of thing in Liber Aleph - about the restriction of the individual by what society expects of them, etc. The central concern - freedom of the individual from all forms of restriction - is shared.
The difference is that Thelema goes more deeply into internal restrictions arising from internal incoherence (complexes, "folds" in the khu, that prevent the full force of light from shining out).
This isn't Marx, in fact it's more like what Marx and Engels would have criticized as "infantile" socialism.
What isn't Marx? The, if you like' prehistoric Golden Age' of primitive communism devoid of inequality? Division of labour (and masters/overseers skimming the 'surplus value' from the production output of workers/slaves) as a stain on the perfection of that simplistic primitivism? That isn't Marx...at all?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
What isn't Marx? The, if you like' prehistoric Golden Age' of primitive communism devoid of inequality? Division of labour (and masters/overseers skimming the 'surplus value' from the production output of workers/slaves) as a stain on the perfection of that simplistic primitivism? That isn't Marx...at all?
No, not really. As I said, the sense of exploitation in Marx isn't simplistic like that. Slave labour is an older form of social organization based on older forms of productive technology. In capitalism, the labourer is paid the full value of their contribution to all appearances - if he's not, that's illegal (though of course it sometimes happens).
That's why it took Marx 3 closely-argued volumes to try and show that despite appearances there is still exploitation of a subtler kind going on. Bear in mind that even in Marx's day, workers were seeing their standard of living increasing. Marx's job was to show that they were still being exploited despite that, and that they shouldn't be satisfied with that improvement, but should shoot for the moon, so to speak, and take full control of the system; and if they did, they would find that the benefits of the new means of production were so great that their resulting situation, if they were fully in charge, with no capitalist leeches, would be literally paradisaical.
However, Marxists often found it rhetorically useful to lean on the grug sense of exploitation in order to mobilize labour. Marx did it himself sometimes (the Communist Manifesto's version of the "immiseration" idea does it). But his full theory about "immiseration" is much more sophisticated and relative.
One might say that even though labour does indeed improve its condition under capitalism, capital's situation improves so much more, relatively speaking, and therein lies the exploitation and "immiseration." But even that's too simplistic a way of putting it, because in terms of money as an "appearance" the system is indeed quite fair. Marx was trying to reveal a reality behind the appearance - that even though the numbers balance out in a formal sense, there's actually something deeply fishy going on underneath it all (essentially, because real value changes in different phases of the system, in a way that's not obvious, and is masked by the formally constant value of money, capital goods and labour).
However, Marxists often found it rhetorically useful to lean on the grug sense of exploitation in order to mobilize labour. Marx did it himself sometimes (the Communist Manifesto's version of the "immiseration" idea does it). But his full theory about "immiseration" is much more sophisticated and relative.
One might say that even though labour does indeed improve its condition under capitalism, capital's situation improves so much more, relatively speaking, and therein lies the exploitation and "immiseration." But even that's too simplistic a way of putting it, because in terms of money as an "appearance" the system is indeed quite fair. Marx was trying to reveal a reality behind the appearance - that even though the numbers balance out in a formal sense, there's actually something deeply fishy going on underneath it all (essentially, because real value changes in different phases of the system, in a way that's not obvious, and is masked by the formally constant value of money, capital goods and labour).
So when Engels writes in 1892 ; (Socialism Utopian and Scientific)
III. Proletarian Revolution — Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.
To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historical mission of the modern proletariat. To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and thus the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed proletarian class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific Socialism.
It's not really about 'seizing' as in agitation and violent revolutionary change? Engels is actually proposing a more conservative slow, foot on the brakes, drip by drip reform process?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
It's not really about 'seizing' as in agitation and violent revolutionary change? Engels is actually proposing a more conservative slow, foot on the brakes, drip by drip reform process?
Eh? Where do you get the idea I was saying it wasn't?
Engels is saying the same as what I said above about the conditions of industrial capitalism forming from within the system of capitalism itself its own nemesis, a de facto unified class that, upon becoming self-conscious, can take control of its own destiny (or rather the destiny of humanity as a whole).
Further, as I also said above, the "dictatorship" is envisioned as a temporary, penultimate phase on the way to total liberation.
I know you are very committed to the idea that we of the left are somehow crypto-Xian, irrational, and essentially religious, believers.
But maybe you should try actually listening to @gurugeorge's quite fair summary of Marx's somewhat complex ideas, and abandon your simplistic parody of Marx's views?
You might then realize that the passage from Engels that you quote does not in any way contradict the precis of Marx that George has given.
I am not aware of many current Marxists who believe in the inevitability of socialism. I am sure there are still some, but the aspect of Marx's work that remains influential is his analytical method. Marx has been dead for 139 years, and folks have actually noticed, and thought about, the several historical events that have taken place in those 139 years.
This isn't Marx, in fact it's more like what Marx and Engels would have criticized as "infantile" socialism
Political Obsession.
No, not really.
The misunderstandings continue.
Eh? Where do you get the idea I was saying it wasn't?
Misunderstandings, misunderstandings everywhere. The contradictions and the misapprehensions, will be with you. Even unto The End of the World. Coming soon.
we of the left
What do you want?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
What do you want?
For you to stop posting these stupid provocations of politics threads?
For you to stop posting these stupid provocations of politics threads?
Oh, so you're going to be blunt. A blunt per day keeps the madman away. Or so they say.
Please keep in mind, psychologically speaking (in your mind), that one sign of certain disorder is when the person has no idea that they are acting "strange." That is, when somebody, like the doctor(s), points out certain obsessive, or parrot-noid, or reality-breaking tendencies, the person says, "Huh? What'a you talking about?"
What do you want?
For you to stop posting these stupid provocations of politics threads?
I meant what does 'the left' want?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
I meant what does 'the left' want?
Oh, i misunderstood- i thought you meant me personally.
See labour.org.uk to learn the Left's secret plans for the UK.
I meant what does 'the left' want?
Oh, i misunderstood- i thought you meant me personally.
See labour.org.uk to learn the Left's secret plans for the UK.
The reason why I ask is because I'm honouring the title of the thread. It's unlikely that standards of living and the ability of many to be able to gather store of goods or drink wines that foam would not have occurred without Marx and Engels.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
It's unlikely that standards of living and the ability of many to be able to gather store of goods or drink wines that foam would not have occurred without Marx and Engels.
Marx acknowledged that industrial capitalism had leveled everybody up (especially out of what he called "the idiocy of rural life"), he also thought it was an improvement on what had gone before (serfs and lords and all that). It's just that he's looking forward to what could lie beyond it.
And beyond it the improvement would be twofold: 1) the end of "alienation" (the sense of distance between labour and its product, which is a specific case of the sense of living within an impersonal process that seems to have a life of its own), as a result of labour being fully in charge of its production processes, and 2) the end of inefficiency arising from the "anarchy of production" (capitalists competing with each other), on account of the system being planned in a rational, ordered way for the benefit of all.
If one is economically informed, one can quibble with both these points (even while having sympathy with them, especially with 1) ), but the point is he wasn't looking at capitalism as a bad thing in absolute terms, but rather as a necessary phase in an organic unfolding, a phase that has to be (or rather will be) overcome and left behind, a phase that has something better, more beautiful beyond it.
If you want to get a glimpse of what a true Communist thinks of as pure Communism, check out the s-f novels of the Scottish author Iain M. Banks.
(It's ironic that he requires a literal deus ex machina to make it happen - his "Minds," super-advanced AIs - and that is actually a clue as to some of the problems with the theory, especially what's been called the "economic calculation" problem, and also a clue as to why actually-existing socialisms never worked, despite tremendous efforts and the best of intentions, and became authoritarian hellholes. But as a picture of the utopia Communists envision in its full flowering, it's very attractive. It beautifully represents the scenario where you can fish in the morning, write poetry in the afternoon, and make contact with alien civilizations in the evening (or whatever Marx's phrase was). Not only that, but it's highly reminiscent of the somewhat Gernsbackian vision at the end of one of the Aethyrs (you know, the "tail" of the vision, the bit that sounds like it's talking about rocket ships flying off and stuff). And it might actually be possible, if such things as super-advanced AIs ever become possible, although that opens up a whole other can of worms, of other potential problems and worries, not the least of which would be trust issues 🙂 )
Mensheviks and liquidationists abound. Wake me up when the Show Trials begin.
Mensheviks and liquidationists abound. Wake me up when the Show Trials begin.
That's what I like about this forum... open minds.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Marxism is utter and complete rubbish. A 19th century economic theory that has been proven wrong on every level. Marxism's only legacy has been tyranny, death, and economic ruin. Left-wing Hegelism is a crock, a philosophical mishmash of "Historical Determinism" and other useless, unworkable theories.
Marxism is utter and complete rubbish.
Look out. I have found one basic, perhaps underlying, concept therein that is common to other traditions, which is ... The source of all Evil is inherited wealth (going back a long way). So, in my opinion, "complete" is an over-reach of lingo. There are great gems to be found in septic tanks.
I say that to illustrate a mystical point, not to shoot down, or flush out as it were, the other factors in communism. I am not qualified to say as I have not yet earned my doctorate in Political Science, Public Admin, or even Nuclear Physics for that matter.
My own experience in communism was first-hand. We built a commune. We never called it that; we called it Kaaba, where there was supposed to be a Clerk House (paperwork, records, golden books).
In terms of The Communist Manifesto, it is indicated that people will not own "private property." I am not sure how this works out, but the OTO ("aristocratic communism") has a similar plan. Ninth degrees are ("were," I assure you) co-equal owners of The Order ... yet they possess nothing, having given it all to that same Order that they all own.
Please don't get all condemning of "other approaches," because it all fits into a bigger picture.
Marxism's only legacy has been tyranny, death, and economic ruin.
This is due to the imposition of the old-time inherited wealth that never goes away, even if political systems come and go. An examination of those ruined systems will reveal a set-up where EVERYBODY is equally reduced to a semi-povery level, even though they keep smiling, EXCEPT for those in charge, who have nice homes, vacation estates, big cars, armed guards, and lots to eat.
Communism, as in communes, is where everybody gets down in the soil, even if they're the elected head boss. It used to be (past tense, pre-Crowley, pre-Reuss timezone) that the council of IX degrees would elect one of themselves, foolish enough to accept such a notion, to be the X* - who would sort out the problems, administratively. He could be dethroned by the IX* council. Well, the Grand Master status usually went to an in-line succession, rather than impeachment.
But Crowley, in particular, changed that. He conjured up a Constitution from right-wing dictatorship hell, wherein a Supreme OHO (theoretically a Magister Templi) appoints Grand Master King X*s at his bidding (hopefully, his Will). The X* then governs (like a 7=4), from his Olympus, and if he's a jerk, all his IX*s have as recourse is to petition the OHO to dethrone the idiot king.
Do you see what happened here? The upward-ascending Path ended (previously) in a commune that elected a removable administrator. But then AC, in particular, switcherood the current - so that Shinola ran downhill. Yin turned into yang, and the result was an absolute guru-dictatorship, with dues payable in order to support the lifestyles of the un-rich but famous.
That switcheroo was "bad" enough, but then (around '86), the whole thing got re-writ again. You know, non-profit incorporation, incarnation of a Frater Superior. The Shinola running downhill part still goes, but now it's fully veiled in religious non-profit garb, with Ecumenical Councils, priesthoods, and bishop ricks - things like that. think Roman Catholic Church style.
Yeah, there's a lot of hierarchy and lots of communes to get sorted out here. Maybe I'll get sorted on it tomorrow.
... and other useless, unworkable theories.
Oh, those. Look. I've decided what we'll do: First, we establish an absolutely free market. Supply and demand sets an agreed upon price.
Second: We know that the underhanded "business-minded" creeps will then corner some aspect of the market, so as to manipulate supply, increasing demand and their profit. Thesefolks must either be terminated or some factor introduced that prohibits "cornering," and its cousins. I'll leave it to you to figure that one out - plus how much right-wing OR left-wing brutal force you will employ to keep the playing field level.
Thirdly - The profession of Lobbyist (where a briber once solicited congressmen in the LOBBY of the Willard Hotel, Wash, DC) ust be declared illegal, and bribery of any form (including PACs, Super-PACs, free trips, and other legal illegal bribery routes will be punishable (by to be decided, maybe tomorrow).
I have now given you adequate secret information to contact The Secret Chiefs, and further free insight into Utopia must be withheld from your glorious vision.
@shiva Well, it all comes down to altruism, or selfish desire. My brief experience on this planet has taught me that altruism usually leads to exploitation by the selfish ones. The good get punished, and the evil thrive. There is no justice on this plane, divine or otherwise. I'm a little thick. What secret information have you given me to contact the Secret Chiefs? I promise not to squander it.
But as a picture of the utopia Communists envision in its full flowering, it's very attractive. It beautifully represents the scenario where you can fish in the morning, write poetry in the afternoon, and make contact with alien civilizations in the evening (or whatever Marx's phrase was).
I read some books by Marx in my late teens and early twenties, and had forgotten – until your posts reminded me – of the iglorious dealism that is at the core of Marx's vision. Thus I'm glad to have read your posts, and to have been reminded of that.
Personally, I think there is a case to be made for an affinity between Thelema amd Marxism. But then again, I think there's a lot more to Thelema than the glorification of individuality.
altruism usually leads to exploitation by the selfish ones.
Oh, you noticed? This is because, down here in the dense Malkuthian concrete jungle, the dark (or selfish) forces automatically have more power than that etheric altruistic crap. No matter how cool it is, everything eventually turns to dust, or ashes, which is the basic particle of matter.
The good get punished, and the evil thrive.
Oh, you noticed that, as well? No, it just isn't fair, at all. So we gotta be clever, or they will get us and punish us for being good. Lookit what they did to Tesla, Crowley, Oppenheimer, Leary, Parsons, Jesus, and John the Baptizer, just to name The Seven Secret Chiefs of Martyrdom.
There is only one escape, all others are blinds, and that is to take life on a wu-wei basis. This is the same as "doing one's Will," as evidenced in these precedents ...
Exhibit A - "Man is only himself when lost to himself in the charioting" - Lib 333
Exhibition b - "Pure will, unassuaged of purpose, is in every way perfect." - AL
Note: No agenda
There is no justice on this plane, divine or otherwise.
There are moments of atonement. At One ment = the act of getting your shoeshine box together. They happen all the time. Actually, it's the result of aligning the shoebox. You don't make it happen, it just happens ... from time to time.
I'm a little thick.
That is a bit subjective. What are your measurements?
What secret information have you given me to contact the Secret Chiefs?
I have merely recopied what Soror S.D.A. (was it?) wrote to one of the founders of the Golden Dawn. She gave him the outline, then cut him off. That is, I have given you the outline for creating Heaven on earth for all mankind, and I even (just) gave you the names of the Chiefs. Take your pick. Do his work. Get punished. Or ...
Woo your way through daily life for 24 hours. Then file your report. Nobody ever said it was going to be Easy (except the liars).
there's a lot more to Thelema than the glorification of individuality.
Yeah. There's that part about the loss of one's individuality.
But that's not "more," it's less. The Path is a cosmic takeaway game. "Perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to be gained, but when there is nothing left to be taken away."
Marxism is utter and complete rubbish. A 19th century economic theory that has been proven wrong on every level. Marxism's only legacy has been tyranny, death, and economic ruin. Left-wing Hegelism is a crock, a philosophical mishmash of "Historical Determinism" and other useless, unworkable theories.
Welfare state, increased standards of living, improved health and safety at work. The idiots who abuse ir are Fascists, not truly Marxist.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
@david-dom-lemieux " Welfare State, increased standard of living, improved health and safety at work" Strange how those wonderful things came out of capitalist economies, not "Marxist" Welfare State (=Slave state). Lay off the liberal Kool-Aide.
We better be careful; we are kind of getting off subject here. This is about Aleister Crowley, not Karl Marx or Frederich Engels.
those wonderful things came out of capitalist economies
Yes, it is wonderful how capitalist economies have provided "Welfare state, increased standards of living, improved health and safety at work", out of pure benevolence, and the kindness of their hearts.
That this benevolence and kindness occurred only after generations of bitter strikes, demonstrations, riots, and revolutions by the left demanding these things is surely just a coincidence.
We better be careful; we are kind of getting off subject here. This is about Aleister Crowley, not Karl Marx or Frederich Engels.
Thread title: "Is there a place for Marxism in Thelema?" This thread is about both Crowley, and Marx and Engels.
@ignant666 Are strikes and demonstrations tolerated in Socialist countries? Once the "revolution " is won, the hammer comes down. The only revolution worth a darn was the American Revolution. Just so we are on point here, Crowley supported a free Ireland, something I can totally get behind.
Crowley supported a free Ireland
Supposedly, when he was seeking to bolster his anti-British credentials in the eyes of any watching German Intelligence during his time in America during World War I.
@ignant666 Are strikes and demonstrations tolerated in Socialist countries? Once the "revolution " is won, the hammer comes down. The only revolution worth a darn was the American Revolution.
In which of their books did Marx and Engels advocate Socialist dictatorships. How's your history? Not so good considering that you think Capitalists gave up their 'crumbs from a rich man's table' out of the goodness of their hearts. You're on the side of the successful, strong , wealthy and righteous aren't you? Well, in your head you are.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
@david-dom-lemieux I think, therefore I am.
@michael-staley Yes, that is true, he also wrote for The Fatherland, a fair-play for Germany periodical in the U.S. Before British intelligence got us into the war with the sinking of the Lusitania, which clearly violated Maritime law for civilian ships who were not supposed to be carrying arms. Crowley claims he was writing "over the top" propaganda to incite America into entering the war. I don't believe it; I think he was just covering his a--.
The idiots who abuse ir are Fascists, not truly Marxist.
And this statement cuts the Gordo Not, revealing that ALL systems designed to harmonize the People are taken over by self-serving low-men turd-people.
Only a Mater of the Temple is able to withstand the temptation of power, sex, and money (the evil triad of Psychology 101).
We better be careful; we are kind of getting off subject
The subject-topic is Marx et Thelema. I see the topic proceeding on-course. Abandon alol caution. Live dangerously. Ignant is coming ...
This is about Aleister Crowley, not Karl Marx or Frederich Engels.
I believe the thread is (supposed to be) devoted to Marxist principles and their (potential) place in Thelemic Applications. Crowley, writing as BafometR, said his [OTO] system was Aristocratic Communism. If you are uncomfortable examining the Works of The Devil implications of Communes and who will run them, you may step aside and watch ... but no fair restricting a thread that is dead-on target.
... out of pure benevolence, and the kindness of their hearts.
There is a New Rule coming down the pipeline. It is a sub-clause under Do what thou wilt (there is no law beyond that, but this rule is under it - do you understand?) ...
This is the new rule ...
If it's "more convenient,"
then suspect it of taking over
some aspect of your control
Are strikes and demonstrations tolerated in Socialist countries?
The topic is Marx et Thelema. Ignant has been clear, in the past that he is a proponent of anarchistic communism - not spelled with a Cap "C," and you keep introducing Communist (Cap "C") examples. Your examples are where the elites hijacked the social system and made it into a Shinola Runs Downhill subjugation.
This is why there is no "C" in our QBL. One must pick a G, a K, or a Q in order to numerate a word that starts with a "K" sound.
Please report to my commune for further direct experience. Otherwise, please put your mind to work on how there'll be a bunch of anarchs all getting along on an equal basis.
Once the "revolution " is won, the hammer comes down.
Yes, this is the way of the world. I already tol you, You Must Figure Out how much force to use to enforce the new-found equality.
The only revolution worth a darn was the American Revolution.
Don't be silly. Such exclusive statements will surely be found out to be false. Besides, look where "our" revolution got us (see: Today's News).
Just so we are on point here, Crowley supported a free Ireland, something I can totally get behind.
I see. You are a totalitarianist. Based on your observations and annunciations, I predict you will not be elected to any office in the mundane word or the Thelemic community, any time soon, or ever. There is hope and hell in other systems.
@shiva I have not lost faith in our democratic Republic. The American Revolution is doing fine, thank you very much. When we get back to Faith and Family, and a well-defined sense that we will do better than the last generation, all will be well. We have just lost our way for the time being. Communes and Anarchy might have worked for hunter gatherer aborigines, but not for a dynamic, modern society.
get back to Faith and Family
You do realize that this is a forum dedicated to a man who hated Xianity (aka "Faith"), right?
I see.
So when you talk of
get[ting] back to Faith and Family
as far as "faith", you mean getting "back" to everyone in church on Sunday, fervently singing
Give me that old time Thelema,
Give me that old time Thelema,
Give me that old time Thelema,
It's good enough for me.
and by "family", you mean emulating a guy who never saw any of his children or step-children again after their mothers left him, as they all did, and who never missed an opportunity to be buggered by any passing bit of "trade" while married to these women.
I am not sure how acceptable your version of "get[ting] back to Faith and Family" will be to the modern American right-wingers you support, but best of luck with that.
and by "family", you mean emulating a guy who never saw any of his children or step-children again after their mothers left him, as they all did, and who never missed an opportunity to be buggered by any passing bit of "trade" while married to these women.
..and don't forget, reared those children in a Villa in which he painted hardcore porn-art on the walls, allegedly let those children watch him have sex with women if they wanted and no doubt had bales of weed and platters of coke all over the house whilst they were being reared and allowed those kids to do what they want including smoking a pack of ciggies etc.
"Faith and family" ; laughing hard here. Where do you start with this? Hey the guy called himself The Great Beast 666, I thought that would've been a clue about how far this guy is from American " getting back to Faith and Family."
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
I have not lost faith in our democratic Republic.
We are a "representative democracy. This means that representatives, like the Roman cult, insert themselves between the people and the current paradigm. Very few of these priests reps are to be trusted. They are (usually) not initiates, and their first act every morn is to do damage control and re-cement the foundation of their position.
Also, "I slept with Faith" and found her dead in the morning. - Lib 333
The American Revolution is doing fine, thank you very much.
Please stop right now. Check your med schedule. See a doctor if necessary. Telehealth visits might work, in this case.
When we get back to Faith and Family, and a well-defined sense that we will do ...
You are now way out of bounds, or your mind. Around here, The Family is Public Enemy No One. Faith, the blind variety, is a tool of The Black Lodge. Please check your altitude and attitude.
... all will be well.
The Optimist. Making predictions based on wishful thinking.
... a dynamic, modern society ...
... which is now crumbling, worldwide, even as Nero fiddles with faith and family.
Only to be replaced by his own.
Yeah. I am still concerned that his faith insisted, up to the very end, that Aiwass was an independent being (not an archetype in his unconscious) ... even though he wrote earlier that all of it is part of our great being, but it is "more convenient" [an exact quote I have memorized] to grant them (the archetypes) independence.
@david-dom-lemieux Glad you got a laugh out of it. My work is done!
@ignant666 So who has to tell them? Were he alive today, I'd send him a coffee mug that said "Father of the Year".
That should count for something.
It counts for three (3) posts in a row, which is serial posting, which is a capital offense (sometimes). Since you pulled the one-post-to-one-person trick, I suppose it can be overlooked.
Please note that I don't know who told them what, because (perhaps again) there is no context quoted. Just a series of mono-logoi.
Our words (might) will be stored on hard drives in a grounded, EMP-resistant, oil drum for, you know, after the collapse of civilization.. So that the survivors will read our words as they put the puzzle together (again). And they (might) will say, "What's he talking about. There's no context in these messages."
@shiva Okay. I will remember that next time. This is a technical question; how you highlight other people's quotations in the gray "Posted by" box? Or would parentheses work just as well?
To quote part of a post, highlight the part you want to quote. A little box with quotation marks will appear below what you have highlighted.
Click on it. The highlighted text will appear in your post, with the "Posted by" identification.
To quote an entire post, click on the "Quote" button in the lower right corner of the post.
@ignant666 Thank you! To quote Bevis & Butthead, "You're pretty cool sometimes, Bevis"
the gray "Posted by" box? Or would parentheses work just as well?
This is exactly the function to which I refer.
First: Position thine cursor in the response box exactly where you want the quote to appear.
2nd - Part I: scroll up to the text you want to grab. Highlight the pertinent lines, lines, or paragraph.
Insert: I am always amused by posters who simply highlight the whole message - then reply with a single line of dismissal.
2nd - Part II: When you highlight a section of text, a big " (quote mark) will appear beneath your highlighted area - Click this """ - and the quote will pop-up in your reply.
Thirdly - Scroll back down to your reply box. Your cursor should now automatically be one line below the quote box - and you may then insert your brilliant response.
PS - Make sure to re-locate the cursor one line below your response ... then you scroll back up and find the next target to praise or rend. Repeat as needed.
To quote an entire post
This is the (often overkill) method of grabbing and dismissing. The dismissal may include the terms Pooh, Idiot, See a Doctor, Take your Meds, or Agreed.
@ignant666 Thank you!
Yeah. He beat me to the docket crockett. It helps to read all the post that have come in, before posting a duplicate reply, but I don't do that, so I waste a lot of time.
@shiva I wrote all that with a straight face. That should count for something.
There's a reason for the rule here about not double posting, let alone triple posting. Apart from the fact that it (double/triple posting) looks insane and erratic, it (the forum rule) aids the flow of proper conversation.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline