darling
darling ?
British sense of humour, don't worry about it 🙂
By 'freedom of the individual' you mean the antiquated 18th or 19th century classic Liberal notion I presume? The term 'individual' needs to be redefined In the modern world some 'individuals' are actually as financially powerful or more powerful than as a small country
The classical liberal idea of the individual as rational actor, free/constrained agent, and the fundamental unit of social analysis, yes.
It's an abstract concept that doesn't have to incorporate anything more concrete (like how much money they have relative to anyone else).
Yes and classic liberalism is outmoded in the same way that Newtonian physics is. Anyway as I understand it Marxism split into a) Leninist Statism
-
a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs
and b) Anarchism, which , in effect is real (or updated) liberalism. When I say Anarchism I mean a situation whereby the people who do the work have dismantled the power of the executives/directors and have now become the decision makers of their organization. In that sort of world that would presumably mean that if i want a burger. I go into the shop formerly known as McDonalds where I am served by Chief Executive 1 who collected the burger from the Chief Execs in the kitchen who made the burger?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Anyway as I understand it Marxism split into a) Leninist Statism
noun
and b) Anarchism, which , in effect is real (or updated) liberalism.
Well, in a way Marxism "split" into all sorts of things. There have been periodic "crises of Marxism" where Marxists became disillusioned or started to find disagreement with one aspect or another of Marxism, and each crisis has hived off some form of "revisionism" or other, more or less mild or deviant.
e.g. Gramsci, he of "the long march through the institutions," was barely revisionist at all, he was quite orthodox (because orthodox Marxism, contrary to popular belief, does actually allow for some influence backwards from superstructure to base, and Gramsci just expanded on that). But the Frankfurt School that was partly inspired by him, in blending psychoanalysis with Marxism, was properly revisionist.
Left-wing Anarchism has always been its own thing, running in parallel with Marxism (though of course there have been borrowings both ways, and occasional fellow travelling, but mostly they hate each other). Leninism is pretty orthodox for the most part (that definition says nothing different from "the dictatorship of the proletariat" really), Lenin's only notable contribution to Marxist theory was his theory of Imperialism (which sought to explain the lack of immiseration in its own way), however it's an orthodox extension of Marxism, not a form of revisionism.
But Fascism and Social Democracy were both large and impactful deviations of the stronger kind. Fascism started off with Marxist revolutionaries who had found the promised unification of the working class (as the vanguard of the revolution) unforthcoming, so they eventually ditched the internationalist aspect of Marxism and saw the patriotic working class of each nation as the strongest, most ready-made unified working class vanguard against liberalism (early or proto-Fascism was also essentially a form of Syndicalism). Social Democracy, again, found the immiseration thesis not evidenced, so they moved into trying to blend capitalist and socialist elements (to get the market to work for socialist ends), and that (combined with various other elements - e.g. with Fabian socialism, to create the Labour Party of the UK), actually became the dominant form of the Left in Europe for decades, as well as the secret desire of American liberalism 🙂
I would say that the liberal idea of individualism is still at the core of the Left (along with egalitarianism), and probably always will be. Everything they do, they do for you 🙂 I think I've mentioned this before, but the progression is roughly:-
1) Classical liberalism - freedom-from, particularly freedom from economic constraints (quite obvious for a group, the bourgeois, which found itself in opposition to the old social order of aristocracy, guilds, the divine right of kings, etc.)
2) Socialism - freedom from deeper social constraints (mainly property rights, class restrictions, etc.) in order to expand the realm of "freedom-to."
3) Current "wokeism" - which is a kind of hyper-individualism, where the individual is "free to choose" at a level of even deeper social constraints (e.g. gender identity).
The inevitable trajectory of this (cunningly supported by big capitalism) is
4) Transhumanism:- freedom of the individual from the constraints of reality altogether, via technological means.
Goes to show you how Thelema was pretty old hat even in 1904 (although one might say that this line was the culmination of the Aeon of Osiris, which is at the same time the beginning of the Aeon of Horus, plus also there's an entire spiritual dimension that's absent from these political sorts of ideas).
vanguard of the revolution) unforthcoming, so they eventually ditched the internationalist aspect of Marxism and saw the patriotic working class of each nation as the strongest, most ready-made unified working class vanguard against liberalism (early or proto-Fascism was also essentially a form of Syndicalism). Social Democracy, again, found the immiseration thesis not evidenced, so they moved into trying to blend capitalist and socialist elements (to get the market to work for socialist ends), and that (combined with various other elements - e.g. with Fabian socialism, to create the Labour Party of the UK), actually became the dominant form of the Left in Europe for decades, as well as the secret desire of American liberalism :
So leftist Anarchic Syndicalism, is it a fantasy, could it actually work as I described in my burger example? Trade Unions replacing a Board of Directors?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Fascism started off with Marxist revolutionaries who had found the promised unification of the working class (as the vanguard of the revolution) unforthcoming
Please identify some historical examples of this fantasy version of history. Mussolini was a socialist for a couple years, until he was expelled. But what you need here is some examples (three or four will do) of big-F Fascists/Nazis expressing their disillusionment with their prior Marxism on this specific basis.
Then you'll need to show that this disillusionment was a more important element of early Fascism than far-right Freikorps activity, and hatred of the "traitors" that caused the future Fascist countries to come out of WW I in such poor condition.
It almost seems like you are claiming that Fascism is some sort of coherent ideology, rather than being an inchoate emotional temper-tantrum on a national scale. Very very few scholars of Fascism would agree. And even fewer would agree with this effort to claim for Fascism a Left (as opposed to a far Right) ideological pedigree.
We do see this silly and ahistorical claim a good deal in the USA, where our Fascist party likes to talk about how the Nazis were "National Socialists", and thus those who oppose Trumpismo are the real Nazis, because Leftists are Nazis because the Nazi party had "Socialist" in its name (and "Worker's" too!).
Also, it would be useful if you could provide some examples of 1920s-30s Marxists in western Europe expressing their satisfaction at how the working class in their respective nations had "unified as the vanguard of the revolution", since they too presumably would have become Fascists if they didn't think this had happened. If your formulation held any water, anyway.
[E]arly or proto-Fascism was also essentially a form of Syndicalism
Again, can you please provide some evidence for this claim?
It almost seems like you are claiming that Fascism is some sort of coherent ideology, rather than being an inchoate emotional temper-tantrum on a national scale.
Not only that, in another thread I believe that George was singing the praises of Hitler's apparent "economic miracle" I.e. the benefits of Fascist economics.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Wilhelm Reich in his book the Mass Psychology of Fascism would address the question of why Marxism failed relative to abysmal economic conditions, to which his observation was that the economic utopia advertised by the Marxist revolutionaries could not take into account the deeper psychological needs of people (which Reich identified as distorted needs) of mysticism, be it religious longing and other identifications be they national and racial...
Reich saw that rote Marxism was stagnant in application of dialectical thinking, and could not adopt to the needs of people, to which he saw lay in the functional understanding of "sex economy" where sex and work were what what continued to be alienated under academic marxist revolutionaries, to which Reich in his preface to the Third Edition, does note that the prohibition of private property was taken to an absurd level to ignite fodder for reactionary forces (sort of like the kabuki between Democrats and Republicans) where Reich understood that the rentier class, capital, needed to relinquish control of the means of production to the productive forces of the economy...the people that feed us, make toilet paper and can keep the waste water treatment plants running..and upon a understanding of class in itself consciousness, that thus the creative powers of man would not be controlled by the rentiers...
Anyways Marco Parsi's excellent book Aleister Crowley and the Temptation of Politics notes that Crowley would write the Gnostic Mass while traveling to Russia, with the intention of providing a new means of addressing people's mystic needs, to which it is interesting that Magick in Theory in Practice, where the Mass was published was addressed to working people of various skills....
Thus it is interesting to think about this gap that Reich identified and to which Crowley was thinking. I will note that Parsi notes the incongruence of Crowley preaching freedom from authoritarian religion to a religious service with new authority!
Regarding Reich's analysis of fascism, he notes that it is a universal aspect that is not confined to a particular nationality, race or political expression, for he identified both "Black Fascist" on the right, and "Red Fascist" on the left.
What Reich thought of Crowley would probably be a phallic schizoid mystic character structure...with sad masochistic propensities, that betrayed a certain split in his character, where love and will are in submissive dominant equation betraying an armored countenance...
Wilhelm Reich in his book the Mass Psychology of Fascism would address the question of why Marxism failed relative to abysmal economic conditions,
Reich saw that rote Marxism was stagnant in application of dialectical thinking, and could not adopt to the needs of people, to which he saw lay in the functional understanding of "sex economy" where sex and work were what what continued to be alienated under academic marxist revolutionaries, to which Reich in his preface to the Third Edition, does note
Do you honestly think that the masturbation habits and sex lives of starving peasants and workers threatened with homelessness and near starvation is a factor in like, anything to do with politics? Sounds like Freudian sex- obsessive philosophy. Please, convince me otherwise...but first we're waiting for George to provide some evidence for his 'Fascists as ex- Marxists' argument.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
@david-dom-lemieux
While you can make a mocking attack upon Reich, it only demonstrates that you have not read his book, for the issue in Germany in the 30's was why were the downtrodden turning to the right rather than the left, to which Reich does factor in that the role of religion did play a powerful role in people's psyche that was not assuaged by the promises advertised by the Marxist revolutionaries.
Reich, as a Marxist, whose own objective clinical work was influenced by Engles, made critiques of Marxist sociology, that he saw divisions of society along economic constructs, i.e. "proletariat" and "bourgeois" as false, and it was in this mistake based upon theory, rather than reality, that Reich addresses, inclusive of seeing reactionary tendencies within the said 'revolutionaries'
Sort of like Antifa being clad in black and won't to street fighting...and as paid agents of the financial oligarchy, funding fascist and communist alike...
Thus attacking religion, i.e. Christianity and Islam, as opiates of the people, by giving people opiates and through encouragement of fundamentalism.....to which there are those arguments floating around that Thelema was just a back pocket psychological warfare trap...
Reich was a scientist and Marxist dialectics influenced, to which he utilized flexibility in is thinking, and not the reductionism you play with...
Fascism started off with Marxist revolutionaries who had found the promised unification of the working class (as the vanguard of the revolution) unforthcoming
Please identify some historical examples of this fantasy version of history. Mussolini was a socialist for a couple years, until he was expelled. But what you need here is some examples (three or four will do) of big-F Fascists/Nazis expressing their disillusionment with their prior Marxism on this specific basis.
Robert Michels, Hendrik de Man to name two, but there were others. There were several ex-Marxists and syndicalists who participated in the creation of various proto-Fascist and early Fascist writings (though the most famous syndicalist involved, who had a hand in both the Charter of Canaro and the Fascist Manifesto, Alceste De Ambris, later recanted), as well as nationalists. See the reading list below if you want details, it's years since I looked into this and I can only remember the broad outlines.
Mussolini was raised a socialist. He became a union organizer and agitator while working as a bricklayer in Switzerland in 1903. (That's when he got the moniker "il duce" - "the great leader of the Italian socialists," as a local Italian-language newspaper called him 🙂 ) When he got back to Italy he founded his own paper, The Class Struggle, in which he evinced an orthodox internationalist, anti-militaristic, anti-Catholic Marxism, and staunch opposition to the war in Libya.
He then started organizing strikes and anti-war protests, and being jailed for it. He rose in the esteem of Italian socialists and was eventually elected to the National Executive of the Socialist Party (his election was actually part of a maneuver by Marxist socialists to oust the more liberal socialists in the party - a move applauded by Lenin at the time). He then went on to become the editor from 1912 to 1914 of Avanti, the leading socialist newspaper of the day. While working at Avanti he founded Utopia, a journal dedicated to forming a revolutionary vanguard. Two of the people who worked with him on Utopia went on to found the Italian Communist Party, and one helped found the German Communist Party.
You're not going to get very far questioning Mussolini's former dedication to socialism and Marxism, I'm afraid.
He changed his mind re. the internationalism, became a revisionist, changed his mind re. Italy joining the war, and was ejected from the party. Along with others he struck off in a new political direction. That's all there is to it really.
Then you'll need to show that this disillusionment was a more important element of early Fascism than far-right Freikorps activity, and hatred of the "traitors" that caused the future Fascist countries to come out of WW I in such poor condition.
Freikorps Schmeikorps. Obviously Fascism is a blend of Left-wing ideas and Right-wing ideas. I'm pointing out the Left-wing influence, which was actually the main influence on the theory.
It almost seems like you are claiming that Fascism is some sort of coherent ideology, rather than being an inchoate emotional temper-tantrum on a national scale. Very very few scholars of Fascism would agree. And even fewer would agree with this effort to claim for Fascism a Left (as opposed to a far Right) ideological pedigree.
This is such a cliched, dunderheaded view of it - it seems you've swallowed uncritically the absurd notion that Fascism was "capitalism with the gloves off" that Marxists so desperately wanted to foster. It's nonsense. Fascism and National Socialism were both movements of the people, led by intellectuals, funded largely by small donations, and comprised of socialists and nationalists who had found common ground. They were resolutely anti-bourgeois. The only connection to capitalists (apart from the usual sorts of bet-hedging donations that capitalists give to political parties) is that they weren't as gapingly stupid as the Communists re. economics - they left many business structures intact and put them under strict political control (the delightful term gleichschaltung denoted the National Socialist version of it).
Yes Fascism was a coherent ideology, ultimately more coherent and successful at what it set out to do than Communism. At the philosophical level it was a form of Idealism, at the practical level a form of national syndicalism or national socialism.
We do see this silly and ahistorical claim a good deal in the USA, where our Fascist party likes to talk about how the Nazis were "National Socialists", and thus those who oppose Trumpismo are the real Nazis, because Leftists are Nazis because the Nazi party had "Socialist" in its name (and "Worker's" too!).
Yeah I agree that's dumb, but that's not what this is about. Both you and those idiots are ignoring the fact that Fascism and National Socialism saw themselves as a "Third Position," with elements of both Left and Right-wing thought. It's what you get when you excise egalitarianism and internationalism from socialism, and make it a nationalistic affair based on the idea of a nation as a people (a large, diffuse extended family) with an ideal destiny that it can work towards collectively.
Also, it would be useful if you could provide some examples of 1920s-30s Marxists in western Europe expressing their satisfaction at how the working class in their respective nations had "unified as the vanguard of the revolution", since they too presumably would have become Fascists if they didn't think this had happened. If your formulation held any water, anyway.
Is it too much to consider that different people had different reactions to events? Some people make the best of a theory when events seem to contradict it, others look for other solutions. It's natural.
[E]arly or proto-Fascism was also essentially a form of Syndicalism
Again, can you please provide some evidence for this claim?
Mussolini wrote for Utopia several articles as "The Man Who Is Seeking," where he claimed that the nationalist fervour in the socialist parties of Germany, France and Austria during the war demonstrated that international proletarian revolution was a dead duck, and that the revolutionary future was a form of national syndicalism ("productionist" or "corporatist" syndicalism). Some other Marxists and syndicalists, as well as nationalists, thought he was right, and shifted to that new idea. QED.
Reading list:-
Zeev Sternhell The Birth of Fascist Ideology
Zeev Sternhell Neither Right nor Left: Fascist Ideology in France
A James Gregor Young Mussolini and the Intellectual Origins of Fascism
A James Gregor The Faces of Janus: Marxism and Fascism in the Twentieth Century
Roger Griffin (ed) International Fascism: Theories, Causes and the New Consensus
Renzo de Felice Fascism: an Informal Introduction to its Theory and Practice
Stanley Payne Fascism: Comparison and Definition: A Comparative Approach Toward a Definition
(It goes without saying that none of these people are fans of Fascism, it's just that they've dug a bit deeper than the common, superficial understanding, which is derived from partisan Left-wing thought, as I said above.)
Robert Michels, Hendrik de Man to name two, but there were others. [....] Alceste De Ambris
So we have three non-Marxists, three non-Marxists who never joined any Communist Party.
One of whom joined the Italian Fascists, and one of whom was a right-winger all his life prior to his vile collaborationism during WW II. And a person who was never a "Fascist" in any modern sense. Not perhaps the best of examples, and certainly these three guys make zero showing that this was at all common or typical. And Mussolini, of course. Who was never a Communist, and briefly a sort of Marxist.
And zero evidence that Michels or Mussolini became Fascists because "the promised unification of the working class (as the vanguard of the revolution) [was] unforthcoming". And zero evidence that this connection existed in Germany, or in any of the many national fascist parties that did not attain state power.
Yes Fascism was a coherent ideology, ultimately more coherent and successful at what it set out to do than Communism.
Italian Fascism lasted 21 years, and ended with everything it accomplished overturned, and military defeat. Nazi Germany lasted 12 years, and cannot really be considered a success either. The only other nation where Fascism has ever attained state power is contemporary Russia, and things are not looking good for Putinism making it even as long as the Nazis lasted.
If "what [Fascism] set out to do" was to suffer humiliating military defeat, death, and imprisonment, then we can indeed count it a success.
Obviously Fascism is a blend of Left-wing ideas and Right-wing ideas. [....] "Third Position," with elements of both Left and Right-wing thought.
Nonsense. Have you actually read these books?
I have read Payne and Griffin, and in fact reading them is the source of my defining Fascism as a temper tantrum, not an ideology. Griffin is an anthology of Fascist texts, with minimal critical portions, so really can't be cited here. Payne's definition of Fascism can be read here (along with the entire text of Fascism), and readers can make up their own minds whether it supports your claims or mine.
Not interested in further debate/discussion on these topics, so you may have the last word, as i am confident you will want to.
Freikorps Schmeikorps. Obviously Fascism is a blend of Left-wing ideas and Right-wing ideas. I'm pointing out the Left-wing influence, which was actually the main influence on the theory.
This is such a cliched, dunderheaded view of it - it seems you've swallowed uncritically the absurd notion that Fascism was "capitalism with the gloves off" that Marxists so desperately wanted to foster. It's nonsense. Fascism and National Socialism were both movements of the people,
Capitalists love Fascists, the first thing a Fascist government does is intimidate or murder Trade Union leaders i.e halt any sort of demand by workers for a fair share of company profits.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
the last word
He cannot. It, the word, is lost. Applications to Freemasonry or OTO may, might, be accepted - they have the Word.
4) Transhumanism:- freedom of the individual from the constraints of reality altogether, via technological means
Although in a sense I think one could consider initiatory magick transhumanist, just not through technological means.
And zero evidence that Michels or Mussolini became Fascists because "the promised unification of the working class (as the vanguard of the revolution) [was] unforthcoming".
I gave you the evidence at the bottom of my post - that's precisely what Mussolini said in Utopia as "The Man Who Is Seeking." He had been a Marxist, committed to the international proletariat (as shown by all his activities prior to that); he changed his mind.
Italian Fascism lasted 21 years, and ended with everything it accomplished overturned, and military defeat. Nazi Germany lasted 12 years, and cannot really be considered a success either.
I was talking about their internal success as functional forms of socialistic government. The point is they were more successful in creating good conditions for the people in their countries, including especially the working class, than Communism was.
in fact reading them is the source of my defining Fascism as a temper tantrum, not an ideology
Ah well, given your lack of reading comprehension of what I say here, that's not a surprise 😉
Do not forget the Horus Toy™!
Does that count as "technological means", though?
Does that count as "technological means", though?
"Sadly" I don't know, I haven't come around to read his latest book. It sure sounded at one time like some technological means, but no, I do not know.
"Sadly" I don't know, I haven't come around to read his latest book. It sure sounded at one time like some technological means, but no, I do not know.
I don't think that anybody knows what he meant, least of all Cole.
It sure sounded at one time like some technological means, but no, I do not know.
Yes, it was represented as something that sounded like a tech thing. But then it could just be a mental calculation that one performs. Nobody know but RTC and he's playing Hold out the Carrot (Childe), while obviously the whole concept does not work or he would have cleared up the world situation by now.
Yes, it was represented as something that sounded like a tech thing. But then it could just be a mental calculation that one performs.
I've decided that, given his apparent emphasis on his version of the "shock" method of sigilization (that U:.D:. wrote about over 3 decades ago), that it's a jack in the box that has a little Horus that jumps out and yells "BOO!" when you crank it.
a little Horus that jumps out and yells "BOO!" when you crank it.
B+O+O = 142 = 7! That must be it! Lucky 7. The true secret (a confession) will be forthcoming in the Appendix of the 7th book in the series. I can hardly wait.
.
Not interested in further debate/discussion on these topics, so you may have the last word, as i am confident you will want to.
How about checking out 16 minutes of this Political Science graduate's analysis; quite detailed with good refences, gives a convincing argument;
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
I have read Payne and Griffin, and in fact reading them is the source of my defining Fascism as a temper tantrum, not an ideology. Griffin is an anthology of Fascist texts, with minimal critical portions, so really can't be cited here. Payne's definition of Fascism can be read here (along with the entire text of Fascism), and readers can make up their own minds whether it supports your claims or mine.
Not interested in further debate/discussion on these topics, so you may have the last word, as i am confident you will want to.
Apologies double post but significant Nazis who were anti capitalist (whether that makes them one time Marxists is another thing I guess)
Sort of white supremacy Marxism? Oxymoron?
. He developed a hostility towards wealthy bankers during World War I and wrote a "manifesto on breaking the shackles of interest" ("Brechung der Zinsknechtschaft") in 1919. This was soon followed by the founding of a "task force" dedicated to those goals that demanded a nationalisation of all banks and an abolition of interest.
That year, Feder, together with Anton Drexler, Dietrich Eckart and Karl Harrer, were involved in the founding of the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (German Workers' Party-DAP).[2] Adolf Hitler met him in the summer of 1919 while he was in an anti-Bolshevik training course at Munich university—funded by the army and organized by Major Karl Mayr—and Feder became his mentor in finance and economics. He helped to inspire Hitler's opposition to "Jewish finance capitalism."[3
Ferdinand Zimmermann - Wikipedia wrote Das Ende des Kapitalismus. Jena 1931, again, a Nazi one time Marxist or just another Nazi economist proposing totalitarian based economics?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Basically you've heard the argument for Marxism in Thelema, in the spirit of bigotry-challenging 'Crowleyan' balancing every idea against it's opposite, what is the case for the argument against?
1) Do the minority of billionaire industrialists really want to vampirically and parasitically squeeze and crush "the working class"? Is being a Chairman of a company devoid of work? Practically speaking, no, it's an economic function therefore this idea of a 'them (don't work) and us (work) ' is therefore erroneous.
2) Are Marxist -types simply crap at a) coming up with their own creative ideas for successful services and products and b) crap at maths/ finance and therefore jealous of those who have benefitted from our capitalist-finance based meritocracy?
3) Do wealthy Boards of Executives not need a well off "working class" who can consume their products? Why therefore would they want to crush their own (potential) consumers?
4) With all that said, do Marxist-types fear big money?
3.17. Fear not at all; fear neither men nor Fates, nor gods, nor anything. Money fear not, nor laughter of the folk folly, nor any other power in heaven or upon the earth or under the earth. Nu is your refuge as Hadit your light; and I am the strength, force, vigour, of your arms.
5) How are you going to 1:51 dress ye all in fine apparel; eat rich foods and drink sweet wines and wines that foam! in an Anarchic-Syndicalist situation?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
These are some silly objections to Marx/marxism, too silly to be worth addressing, even if i were inclined to take your [endlessly offered] bait yet again.
Which i am not, because this topic has been talked to death, and you should review some of the many earlier iterations to learn the answers to your silly questions. Since your mind seems to go in circles, you have (unsurprisingly) asked these questions before.
, too silly to be worth addressing,
That's intriguing.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
That's intriguing.
Why do you did that intriguing?
That's intriguing.
Why do you did that intriguing?
Well it is isn't it? Ignant says something is silly but didn't expand/explain himself and therefore leaves us reduced to using guesswork or ESP to derive his views ....on this discussion- forum.
To add to the case for Marxism having no place in Thelema I would add paranoia as a (possible) driving force for binary-thinking resentments against dem evil rich folks who cause all our problems and if we could just 'smash capitalism' then the aftermath would be dandy, no arguments, no greed, no political corruption, no bad pop music, no disrespecting one another. .
How to Avoid Binary Thinking and Think More Clearly - Lifehack
Didn't Crowley cotton onto this limitation via his practices/exercises?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Well it is isn't it? Ignant says something is silly but didn't expand/explain himself and therefore leaves us reduced to using guesswork or ESP to derive his views ....on this discussion- forum.
Well, I agreed with him. The stuff you came out with ireads like a Private Eye spoof on something the Daily Mail might trot out - something like 1982's "Kill an Argie and win a Metro".
It's many years now since I read any Marx, but I don't recall him alleging that the industrialists were out to "vampirically and parasitically squeeze and crush the 'working class'" or anything like it. You're erecting caricatures, and lurid ones at that; is it any wonder that ignant dismisses them as silly? I thought it was admirable restraint and understatement on his part.
Well, I agreed with him. The stuff you came out with ireads like a Private Eye spoof on something the Daily Mail might trot out - something like 1982's "Kill an Argie and win a Metro".
....and my other posts in this thread which gave an extensive account of the Marxist/'Leftist' view? Like something from a Radical Left newspaper.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
....and my other posts in this thread which gave an extensive account of the Marxist/'Leftist' view? Like something from a Radical Left newspaper.
I somehow doubt that. But in any case, even if that were so, what is the point of pivoting from one extreme to the other, like a demented shuttlecock?
To add to the case for Marxism having no place in Thelema I would add paranoia as a (possible) driving force for binary-thinking resentments against dem evil rich folks who cause all our problems and if we could just 'smash capitalism' then the aftermath would be dandy, no arguments, no greed, no political corruption, no bad pop music, no disrespecting one another.
There you got it, THE perfect example of binary thinking. Just to even assume that folks on this board (or anywhere) are stupid enough to think "dem evil rich folks cause all our problems" and the aftermath of smashing capitalism "would be dandy, no arguments, no greed, no political corruption, no bad pop music etc." shows you deeply trapped in binary thinking. People like that simply don't exist, silly.
I would argue that AC hated "capitalism" more than most other economic systems. Not necessarily in theory, but really one of the few constants in his beliefs is that mankind is plagued by what capitalism created: the press, sports, modern "entertainment" (the mechanical monotony of the Jazz-band), cinema, the standardisation of building, cooking, custom, opinion, the dulling of the mind. (note: it is not that these plagues are exclusive to capitalism). And he was in accord with Marx on the money fetish:
"Please observe that I do not attack Rockefeller, Morgan, the late Mr. Wilson or others of that type. So far as they have caused evil, I should destroy their power by the simple process of removing man and woman from under it. The power of the Money Lords has no virtue save as they have persuaded the people that money is the only thing worth having. I free men by releasing them from their own false ideas of what they want. "Every man and every woman is a star." If all the stars were persuaded by the Press and Pulpit that their sole business was to get to Andromeda at whatever cost to themselves or inconvenience to thers, there would be the same mess in heaven that we now see on earth."
Of course just another thing were he (or his followers after him) have bitterly failed.
In the end he hated everything that has more power over people than he himself, or, to be nice, that has more power over people than man/woman him/herself. He would have taken any marxist, fascist, royalist, democrat, republican etc. if he just could have them "released" from their false ideas and accept the Law of Thelema. As he indeed did.
like a demented shuttlecock
Just a lovely turn of phrase there, Michael.
There you got it, THE perfect example of binary thinking. Just to even assume that folks on this board (or anywhere) are stupid enough to think "dem evil rich folks cause all our problems" and the aftermath of smashing capitalism "would be dandy, no arguments, no greed, no political corruption, no bad pop music etc." shows you deeply trapped in binary thinking. People like that simply don't exist, silly.
Get out more....they certainly do exist. You don't think that Utopianism is in-built in Leftist thinking? It's substitute xtian Eschatology (not a euphemism by the way). Furthermore, for you to have that wack opinion means you have obviously never read any of e.g. Ignant's posts here (this forum) about that dreaded black magical cult known as 'The Republican Party'.
I would argue that AC hated "capitalism"................
In the end he hated everything that has more power over people than he himself, .. he indeed did.
What's your point? Who cares what AC thought about this or that economic system? What about you, what do you think?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Why not provide some evidence for that leftist thinking of "all problems solved once dem rich people are smashed" and then Utopia is here, David? Are you a kindergarden politician? Never heard about it and I go out and read a lot. Of course I often heard that certain monopols should be questioned and certain money lords should pay their share. But I really never heard that this will solve ALL problems, even that of bad music. I also never read that Ignant's legitimate disgust of the Republicans called for their smashing that would then solve ALL the problems. Or that Democrats are much better. Maybe you are one of these poor people who think whenever some left oddball calls for f.ex. a ban of rasta hairs for white musicians that this is an "official" viewpoint of "The left"? Maybe you should question YOUR falling to binary thinking?
What's your point? Who cares what AC thought about this or that economic system?
Well, then let's stop here. If you do not care about that on that forum, why should I care what YOU think about Marxism (which you have no idea about) and Thelema (doesn't look much better there)? Who would care? I unfortunately thought you might be interested in some Marxist ideas that AC shared, but it seems you are really only interested in transforming this forum into some Social Media Noise - or - like some teenager - want to fight about something you just found out and think it is THE new thing.
....and my other posts in this thread which gave an extensive account of the Marxist/'Leftist' view? Like something from a Radical Left newspaper.
I sincerely hope that you are joking here. Extensive? Account?
I also like this whining a lot:
Ignant says something is silly but didn't expand/explain himself and therefore leaves us reduced to using guesswork or ESP to derive his views ....on this discussion- forum.
and then:
Who cares what AC thought about this or that economic system?
I sincerely worry you might be a Benjamin Button case. Not growing up but exactly the contrary.
So please go on talking to yourself. Because we are gentlemen you will get an answer occasionally.
Or even better: Since it is all about "Do What Thou Wilt" and "The Law Is For All" your OP question is the stupidest thing ever heard of.
Ignant says something is silly but didn't expand/explain himself
Ignant is shy and he tends to just blurt out the truth, then he gets embarrassed and refrains from following through.
Or ... he just feels self-evident truths are self-evident, needing no detailed, argumentative, trivial, or expounded excuse for posting in the forst place.
Well, I agreed with him.
Another member of the Bully Gang comes out of the closet, ready for innocent posters - so their souls can be dragged down into torment and despair.
you have obviously never read any of ... Ignant's posts
Obviously? Note: Ignant's is a word rejected by the red-line spell-checker. It suggested Litigant's as the correct spelling. <haha>
Well, then let's stop here. If you do not care about that on that forum, why should I care what YOU think about Marxism (which you have no idea about) and Thelema (doesn't look much better there)? Who would care?
This is The AC Society - his views come before petty personal preferences in these forums. Says so in some interpretation of The Scriptures. Of course, things like, "What would Crowley think?" are just wool-gathering, but posted proof of his opinions (like quotes) are the Gold Standard.
I sincerely worry you might be ...
Don't worry. Be happy! The case is already settled and the referral to a doctor has been made.
We simply cannot afford to carry around the burdens of our misoriented fellows. LAShTAL is not a teaching sight, nor are its members allowed to assume the karma of floundering fishmen.
Posted by: @the_real_simon_iff
Wh y not provide some evidence for that leftist thinking of "all problems solved once dem rich people are smashed" and then Utopia is here, David? Are you a kindergarden politician? Never heard about it
You honestly though that I believed that banishing bad pop music etc was part of a Marxist agenda? Do you understand the concept of caricature?
-
a picture, description, or imitation of a person in which certain striking characteristics are exaggerated in order to create a comic or grotesque effect.
Humour aside, my main point was (which is what I actually wrote but you missed it ...somehow) that there appears to be Utopianism in-built into radical Leftist thinking, 'come the revolution there will be no more x, y or z' and all that.
...and my other posts in this thread which gave an extensive account of the Marxist/'Leftist' view? Like something from a Radical Left newspaper.
Posted by: @the_real_simon_iff.
I sincerely hope that you are joking here. Extensive? Account?
Joking? No, like I said, all of my posts about the Leftist perspective in this very thread which somehow, eludes you..or more likely you never even read and are therefore being silly and are embroiled in prejudgement....
Who cares what AC thought about this or that economic system?
Posted by: @the_real_simon_iff. Well, then let's stop here. If you do not care about that on that forum, why should I care what YOU think about Marxism (which you have no idea about) and Thelema (doesn't look much better there)? Who would care? I unfortunately thought you might be interested in some Marxist ideas that AC shared, but it seems you are really only interested in transforming this forum into some Social Media Noise - or - like some teenager - want to fight about something you just found out and think it is THE new thing.
My point was (and Shiva recently agreed in another post btw) that DWTW means have your own views no matter what AC's views were (which ,. might I add, according to what we can glean from his writings, changed liked a demented shuttlecock) .Did he want cultist followers? Cefalu aside, allegedly not.
I (and this is apparently proving to be difficult for those mentally inflexibile folk here to grasp) am presenting both views, like I said, in the spirit of (official A'A') 'Crowleyan' mental flexibility.
Like Dr R.A..Wilson said in The Illuminati Papers, Ronin Publishing,1997, page 58, Chapter; Dissociation of ideas
Try to think of one or more alternatives to Monopoly Capitalism and State Socialism. While you're trying, endeavour not to concoct a blend of the two. Combining smallpox and chickenpox may not be the only, or the best, alternative to those diseases.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
You honestly though that I believed that banishing bad pop music etc was part of a Marxist agenda?
Talking about reading comprehension, I never said that this is what you think, but you twice said, yes, sait what the left Utopians think. And I even never thought about *banishing* bad music. I thought you mean music would just be better automatically. My adding of your "pop music hyperbole" in passing by the way was just as ironic.
Do you understand the concept of caricature?
Please keep your condescending sh*t to yourself. If you don't get it that what you call "the Radical Left" has absolutely nothing to do with Marxism, then why make this caricature anyway? Oh, I get it. You being silly is being silly on purpose. Yep, I heard that a lot before. And I am still waiting for some sources to your silly claims. And I mean not some lonely Facebook guy. Where for example has let's say Joe Biden, a classic example of what Republicans/Trumpians call a radical left/socialist stated any of the absurd sh*t you mention? Or anything that would constitute "certain striking characteristics" that you have "exaggerated". Or we radical left Germans? Maybe you don't get the concept of caricature.
I (and this is apparently proving to be difficult for those mentally inflexibile folk here to grasp) am presenting both views, like I said, in the spirit of (official A'A') 'Crowleyan' mental flexibility.
Worst and least believable Devil's Advocate ever. And probably a little megalomaniac (ah, I see, that's caricature again).
Also I just quoted AC about one thing that was CONSISTENTLY his opinion, no flexibility at all at work.
I don't see any fruitful discussion coming out of caricature but you keep trying. As I said, I think you are trying to make this forum into another Social Media arena, that's all. Your questions are not caricature but plain silliness or trolling: "Are Marxist -types simply crap at a) coming up with their own creative ideas for successful services and products?" "Glad you have you stopped beating your wife."
Are Marxist -types simply crap at coming up with their own creative ideas for successful services and product?
Sorry for the double post but I forgot a PS. I know you pretend to play Devil's advocate here but I also think you don't. Two answers: 1. China 2. What UK - capitalist center of the world - creative ideas exist? Beside slavetrade? And tax excempts for Russians?
Caricature IS fun - and stops discussion.
what you call "the Radical Left" has absolutely nothing to do with Marxism,
This is semantics, no I don't get it, please explain.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
This is semantics, no I don't get it, please explain.
This is not semantics. GuruGeorge told you so. Marxism is a political, scientific and philosophic theory that has absolutely nothing to do with your caricature of the "Radical Left". It is also a theory intended to be scrutinized and updated constantly and you will find nothing in your "caricature" that even loosely fits. If you would care to explain what YOUR silly vision of the Radical Left has to do with it, we might go on. Please explain.
what YOUR silly vision of the Radical Left has to do with it, we might go on. Please explain.
Let's keep it OT, a Thelemic magician wants to invoke the energies of a God in a prosperity ritual which may involve affecting the sales of a product he invented. Is this not bourgeoise individualism in the eyes of those who want to 'smash capitalism' whether I label them as being 'radical left', 'Trotskyist', 'communist' or 'Marxist' etc?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
OT? That's hilarious.
You sure have a lot of faith in Thelemic magicians. Maybe it would be "bourgeoise individualism in the eyes of those who want to 'smash capitalism", who cares, because this is a no-no, "maybe it would be an affront to God in the eyes of other theoretically existing people, who don't want to smash it". I tell you what: nobody right or left cares what a "Telemic magician" wants to invoke.
What the heck has this got to do with your OP? Are you sure you are sober? Because I am not and ready for a fight.
My point was (and Shiva recently agreed in another post btw) that DWTW means have your own views no matter what AC's views were (which ,. changed) .
Yes. Some of AC's views remain stable over the decades ... I find that I disagree with some of them.
If there's a subject that he wavered on, day to day, or decade to decadent, then we were taught to exclude it.
However, his ideas (stable or unstabled) take precedence first, here, as this is his place. The opinions of posters are rated as second place. People with an agenda are awarded fourth place.
this is apparently proving to be difficult for those mentally inflexibile folk here to grasp)
Oh, goodness! "Mentally inflexible," along with biased, close-minded, and many other terms and phrases for the stupid morons who post here, is exactly the accusation(s) hurled by RTC, Sanguine Chuck, and other folk agendi, as they depart.
The mentally inflexible folk are actually quite flexible when they know what another person is actually saying. But if the other person, usually not a memner of The Religiously Big Bully Gang Moral Police, uses big words in a condescending manner, and his points are only clear as mud ... ?
You have had several people, one by one, some doubled up, confront you with accusations of unclear thinking or obscurities, or of having a very strange outlook and mode of expression. Yet you just continue on, not making any points - but Continuabo.
Don't you get the sense that something is wrong here? Not "good" or "bad," just not quite right?
Let's keep it OT, a Thelemic magician wants to invoke the energies of a God in a prosperity ritual which may involve affecting the sales of a product he invented. Is this not bourgeoise individualism ... ?
Fancy words that I don't know. Anyway, the correct answer is Black Magick.
Let's keep it OT, a Thelemic magician wants to invoke the energies of a God in a prosperity ritual which may involve affecting the sales of a product he invented. Is this not bourgeoise individualism ... ?
Fancy words that I don't know. Anyway, the correct answer is Black Magick.
I recall that Crowley did prosperity rituals, something like visualizing gold coins falling around him during 'sex magic'? If I'm not mistaken. I think it was in his Magical Diaries, also something about whipping up a Jupiterean current in New York. Then again, he was prone to 'black magic' in other ways also?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
"Please observe that I do not attack Rockefeller, Morgan, the late Mr. Wilson or others of that type. So far as they have caused evil, I should destroy their power by the simple process of removing man and woman from under it. The power of the Money Lords has no virtue save as they have persuaded the people that money is the only thing worth having. I free men by releasing them from their own false ideas of what they want. "Every man and every woman is a star." If all the stars were persuaded by the Press and Pulpit that their sole business was to get to Andromeda at whatever cost to themselves or inconvenience to thers, there would be the same mess in heaven that we now see on earth."
Some good points there from AC.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
I recall that Crowley did prosperity rituals
Oh, yeah. He also said, "I may be a black magician, but I'm a hell of a good one."
He also issued an Emblems paper, not given a Liber Number at all, that told the ninth secret about how to conjure up anything. He also used the Great Treasure talisman from the Abramelin deck.
Never mind that these things appear to not work - as concluded in the Does Sex Magic Work? thread. It's the motivation thst counts.
As stated, I cannot be confused by the big words as I don't know what they mean. The application of magical force toward attaining "higher" consciousness is on the White page (straight up - no deviations allowed). The application of magical force toward obtaining "material" things is on the Black page.
"Every act is a magickal act." Yeah. The second half of the equation is what color it is.
So Crowley did these materially-oriented operations. So what? This is his home, but we don't have to either imitate or condone his actions.
It's really quite simple: Either one is 100% on the Path upward in their inner core motivation - or they're just screwing around with the manipulation of matter (which doesn't seem to work, so it's a waste of time).
Bottom Line: Just because "Crowley did it" doesn't necessarily make it proper for other candidates. Why, I can easily think of 3 things that he did that I wouldn't touch with a poop-stick.
he was prone to 'black magic' in other ways also?
Um ... we all are. Consider the state of your (or my) mind from moment to moment. What (overall) percentage can be attributed to the manipulation of form, and what percent goes toward liberation?
Some good points there from AC.
Absolutely. Unfortunately he did not succeed as far as we know now. Surely it is something the Left and Right can agree upon. Money Lords of course wouldn't. As you caricaturely asked, are there any left money lords? That's why I think that of course there is a place for Marxism in Thelema. But as I said before, maybe your question was "Is there a place for the left in Thelema?" which makes it even easier to answer. Hopefully I wasn't too rude yesterday, but you will surely keep it up stirring up sh*t anyway. Maybe the next thread will be more interesting and relevant.
But as I said before, maybe your question was "Is there a place for the left in Thelema?" which makes it even easier to answer.
Yeah that was more like it and according to Shiva, magic prosperity rituals are not evolutionary. Why then, did the Most High make the Sephirah, Chesed included on the Pillar of Mercy? Milo Duquette, in his book on Goetia tells the story where he was poverty stricken (well he was living in the U.S.A. which is basically like half a Third World country) and couldn't provide for his family so he evoked Orobas - Wikipedia
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline