Politics and Thelem...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Politics and Thelema  

Page 7 / 12
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/06/2010 11:33 am  

There is only one true Order and that is Implicate Order.

I am alone: there is no God where I am.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/06/2010 11:43 am  
"name538" wrote:
And what is the result if this global homogeneous brother-hood was to happen. First we would start having even more children, they would require more food, no problem we will collectively produce more food, which means we will use more oil. We will no longer be able to exploit some economically inferior people for cheap labor, so the price of all things will go up.
"name538" wrote:
The people world wide will demand higher standards of living, more food, electricity, automobiles, all kinds of gadgets, ornaments and luxuries, so we well use up more oil and resources. Industries will fail, when they have no one left to expand their markets too and no way to cut costs with cheap labor.
"name538" wrote:
The industries that remain will became more and more exploitive as the only option is work here or be unemployed. Then those industries will run out of raw materials and resources, These too will go out of business no longer able to meet the demands, nor able to sell increasingly more and more product which in necessary to stay out of the red.
"name538" wrote:
So now there are no jobs, the economy is shot, the big banks go under, because no one can pay back the loans they took out every quarter on the anticipation that each quarter will be a higher return than the last, to pay the interests. So the banks go under with the companies.
"name538" wrote:
The companies produce things than the people need like, electricity, soap, cars, clothing etc, But the companies also support the farmers, they buy the food and process it and sell it. But these too have failed when the banks failed and resources dried up. So the farmers have no oil, tractors, seeds, no suppliers and no buyers.
"name538" wrote:
While the general population, has never even seen a cow or picked up a garden hoe, is totally dependent upon the large chain stores and industry to deliver their needs, are starving and destitute. When industry collapses the earth will only be able to support at BEST 1 Billion people, and if we were all one global brotherhood in a generation or two the world population would grow to like 10 Billion.
"name538" wrote:
We need to have separate races and nations with opposing goals as checks and balances, we need to shuck off industrialism so we can get back to craftsmanship and local production. We need to establish strong local ties to blood and soil.
"name538" wrote:
There need not be constant war with others, but there needs to be some degree of antagonism, sportsman like competition, fighting as brothers.
"name538" wrote:
This will make life tough enough to weed out the inferior and develop the strong, it will provide a circulation of wealth and distribution of labor. It well create enough difference to promote pride in ones heritage, customs, and culture. It will not reduce the world to abject poverty and sheepishness. It will promote creating for oneself and for the community from the earth and with your own hands, not toiling at empty tasks to receive food pellets from the industrial machine.

In his essay "What is Freemasonry?" - contained within his 'autobiography' Confessions- Crowley writes this about the entire system of O.T.O.:

"I claim for my system that it satisfies all possible requirements of true freemasonry. It offers a rational basis for universal brotherhood and for universal religion."

You name538 argue directly against Crowley's goal of achieving universal brotherhood through Thelema. Instead you recommend the need both for "separate races and nations with opposing goals", and the need for continuous antagonism among these "separate races and nations with opposing goals."

In short name538, you instead of Crowley's goal and solution of achieving universal brotherhood through Thelema, recommends a collective suicide solution and recipe for disaster, in this world loaded with weapons of mass destruction that we all live in.

If you are not on this forum as an intentional provocateur name538, there is every reason to believe that you are obviously on the wrong forum.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/06/2010 11:49 am  

"Crowley's goal of achieving unity through love."

There is no bond... 😉


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/06/2010 12:35 pm  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
In his essay "What is Freemasonry?" - contained within his 'autobiography' Confessions- Crowley writes this about the entire system of O.T.O.:

"I claim for my system that it satisfies all possible requirements of true freemasonry. It offers a rational basis for universal brotherhood and for universal religion."

I think this perceived conflict depends on what is meant by the terms ’universal brotherhood’ and ’universal religion’.

In my readings of Crowley, I have found little evidence that his concept of universality implies the removal of difference between races and populations. It seems that Crowley’s notion of universality is more akin to a feudal and imperial concept, i.e an universal ’law’ (Thelema) that govern a myriad of subjects (indviduals and/or individuals whose difference stems from breeding, race-population, evolutionary pluralism and personal character) – but whose liberty to particular attainment is secured through the universal enactment of Thelemic governance.

I agree that name538's choice of expressions may appear a bit zealously harsh and coarse, but reading

"name538" wrote:
[...] there needs to be some degree of antagonism, sportsman like competition, fighting as brothers.

as a recipe for "collective suicide" involving "weapons of mass destruction" seems to be a rather blown-up interpretation, don't you think?


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 501
15/06/2010 2:34 pm  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
If you are not on this forum as an intentional provocateur name538, there is every reason to believe that you are obviously on the wrong forum.

That's funny. This is what I thought of you at first. There was an unwarranted challenging tone to your early posts, you headed straight for the deep end of the pool and you could not see a stick without grabbing it by the wrong end. You asked an incredibly elementary question about the Book of the Law and within one post later you were quoting from it and telling us all what it meant!

A forum is a place for different views not just for nodding and saying "Nice post brother so and so, I couldn't agree more."

It's wonderful to see that you have dropped the treble spacing now could you please ease back on the bold font it does not strengthen your point.

Personally I find name 538's posts interesting, entertaining and well put. This is not the same as agreeing with it all but it's refreshing to see an unusual point of view. He is transparently honest, speaks his truth as it seems to him and has been frank enough to reveal that he has in the past been harrassed by a load of beef-witted baboons on the factory floor. What a pity to see the same thing happen here.

Come on everybody; kick the ball not the man.

OK


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 127
15/06/2010 3:17 pm  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
"Keith418" wrote:
Isn't this also true from a Thelemic standpoint? How can we fail to agree with with Benoist and still support Crowley?

Alain de Benoist is an interesting character, though as you once informed me you declined to attend one of his lectures since they were held in White Nationalist forums.

You are confusing him with someone else.

Let's avoid ad hominem and just look at what people say.


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 127
15/06/2010 3:34 pm  

"This is as I have always held, our great Asset: Thelema is the only possible answer to communism."

- Aleister Crowley

In looking at AC's antipathy to communism and fascism, we have to ask ourselves whether his war ended in 1989 at the fall of the Berlin wall, or whether it continues now in the West as the power of the government expands at the costs of individual liberties and freedom.

But are we ready to join with Crowley in attacking the egalitarian root of Marxism, the core principle that has bound itself into the West's values for some time?

"Marxism did not arise from spontaneous generation. It is the cause of a mental degradation. But it is also the consequence of another cause; it was engendered by something other than itself. Our originality . . . is the 'genetic' or, if you will, the genealogical character of our procedure. We are not content with identifying the symptoms and immediate causes. We attempt to trace the ultimate causes which are the true source of what many deplore today. And we say that there is no use in struggling, particularly against Marxism, if at the same time one does not have the courage and vision to struggle against the cause of Marxism -- against what invariably produces Marxism, which is to say the idea, the mentality, that egalitarian 'anthropology' of which Marxism is only a result."

- Alain de Benoist

Given what Crowley says about the "new dichotomy" revealed by Liber Al, would he agree with Benoist or not?

I am curious as to why more occultists and metaphysics enthusiasts aren't curious about the "genealogy" and origins of their own highest values?


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
15/06/2010 4:20 pm  

From the Moderator

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
If you are not on this forum as an intentional provocateur name538, there is every reason to believe that you are obviously on the wrong forum.

Name538's view of Thelema clearly isn't your's, it may not even be mine, but … he is most definitely NOT on the wrong Forum.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/06/2010 4:48 pm  

Greetings Taxidermist

"Taxidermist" wrote:
Hello Hecate.

Well, I was commenting your assertion that there was no basis of thinking in terms of races

"Hecate" wrote:
in today’s world where populations move and mingle all the time

My own position is that both in-group culture and biology makes different ’races’ a reality for most people. Following this, there is also no evidence of large scale interbreeding amongst the majority of earth’s populations. And certainly not on a scale that would threaten to replace the categories of ’races’ in the near future (even though the process of ’globalization’ may have a major cultural effect.)

As for Greece, the demographical breakdown of the country shows that almost 94% of the population is of Greek ethnicity. The rest consists mostly of Albanians (4,3%), followed by other groups from neighbouring countries. I see no reason to believe that the Greek ethnicity will be replaced through intermarriage according to these data.

Apparently your estimations are valid; thank you for sharing. I would be really interested to know your opinion about interbreeding in Balkans –that is if you have the time to answer. Many people consider the Balkan Peninsula as a cross-road and a place of cultural integration. The borders have been altered many times in the past, and the populations seem to be quite mixed as well.

Of course this discussion would be out of topic, so we should probably take it to pm.

Regards
Hecate


ReplyQuote
steve_wilson
(@steve_wilson)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 155
15/06/2010 4:59 pm  

In my experience the only people who promote the idea that they belong to a particular "race"(apart from the human race, of course) are those people who have achieved little or nothing in their own lives, and so feel the need to lay claim to the "great history and traditions of our people" - to which they have contributed nothing. Racialism always has its root in the idea that someone can achieve something simply by being born to the right people. Anywaym, as someone who can lay claim to three seperate "racial" heritages - one by birth, one by upbringing and one by both - I could always argue that I am therefore three times better than Name538, but I suspect I'm far better than that.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
15/06/2010 5:28 pm  
"Keith418" wrote:
In looking at AC's antipathy to communism and fascism, we have to ask ourselves whether his war ended in 1989 at the fall of the Berlin wall, or whether it continues now in the West as the power of the government expands at the costs of individual liberties and freedom.

In what sense was it "his" war?

"Keith418" wrote:
But are we ready to join with Crowley in attacking the egalitarian root of Marxism, the core principle that has bound itself into the West's values for some time?

Well, I can't speak for others; but no, I'm not. It's possible to be a Thelemite without being anti-Marxist or anti-egalitarianism.

You quote Alain de Benoist as if that ends all argument. I don't find the passage you quoted as persuasive as do you. Then again, I'm not obsessed with the evils of egalitarianism.

"Keith418" wrote:
Given what Crowley says about the "new dichotomy" revealed by Liber Al, would he agree with Benoist or not?

Perhaps he would; who knows?

"Keith418" wrote:
I am curious as to why more occultists and metaphysics enthusiasts aren't curious about the "genealogy" and origins of their own highest values?

They're not "our own highest values", though they might be yours. I don't think that as Thelemites we're homogenous.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 127
15/06/2010 5:31 pm  

It is all too easy to find evidence of Crowley's racism, sexism, and antisemitism. From his explicit appeal to maintain the privileges of the "white races" in "The Black Messiah", to his causal reportage of employing domestic violence in his diaries, to his imprecations directed at Israel Regardie after their split, we can see only a few of the more notorious examples of these kinds of transgressive positions.

But is our own anxious reactions to these things evidence of our superior understanding of Thelema - specifically superior to that of Crowley himself - or is it evidence of our inability to forsake the highest values of our own society, whose most advanced members still maintain that racism, sexism, and antisemitism are the very worst of crimes and that their opposites, namely multiculturalism and a commitment to total egalitarianism, are the highest virtues? If we constantly seek to use charges of "racism" to delegitimize our opponents, then what does this say about our own highest values and the values of the people we are appealing to?

How can we subscribe to the values of our society while we insist that Thelema, as the racist, sexist, and antisemitic Crowley described it, is superior to what we already have?

You don't have to be a racist to be a Thelemite. But the response to racism that Crowley presents in "Magick Without Tears" is, I would argue, substantially different from that offered by modern humanistic anti-racists. Crowley stubbornly resists validating the groups doing the racist oppressing - but, more importantly, neither does he validate the groups being victimized. Instead, Crowley seemed antipathetic to any sort of group-based identification. His resolute stance in favor of the absolute autarchy of the individual in this text is as problematic for the committed racist as it is for the committed anti-racist. This could be one reason why his teachings here are so little referenced by modern Thelemites when it comes to these issues. Racists do not appreciate what he has to say there, and anti-racists have a hard time with an individualism that condemns group behavior and capability with such vehemence.

If we decry the "cult of the victim" then we deny power to those who wish to assert their privileged status as victims of racism, sexism, etc. Those seeking to capitalize on a set of moral values constructed this way (and their allies) will, naturally, reject Thelema, Thelemites, and Crowley. We cannot preserve both Thelema and the cult of the victim - either in its religious or secular guises. This puts Thelema on a collision course with any society that holds this kind of morality as its highest, a priori, and unquestioned morality.

Weirdly, the Thelemic community seems to avoid recognizing the stark incompatibility of a politics of victim-hood with Thelema. And the "cult of the victim" - particularly as it appears in its secular disguise- is seldom singled and attacked by so-called Thelemites. Until this battle is joined in earnest, how will a genuine politics of Thelema, as opposed to a pseudo-Thelema that seeks to reconcile Crowley's teachings to conventional humanism (and always at his expense), ever manifest and assert itself?


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
15/06/2010 5:32 pm  
"OKontrair" wrote:
Come on everybody; kick the ball not the man.

Point taken. We can sometimes get carried away in the heat of battle.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2380
15/06/2010 5:34 pm  

*blows whistle*
*raises yellow card*
free kick name234234


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 127
15/06/2010 5:44 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
You quote Alain de Benoist as if that ends all argument. I don't find the passage you quoted as persuasive as do you. Then again, I'm not obsessed with the evils of egalitarianism.

I do not see Alain de Benoist as an "authority" as much as a thought-provoking and interesting writer. His specific points on some of these matters seem to me to be applicable in exploring what a Thelemic politics "might" look like.

No, not everyone sees a commitment to egalitarianism as an inherent problem or contradiction for Thelemites. But until I see how these people can toss out so much of what Crowley taught, and still present a real "alternative" to the mainstream, then I'm going to have to suspect it's more important than you do. A Thelema whose values are, at the core, no different from those of mainstream society is a Thelema that is redundant. If Crowley's ultimate values are no different from the secular world we live in, than we don't need Thelema - we have secular culture.

As far as Grant is concerned, I am still at a loss to see how one can be both "sinister" and "dark side" while still being a liberal, an egalitarian, and a humanist. This looks like a familiar trap for shallow Satanists - they want to be "evil" without being transgressive. Any "sinister" path that doesn't seriously challenge conventional morality doesn't seem that "sinister" to me.


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 501
15/06/2010 6:05 pm  
"Keith418" wrote:
From his explicit appeal to maintain the privileges of the "white races" in "The Black Messiah" .....

Could you point me in the right direction to find Crowley's "The Black Messiah". I know the poem by Grady and know of the short piece by Gerald Aumont although I have not seen it. Thanks,

OK


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/06/2010 6:07 pm  

The Stanford Prison Experiment...

No good deed goes unpunished.

I do my best to reduce everything to its core, but there's an awful lot of obfuscation. The map isn't the territory any more than the shadows on the wall of a cave.


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 127
15/06/2010 6:08 pm  
"OKontrair" wrote:
Could you point me in the right direction to find Crowley's "The Black Messiah". I know the poem by Grady and know of the short piece by Gerald Aumont although I have not seen it. Thanks,

OK

See page 165 of MPS's "The Unknown God"...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/06/2010 6:10 pm  
"Keith418" wrote:
As far as Grant is concerned, I am still at a loss to see how one can be both "sinister" and "dark side" while still being a liberal, an egalitarian, and a humanist. This looks like a familiar trap for shallow Satanists - they want to be "evil" without being transgressive. Any "sinister" path that doesn't seriously challenge conventional morality doesn't seem that "sinister" to me.

I believe the term ’sinister’ when applied to Grant describes his Left-Handed methodologies and techniques, not his political stance. Further, there really is no connection between the Left-Handed path as a body of techniques and the challenging of conventional morality in society at large. Sure, there are examples where such a connection is evident (like the Order of Nine Angles) – but contrary to what many liberal western practioners of ’tantra’ believe, most Indian, Tibetan or Khmerian etc vamacharas confine their transgressions to rite and personal development, they do not revolt against society at large.

So it is quite normal to be a staunch defender of the traditional caste system while at the same time transgressing against it within the context of spiritual practice.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/06/2010 6:15 pm  
"Taxidermist" wrote:
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
In his essay "What is Freemasonry?" - contained within his 'autobiography' Confessions- Crowley writes this about the entire system of O.T.O.:

"I claim for my system that it satisfies all possible requirements of true freemasonry. It offers a rational basis for universal brotherhood and for universal religion."

I think this perceived conflict depends on what is meant by the terms ’universal brotherhood’ and ’universal religion’.

Agree, Taxirdermist, what Crowley meant by the terms 'universal brotherhood' and 'universal religion' used in the context of his text "What is Freemasonry?", are ideas that can satisfy freemasonry's goals of peaceful coexistence.

In my readings of Crowley, I have found little evidence that his concept of universality implies the removal of difference between races and populations. It seems that Crowley’s notion of universality is more akin to a feudal and imperial concept, i.e an universal ’law’ (Thelema) that govern a myriad of subjects (indviduals and/or individuals whose difference stems from breeding, race-population, evolutionary pluralism and personal character) – but whose liberty to particular attainment is secured through the universal enactment of Thelemic governance.

I agree that name538's choice of expressions may appear a bit zealously harsh and coarse, but reading

"name538" wrote:
[...] there needs to be some degree of antagonism, sportsman like competition, fighting as brothers.

as a recipe for "collective suicide" involving "weapons of mass destruction" seems to be a rather blown-up interpretation, don't you think?

No, I do not think so at all.

My main point is not that name538 recommends keeping up the already existing situation in our world where many strongly believe in "separate races and nations with opposing goals."

My main point is that name538 recommends worsening these beliefs by emphasising the need for antagonism among those believing in "separate races and nations with opposing goals."

This is a recipe for disaster in our current world, which is loaded with weapons of mass destruction.

In addition name538 is against the primacy and importance of money in our current world, but I would rather live in our current world where most of the powers that be - with the exeption of some mostly state-less fanatics like the Al Quaida and the Taliban - are more interested in making money, then in making wars over some ideological differences.

As for this comment from the moderator: "Name538's view of Thelema clearly isn't your's, it may not even be mine, but … he is most definitely NOT on the wrong Forum."

The decision is of course the moderator's as for whom is rightfully or not on this forum. My point is that Name538's view of Thelema, clearly isn't Crowley's view of Thelema, and that Name538 wrongfully equates Crowley's Thelema with Evola's teachings.

That it is wrong to equate Crowley's Thelema with Evola's teachings, is clearly explained in detail in the scholarly Crowley expert Pasi's book about Crowley and politics.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/06/2010 6:32 pm  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
"Patriarch156" wrote:
My point was to elucidate an often missed and subtle point: that Crowley's system of practical ethics (action) and politics (force) were not really concerned with abstract right or wrong as such or similar mystical/magical concepts, but rather grounded in reality, making sure that Liberty was protected by not having it bartered away.

Crowley's emphasis on protecting Liberty from being by bartered away, is a highly worthy one to those of us caring about Liberty.

"Patriarch156" wrote:
To give you an example. It might possibly be someones will to conduct a monstrous act against someone else without their consent. Will he be allowed to do this in a State governed by the Law of Thelema? No, because it would get in the way of securing the Liberty of every individual in that State. His system of action and force therefore is mainly concerned with the practicalities of securing the Law of Liberty not abstract right or wrong:

Securing something from being easily bartered away, is in legislation done by making it a part of constitutional law.

"Patriarch156" wrote:
"Legislation shall bear constantly in mind the first principle “do what thou wilt”; its object shall be t assist each individual citizen to accomplish his will, as education has assisted him to discover his nature. It shall not restrict any man from damaging himself on the ground that he owes the state service; or even from damaging others, so long as that damage depends on their own consent. Thus, armed robbery is to be repressed. But racing and procuring are not to be made unlawful, on the theory that those who indulge in betting and wenching injure themselves. [...]

Constitutional law does "bear constantly in mind" first principles.

"Patriarch156" wrote:
Whether or not you think Crowley's ideas are practical is an alltogether different point of view and largely irrelevant to my point about confusing the planes in this particular instance.
"Patriarch156" wrote:
I also see that you keep insisting on socalled interrim solutions, without really defining what these are and how you would like to implement them on a grand scale. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that Crowley wanted one through social activism and other means to harmonize the Laws with that of Thelema by abolishing those that are against them, [...]

In light of your research and upcoming article on this matter, can what Crowley envisioned for Thelema politically, be fullfilled by a functioning democracy with a constitution written in accordance with Crowley's intention that "Legislation shall bear constantly in mind the first principle “do what thou wilt”; [...]"?

Or do you see no possibility for what Crowley envisioned for Thelema politically, of being fullfilled in any form of a democracy?

"Patriarch156" wrote:
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
Securing something from being easily bartered away, is in legislation done by making it a part of constitutional law.

Yes, this is what I was talking about when I wrote about liberal democracies being one method of securing this. My criticism of this solution however were that liberal democracies are spectacular failures at doing this, both because they always end up bartering away our liberty for the voter who cries for safety in order to secure the next election as well as pleasing the same by offering him the moon and thereby risk the financial solvency of the State that guarantees these rights in the first place.

Constitutional law does "bear constantly in mind" first principles.

I am not really sure what this has to do with my point about how you must seperate the mystical concept of True Will from the practical program of politics of Thelema?

Or do you see no possibility for what Crowley envisioned for Thelema politically, of being fullfilled in any form of a democracy?

[...] Obviously Crowley beleived that one could work towards harmonizing the existing law with that of the Law of Thelema through social activism within the boundaries of the Law itself.

Consequently along a continuum the existing legislature will be more or less in harmony with the Law of Liberty and if the social activism proves effective increasingly so.

For the present time, and while employing the existing democracies of the world, I favor a political hybrid toward achieving the goals of Thelema on the level contemplated by the subject of this thread. I embrace, in general, the social liberalism of the political Left, which insures individual freedom of choice, but I reject the socialism of their "nanny state," which insures the weakness and dependence of the individual and inevitably bankrupts the "nanny state" itself. I embrace, in general, the fiscal responsibility of the political Right, which insures the self-sufficiency, personal strength and independence of the individual, but I reject their social conservatism, which denies personal freedom of choice to the individual.

This political perspective is known by some as "libertarianism," but I favor the term 'enlightened libertarianism,' as I see this perspective not as a political goal in itself but, rather, as a step in the right direction toward the goal of Thelema, that "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law," and that the purpose of government should be facilitating the knowing and doing of true Will (Thelema) at optimum levels by its citizens, while refraining from interfering with that natural function as much as possible.

I would enjoy hearing the thoughts of anyone interested in these ideas, most particularly those of wellredwellbred, Patriarch156, Keith418, Zardoz, MichaelStaley (a liberal of my own generation) and Hecate, from her perspective as a citizen of Greece - a country presently in relevant political and economic circumstances.

I anticipate, his time permitting, another reply Los regarding the dangers of having no government at all, which I readily concede in advance, perhaps with the example of the need for "safety nets" provided by government to tend to the welfare of those individuals who fail economically for one reason or another. I certainly have no objection to such "safety nets," providing that their beneficiaries are not held captive in them for a lifetime. I also anticipate another essay from name538 on the evils of capitalism, based only on his limited experience with it as a disgruntled employee and a lot of stuff he's read. As I am both an employee and an employer myself, and on the basis of his own example of the necessarily mutually beneficial relationship between a miller and a baker, I may either disagree or ignore.

"Patriarch156" wrote:
In the case where this were hundred percent fulfilled, in order to be work, it would need a liberal democracy that did not elect away our liberty for safety and one that were capable of electing something else than mediocrities.

I do not think this is either a realistic expectation of the avarage voter or politician to accomplish. Moreover our doctrines are in agreement with a more realistic as opposed to idealistic view of the avarage human being. If you differ that is your right 🙂

Patriarch156, I would be happy to engage in a pro forma analysis of the comparative practicality and likelihood of 100% global success between the OTO program and more pragmatic and expeditious approaches but, in any case, it is certainly not my intention to dissuade you from your own valuable work. 🙂

As for the actual role of the average voter in a modern democracy, I'm sure that we will get to that shortly.


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 127
15/06/2010 6:37 pm  
"Taxidermist" wrote:
I believe the term ’sinister’ when applied to Grant describes his Left-Handed methodologies and techniques, not his political stance. Further, there really is no connection between the Left-Handed path as a body of techniques and the challenging of conventional morality in society at large. Sure, there are examples where such a connection is evident (like the Order of Nine Angles) – but contrary to what many liberal western practioners of ’tantra’ believe, most Indian, Tibetan or Khmerian etc vamacharas confine their transgressions to rite and personal development, they do not revolt against society at large.

So it is quite normal to be a staunch defender of the traditional caste system while at the same time transgressing against it within the context of spiritual practice.

See, to me, this presents certain problems. Crowley was called "The Wickedest man In the World" for a reason. He challenged and refuted the conventional morality and the highest values of his time. How are we continuing to do that? If we aren't challenging the highest mainstream values, then why does Thelema have any value at all? After all, you'd only want to discard conventional beliefs & values if you didn't believe in them any longer and saw them as harmful. No one will really adopt Thelema if they are happy with the values society provides for them. A "Thelemic defense" of mainstream societal values seems inherently self-contradictory.

If "sinister" practices do not challenge basic moral values, then how "sinister" can they really be? Instead, it seems like people want the "glamor" of evil (vampires, monsters, spookiness, etc.) without the risk of real transgression or challenge. Doesn't this seem shallow?

If someone, for example, retains a commitment to egalitarianism, and insists that it is "really" compatible with Thelema, then Crowley's endorsements of Nietzsche and his insistence on the "new dichotomy" will be seen as evil and wrong. Anyone insisting on the veracity of this "new dichotomy" - its innate truth and applicability - will be the "sinister" one, because such a position automatically delegitimizes humanism and equality.

Crowley's "methodologies and techniques" led him to attack equality and democracy - and to insist that Nietzsche was a "prophet" of Thelema. If Grant's "methodologies and techniques" lead him & his followers to endorse egalitarianism, then how "sinister" can those "methodologies and techniques" truly be said to be? They seem like the opposite.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/06/2010 6:37 pm  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
In his essay "What is Freemasonry?" - contained within his 'autobiography' Confessions- Crowley writes this about the entire system of O.T.O.:
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
"I claim for my system that it satisfies all possible requirements of true freemasonry. It offers a rational basis for universal brotherhood and for universal religion."

"Taxidermist" wrote:
I think this perceived conflict depends on what is meant by the terms ’universal brotherhood’ and ’universal religion’.

Crowley claims in his text "What is Freemasonry?", that his system satisfies the freemasonic terms, goals and ideals of a 'universal brotherhood' and a 'universal religion.' These freemasonic terms are in freemasonry meant to the basis for peaceful coexistence among us in this world, and have nothing in common with name538 emphasis on antagonism.

"Taxidermist" wrote:
In my readings of Crowley, I have found little evidence that his concept of universality implies the removal of difference between races and populations. It seems that Crowley’s notion of universality is more akin to a feudal and imperial concept, i.e an universal ’law’ (Thelema) that govern a myriad of subjects (indviduals and/or individuals whose difference stems from breeding, race-population, evolutionary pluralism and personal character) – but whose liberty to particular attainment is secured through the universal enactment of Thelemic governance.

ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
15/06/2010 6:56 pm  
"Keith418" wrote:
Crowley's "methodologies and techniques" led him to attack equality and democracy . . .

With how much success?

"Keith418" wrote:
If Grant's "methodologies and techniques" lead him & his followers to endorse egalitarianism, then how "sinister" can those "methodologies and techniques" truly be said to be? They seem like the opposite.

I'm not aware of Grant having endorsed egalitarianism, nor of my suggesting that he had.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/06/2010 7:03 pm  
"Keith418" wrote:
"During the decade of Blair’s rule, Parliament created 'more than 3,000 new criminal offenses. That corresponded to two new offenses for each day Parliament sat during Blair’s premiership.' British citizens are treated like a mass of unindicted criminal conspirators. The UK is now the most surveilled nation on earth, with over 5 million closed-circuit televison cameras sweeping the streets, waiting to detect anyone publicly urinating or committing any of a long list of other offenses. The cameras automatically recognize license places and faces, as well as 'suspicious behavior.' New software issues an alert when 'people are walking suspiciously or strangely.' The CCTVs in some places are equipped with loudspeakers to permit government officials to shout at people who litter. In Liverpool, drones hover 100 yards above the ground lurking for scofflaws. Their loudspeakers startle Brits foolish enough to believe no one is watching their mischief."

- from here: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/jul/01/00047

Instead of attacking the loss of liberty all around us, and decrying this kind of abuse, occultists either want to argue about their pet Utopian solutions, or try to parse - from Crowley's writings - the justification for his ideas and their applicability.

I am curious as to why people aren't more motivated by outrage at, and disgust for, the existing social order than they are by anything else. If these kinds of developments don't anger people, then seeking to reassure the anxious about the appropriateness of Crowley's solution is a waste of time.

Excellent examples of how we barter away our freedom for fear of Irish terrorists there (UK) in the past or Islamic terrorists here (US) today or for any number of other reasons over time.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/06/2010 7:10 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I'm not aware of Grant having endorsed egalitarianism, nor of my suggesting that he had.

Michael, are there significant differences between your own ideologies in these areas and those of Grant? I am recalling, also, the mention of your reluctantly publishing a statement by Grant expressing a preference for more exoteric leanings for the direction of the Typhonian Order, in contrast with your own more esoteric preferences for it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/06/2010 7:14 pm  
"steve_wilson" wrote:
In my experience the only people who promote the idea that they belong to a particular "race"(apart from the human race, of course) are those people who have achieved little or nothing in their own lives, and so feel the need to lay claim to the "great history and traditions of our people" - to which they have contributed nothing. Racialism always has its root in the idea that someone can achieve something simply by being born to the right people. Anywaym, as someone who can lay claim to three seperate "racial" heritages - one by birth, one by upbringing and one by both - I could always argue that I am therefore three times better than Name538, but I suspect I'm far better than that.

No doubt there are cases where the lack of personal achievements may be compensated by identifying with the achievements of others, whether those others be classified according to race, family, organizations or other such collective congregations. Also, the use of ad hominems and/or insults, as you do in the above quote, may compensate for a lack of argument.

Regarding the latter though, it does not really compensate, as it just derails the discussion and accomplishes nothing constructive.


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 127
15/06/2010 7:21 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
With how much success?

I have to wonder if this isn't simply an attempty to avoid our own tasks in the matter at hand. Could Crowley have been expected to do everything? Or does part of the work to establish the law of Thelema belong to, you know, us? If Crowley was expected to do everything by himself, then he certainly failed. If, on the other hand, his job was to point to tasks for us to set ourselves to, then we have to look to ourselves and not to him.

The success or failure of this particular struggle is also not, in my estimation, a forgone conclusion, nor are his efforts in this regard to be lightly dismissed. Anyone unhappy with what modern, secular values has wrought will look around for alternatives. As someone once put it, no battle is ever really lost, since no battle is ever truly won.

Grant may not be an egalitarian, but I have never detected the slightest interest among either him or his students in endorsing Crowley's criticisms of democracy, egalitarianism, herd morality, or the culture of the victim. Neither do they seem bent on offering any criticism of the current situation that doesn't seem like warmed-over leftist complaints.

If there was, or is, a marked and serious deviation from the highest mainstream values common to the Grantians, and a strong objection to the consensus of what constitutes right and wrong, common among the Grantians; if Ken G. and yourself have endorsed and applauded a Nietschean turning away as the highest values of the Judeo-Christian world destroy themselves in a nihilistic frenzy, please be so kind as to reveal it to us...

I have found passages where Bertiaux rejects humanitarianism. But you always seem to be defending it here. Please correct me if I am mistaken.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/06/2010 7:33 pm  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
I didn't call anyone a racist nor was I employing a debate tactic. I could care less about winning a debate on politics. Pragmatically, it means absolutely nothing. I'll rephrase my statement to make it as honest as I can:

Without sense or scruple describes the solutions in this thread that sound fascist and racist to me.

The article covers this rhetorical strategy as does my quote.

Your attempt to psychologize and invalidate my statement appears transparently weak.
My opinion that: "without sense or scruple describes the solutions in this thread that sound fascist and racist to me."
is neither rhetoric or any kind of strategy.

"Patriarch156" wrote:

"It will be for us to rule them wisely. We must secure their happiness and train them for ultimate freedom by setting them tasks for which their nature fits them. "

Who is serving whom in this statement?? I wonder.

Yes, Crowley's use of service and serve obviously is a bit more complex than the master slave dichotomy, since effectively an aspirant to the A.'.A.'. serves humanity and advancement in the O.T.O. is in service to the Order itself. Assuming that the above was in reference to my summary of your great quotes, I want to stress that I do not deny this, nor did my statement, so it still stands.

No, it was an additional question. I do agree with you about the complexity of AC's use of service.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/06/2010 7:40 pm  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
My point is that Name538's view of Thelema, clearly isn't Crowley's view of Thelema, and that Name538 wrongfully equates Crowley's Thelema with Evola's teachings.

This is true or, more specifically, name538 is piggy-backing Evola's and his own ideas onto Crowley's without distinguishing one from the other for the reader - not that this is unusual, but the reader should not condemn Crowley's ideas on the basis of name538's presentation of them. This is the reason that I posted a link to some of Crowley's actual writings on the subject earlier in the thread.


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 127
15/06/2010 9:16 pm  

"This Bread I eat. This Oath I swear
As I enflame myself with prayer:
'There is no grace: there is no guilt:
This is the Law: DO WHAT THOU WILT!'"

- Crowley

People in the the Thelemic community will tell you that guilt is a bad thing. They don't want you to feel guilty over, say, your sexual orientation, for example. If you're gay or a lesbian, you shouldn't feel guilty about that. That sort of guilt-trip, which they see as a big part of the Judeo-Christian heritage, is condemned as a very bad thing.

But every other kind of guilt? Maybe not so much. What if you harbor racist thoughts? Or misogynistic attitudes? What if you don't recycle? No one in the Thelemic community seems very invested in telling me, or anyone else, that we should feel never feel guilty for those things as well. I have never seen anyone in the Thelemic community tell me, or anyone else, that Thelema means that you personally don't have to feel any guilt or shame over the legacy of slavery or the Holocaust. Priests and Ministers who try to make people feel guilty about Old Aeon morality are the targets. The liberals and neocons who use guilt just as much to advance their own agendas - if not more? What about them? What about their guilt trips? That we never hear about.

Isn't this interesting?

Liberals and conservatives are both very adept at using guilt to get what they want. But in order to get rid of the governing value of victimhood, and its privileged place in our political discourse, don't we have to condemn all kinds of guilt, like Crowley did? What would that entail and who would a militant, sweeping, rejection of guilt upset and discomfort?

The mainstream of the West still uses guilt, but its targets have shifted. In the past, people were taught to feel guilty and to repress their sexuality. Now, people are taught to repress their sense of aggression - and feel guilty about that. Rather than attack the idea of ALL guilt, the Thelemic community tends to join with the mainstream in attacking the "old" guilt-trips, while endorsing, or simply never criticizing (which itself becomes a kind of collaboration) the "new" and "approved" guilt trips.

The lack of any criticism about the "new guilt" seems to me to indicate that the Thelemic community is, by and large, on the side of the people delivering & promoting the "new guilt." But, if we are Thelemites, shouldn't we be busily condemning ALL guilt? The "selective enforcement" of the anti-guilt rhetoric, I think, betrays the real allegiances and alliances people have to the established order - as opposed to being invested in Crowley's message which is against all guilt - not just "some guilt" or "bad guilt" or "good guilt."


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
15/06/2010 9:39 pm  
"Keith418" wrote:
Crowley was called "The Wickedest man In the World" for a reason. He challenged and refuted the conventional morality and the highest values of his time.

93!

I think you are giving that nickname a little too much importance. He loved the title that "John Bull" gave him and probably was proud that the readers of that particular publication knew him under that name, because there is no such thing as bad press, but whenever he had the chance, he (and his followers) tried to make it forgotten. When he was given the opportunity to present himself in a positive way (like in a series of UK articles in the late twenties), he did so. Nearly no one in the press ever used that name (along with his other famous names like "the man we want to hang" and "the king of depravity") besides "John Bull" (a few of his obituaries mention it too). He was (and wanted to be) known as a mystic, a mountaineer, a poet, but his "challenges of conventional morality" remained rather unknown to the world of his time, we today know much more of it. His publications that had the minimal chance to reach "the public" (like his writings in American magazines) nearly never "challenge conventional morality", quite the contrary in fact.

I do not intend to critisize your views, just want to point that nearly no one ever called him the wickedest man in the world, because nearly no one really knew anything of his views. At least that's what I found out when researching his press coverage.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 127
15/06/2010 9:58 pm  

Did it really? Maybe you need to learn more about what happened in Detroit.

During Crowley's time, simply repeating his "Do what thou wilt" line was enough to convince people he was dangerous.

But I'd argue that if we know now know just how threatening Crowley is to the status quo, then we have an obligation to explore the full extent of that threat and its implications - rather than busily work to reassure everyone that we are harmless and pose no threat. If, on the other hand, Thelema carries with it no threat at all to the prevailing order, then is it merely an aesthetic hobby or sort of benign lifestyle choice - one that can be easily tolerated as no significant to challenge? I reject this kind of position.

Being dishonest with the world about Crowley is an error - but it's a worse one to try to lie to ourselves about it.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
15/06/2010 11:06 pm  
"Keith418" wrote:
Did it really? Maybe you need to learn more about what happened in Detroit.

A more relevant question would be how Crowley reacted to the panic in Detroit? Did he revel in the circus, pimping his transgressive values for all that they were worth? No, as he writes to Charles S. Jones, bad press will give us a rostrum to speak on so that we can explain how the Law of Thelema does not constitute a revolt against common decency and behavior. However he did not even do this.

He would in fact do what he did every time the going got tough, go to a place where his bad reputation had not yet caught up with him. As his co-founder of the A.'.A.'. George C. Jones would remark in a letter to JFC Fuller on 1. Dec. 1910, concerning Crowley's behavior during the original scandal that followed in the wake of the rites of Eleusis in 1910:

"Crowley goes to Algeria tomorrow. Some of his new friends will say he ran away, and you cannot blaim [sic] them."

Though Crowley thought bad press was a good thing, believing he could merely wait it out, from the 1920s he was so keenly aware of how his reputation was damaged beyond repair that he contemplated a life in hiding and separating the person Crowley from his promulgationary efforts of his Law. This culminated during his Ipsissimus initiation where he declared that Aleister Crowley literally died.

However his plan of ruling things from behind the scenes failed and after this he started numerous but failed attempts to rehabilitate his name. Everyone of them attempting to paint his in a positive light of the kind S.I. indicates in his post (mystic, climber, poet, patriot, philosopher and yes the founder of a new religion, the Law of Thelema).

Besides his socalled transgressive values never even went so far that he wanted his various organisations to break the law. As he remarked in a letter to Norman Mudd on may 27th 1924, that "[o]n no account will orders be given which would infringe the law of the country where they are to be carried out. Our whole object being to establish a just and strong law, our first principle must be for law as such however unjust."


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 127
15/06/2010 11:20 pm  

If Thelema doesn't significantly challenge the mainstream, and even offer a real threat to it, then it will never attract anyone who will take it seriously, or commit to it in any significant sense. A Thelema without a true challenge - and with that challenge a necessary and concomitant rebuke, rejection, and dismissal of society's highest moral values - represents nothing more than a harmless, hobby-like activity that should concern no one, threaten no one, and truly inspire... no one. In an effort to render Crowley harmless, normative, and "safe" before the potentially disapproving and censorious eyes of the "moral majority" - situated on either the left or on the right - many in the community have, perhaps unintentionally, perhaps intentionally, tried to make Thelema impotent.

Fortunately, I suspect that Crowley saw this coming. He loaded his books with enough volatile and disturbing stuff in them so that no one will be able to present an unvarnished Crowley and a harmless, non-threatening Crowley at the same time.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
15/06/2010 11:37 pm  
"Keith418" wrote:
If Thelema doesn't significantly challenge the mainstream, and even offer a real threat to it, then it will never attract anyone who will take it seriously, or commit to it in any significant sense. A Thelema without a true challenge - and with that challenge a necessary and concomitant rebuke, rejection, and dismissal of society's highest moral values - represents nothing more than a harmless, hobby-like activity that should concern no one, threaten no one, and truly inspire... no one. In an effort to render Crowley harmless, normative, and "safe" before the potentially disapproving and censorious eyes of the "moral majority" - situated on either the left or on the right - many in the community have, perhaps unintentionally, perhaps intentionally, tried to make Thelema impotent.

Fortunately, I suspect that Crowley saw this coming. He loaded his books with enough volatile and disturbing stuff in them so that no one will be able to present an unvarnished Crowley and a harmless, non-threatening Crowley at the same time.

You are engaging in false dilemmas here. I am not really aware of anyone arguing that Thelema does not challenge the mainstream at all in order to render Crowley harmless, normative, and "safe."

I would also suggest you read up a bit on history. Much of what you declare as transgressive in Crowley, such as the racial issue was neither transgressive or even controversial in the mainstream of his day.

Crowley were perfectly aware of what was considered controversial and transgressive and attempted to deliberately obfuscate and hide this from the mainstream. When it got out, his plan was to "normalize" it through explanation, but in practice he ran away.

He was also eager to point out that the goal was not transgression in and of itself, but rather to establish the Law of Thelema. In fact Crowley railed more than one time against this declaring that he had "no use for artists who have lost touch with tradition and see nature secondhand. I think I have kept my head pretty square on my shoulders in the turmoil of the recent revolutions. I find myself able to distinguish between the artist whose eccentricities and heresies interpret his individual peculiarities and the self-advertising quack who tries to be original by outdoing the most outrageous heresiarch of the moment."


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
15/06/2010 11:42 pm  
"Keith418" wrote:
I have to wonder if this isn't simply an attempty to avoid our own tasks in the matter at hand. Could Crowley have been expected to do everything? Or does part of the work to establish the law of Thelema belong to, you know, us? If Crowley was expected to do everything by himself, then he certainly failed. If, on the other hand, his job was to point to tasks for us to set ourselves to, then we have to look to ourselves and not to him.

To my mind, Keith, this depends upon what we mean by establishing the Law of Thelema. I wonder if you don't see it in the sense of overthrowing the present order and establishing a Thelemic state; in similar vein, we have some people here in the UK who want to establish an Islamic state. If this is your idea, I think it merely vainglorious. How's it going to happen? Where are your Thelemic foot-soldiers to march upon the centres of power? Or do you think that the current vested interests are going to pass everything to you because they find your arguments convincing? You remind me of people on the left, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, who were always looking forward to "the revolution", one which never came.

I believe that the establishment of the Law of Thelema is a matter of increasing awareness of the Law of Thelema, and this is best brought about by example - by demonstrating to people what a sound principle it is. This will be done slowly and gradually.

I also think that this applies on a personal level too - that the establishment of the Law of Thelema is to become increasingly aware of the Law, and to radiate it outwards.

"Keith418" wrote:
Grant may not be an egalitarian, but I have never detected the slightest interest among either him or his students in endorsing Crowley's criticisms of democracy, egalitarianism, herd morality, or the culture of the victim. Neither do they seem bent on offering any criticism of the current situation that doesn't seem like warmed-over leftist complaints.

Again, Keith, you seem of the view that to be a Thelemite is to ape Crowley. Not so.

"Keith418" wrote:
If there was, or is, a marked and serious deviation from the highest mainstream values common to the Grantians, and a strong objection to the consensus of what constitutes right and wrong, common among the Grantians; if Ken G. and yourself have endorsed and applauded a Nietschean turning away as the highest values of the Judeo-Christian world destroy themselves in a nihilistic frenzy, please be so kind as to reveal it to us...

So in other words, if we do not shriek the same hysterical ant-egalitarian rhetoric as you, then we are Uncle Sams. Your posturing is all very well, and will doubtless earn you a few plaudits amongst the credulous, but nothing more. I doubt that you believe it yourself.

"Keith418" wrote:
I have found passages where Bertiaux rejects humanitarianism. But you always seem to be defending it here. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

I've read very little Bertiaux. Is there any particular reason why familiarity with his work should be compulsory for me, or why I should be in agreement with him? Why, more to the point, should it be a matter of triumph to you to discover differences between Bertiaux and myself?

A little bewildered,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
sonofthestar
(@sonofthestar)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 375
15/06/2010 11:54 pm  

93!

Keith418

I am telling you, that a Thelemite,
whether calling his or herself by that name or not,
is "Not" justified having to feel "guilt" about anything.
"The pain of regret and sighing, is left to the dead and dying."

If an individual ever feels that any particular actions on their part were awry, wrong, in error, or a mistake,
in their dealings with others, to feel guilty over it is useless and un-Thelemic.
The most they can do is to change the way they interact with people, and rectify (if it is their will to do so)
what they feel must be rectified.
I have encountered many a person, that always manage to treat those around them in a shabby way; always manage to feel guilty and sorry about it, yet continue all over again, once things have cooled down a tad with the passing of enough time.

Most Importantly Though:
An "Individual" has no need to Ever feel guilty over anything, others of his/her particular race have done.
One is only accountable for one's own choices in life, and the resulting effects thereof.

93! 93! 93!


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 127
16/06/2010 12:15 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
To my mind, Keith, this depends upon what we mean by establishing the Law of Thelema. I wonder if you don't see it in the sense of overthrowing the present order and establishing a Thelemic state; in similar vein, we have some people here in the UK who want to establish an Islamic state. If this is your idea, I think it merely vainglorious. How's it going to happen? Where are your Thelemic foot-soldiers to march upon the centres of power? Or do you think that the current vested interests are going to pass everything to you because they find your arguments convincing? You remind me of people on the left, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, who were always looking forward to "the revolution", one which never came..

Well, again, i have no idea at this juncture, how anything will pan out, I also think it would be presumptuous of me, or anyone else, to try to nail down what a "Thelemic society" would like at this point. If I already know what the effect of an initiation will be before I take it, then I have no need to take it, do I? Isn't the creation of a Thelemic society analogous?

At the same time, there will be no reason to create such a society, in the long term or short term, if everyone is more less in agreement with the society they already have.

Regarding the people in the '60s and '70s, many of them began a "long march" through the halls of academia and invested themselves in a long term "cultural revolution" that sought to re-make their original Marxism into social engineering. Many attribute the stifling PC culture of modern universities to the presence and tenacious efforts of these very activists.

Part of personally "radiating" Thelema, to my mind, means, well, challenging the status quo and the accepted, common sense, a priori values of the "non-Thelemic" society. If I refrain from pushing those buttons, then how much real "radiating" can I, or anyone else so inhibited, truly be said to be doing?

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I believe that the establishment of the Law of Thelema is a matter of increasing awareness of the Law of Thelema, and this is best brought about by example - by demonstrating to people what a sound principle it is. This will be done slowly and gradually.

Again, if the example is one in which all the liberal values we are used to, grew up with, and find ourselves surrounded by, are never challenged or questioned, then I have a feeling that the progress won't be slow - it will be non-existent. If I was worried and conflicted about Crowley, and wanted merely to appreciate him as a hobby or in a kind of antiquarian-collector sense, maybe that kind of approach would appeal to me.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Again, Keith, you seem of the view that to be a Thelemite is to ape Crowley. Not so.

I note that only when liberal & egalitarian values are questioned that anyone is accused of "aping Crowley." Can't one be accused of "aping him" in other ways? If you and I agree both with something he said, then are we both "aping" him then? Or is it only when I agree with him about an issue or subject that you obviously do not, and which you reject, that I get accused of "aping him"?

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
So in other words, if we do not shriek the same hysterical ant-egalitarian rhetoric as you, then we are Uncle Sams. Your posturing is all very well, and will doubtless earn you a few plaudits amongst the credulous, but nothing more. I doubt that you believe it yourself.

Have I been all that "hysterical"? have I been "shrieking"? Or is anyone who disagrees with you and Grant - by the very fact of their disagreement - "hysterical"? After all, isn't any and all criticism directed at egalitarian values necessarily "hysterical"? That must be reassuring, I'm sure. I guess Crowley was being "shrieking" and "hysterical" when he penned "Magick Without Tears" too. At least I am in good company...

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I've read very little Bertiaux. Is there any particular reason why familiarity with his work should be compulsory for me, or why I should be in agreement with him? Why, more to the point, should it be a matter of triumph to you to discover differences between Bertiaux and myself

I - like many others - first heard about MB via the books by KG and I think the passage I'm thinking of appears in one of these books. If Grant chose to cite it, I wondered if that meant that this citation carried with it Grant's endorsement of those sentiments. That's all. I in no may wanted to imply you should be an MB expert.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/06/2010 12:22 am  

wellredwellbred,

First of all I am not saying that Crowley and Evola were working on the same goals, there are significant differences, which boil down to Evola wanted to restore the Osiris Traditional formula of the Solar-Phallic king, under some lineage of one of the initiatory schools that he believed originated super-naturally from the Hyperborean race.
Crowley on the other hand recognized that those lines of initiation were based on superstitions and they forced the initiate into a very tight model, where the LAW was bestowed to him from the transcendent GOD. That is God forced man into his image and each caste was forced from birth by superstition of blood line, into a cookie cutter mold.

(Where they are the same is perennialism, They both believed in a transcendent order that never changes. Crowley believed that the formula to relate that order (A.'.A.'.) with us stupid little humans had to change from time to time because we change and it stays the same. Evola believed that we have to stick to the original formula and that our changing was a decay of our moral center and a failure to adhere to the old formula. When Crowley said things like he believed Paganism was Wholesome, he did not mean modern day wicca, neo-pagan nonsense, he meant the Ideal Pagan Revival that people like Evola spoke of. A return to traditional religion on which the caste structure was formed. The closed we have to that in modern paganism is some versions of Asatru.)

Where Evola was a top-down order derives from the super-natural and OTHER. The Crowley rather, located the Divine principle within the individual, were each individual like a seed grows into the type of plant than is inherent in that seed. That is your place in the caste system is not forced onto you, but you grow into it. The role of society is to aid each individual by first discerning which type of seed that it is and making available to it all it needs to grow, so that it's full potential is made manifest, as the best of it's type.

The idea is not that the individual has to come to terms with itself and discover it's own caste, but yet the role of society is to provide a place for it, and to nourish each individual according to it's nature.

The modern egalitarian, insists that we are all the same and the only force than determines what you will "grow up to be" is whatever you want to be. That is not Thelema.

Thelema says you are what you are, but you have to come to first dispel all illusion about what you might want to be and them come to terms with what you are. Then Bind yourself with the highest discipline to only do that which is appropriate to what you are.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/06/2010 12:38 am  

Second,
I am not advocating racial violence and hatred. Though I may be promoting Racism or Racialism, which is hard to say because the meaning of those words swapped at least once. What I am saying is that Just like we have a taxonomy for genetics. Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species. There is also with people, who are not biology but also a history, a passed down culture, that is not just in the written text, their are subtle things taught directly by interaction, which are partly biology. As well as the written stored history. These all combine to make a Person, which is more than an individual, as an individual is just a blank shell of a human stripped down to it's basics, and not "The organism as a whole in it's environment as a whole" Which the social environment is part of the Person. (Including the soil, ie the natural habitat)

So the Taxonomy of a person includes Nation, Race, Area, Community, Family, and Individual.
These are all factors that effect the TRUE WILL or the Individual. Hadit the inner discrete entity is defined by these layers, and they define the relative relation to NUIT.

If we strip away all that makes us unique, then we can not have a WILL at all.


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 127
16/06/2010 12:45 am  

"The Secret Chiefs had informed me that a New Aeon implied the breaking up of the civilization existing at the time; obviously to change the Magical Formula of the planet is to change all moral sanctions and the result is bound to appear disastrous. The Cult of The Dying God introduced by Dionysus destroyed the Roman virtue and smashed the Roman culture. (Possibly the introduction of the worship of Osiris in an earlier epoch was primarily responsible for the decay of Egyptian civilization.) The nature of Horus being 'Force and Fire', his aeon would be marked by the collapse of humanitarianism."

- Crowley

Is AC wrong here about the necessity of the collapse of humanitarianism? If he is wrong, then what does that imply about everything else he has said along these lines? If he is wrong, why do we think he is wrong? Have any other spiritual authorities, those presumably more advanced than Crowley (new "secret chiefs" perhaps?), condescended to correct him for us on this issue? Anyone have any details on that front?

If he is correct, then what are the implications of a "collapse of humanitarianism"? What will this mean and what is indicated by it?

Is abandoning "humanitarianism" no big deal? Or, if we stand with Crowley in asserting that it has to go, then what will this entail?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/06/2010 1:35 am  
"Keith418" wrote:
"The Secret Chiefs had informed me that a New Aeon implied the breaking up of the civilization existing at the time; obviously to change the Magical Formula of the planet is to change all moral sanctions and the result is bound to appear disastrous. The Cult of The Dying God introduced by Dionysus destroyed the Roman virtue and smashed the Roman culture. (Possibly the introduction of the worship of Osiris in an earlier epoch was primarily responsible for the decay of Egyptian civilization.) The nature of Horus being 'Force and Fire', his aeon would be marked by the collapse of humanitarianism."

- Crowley

Is AC wrong here about the necessity of the collapse of humanitarianism? If he is wrong, then what does that imply about everything else he has said along these lines? If he is wrong, why do we think he is wrong? Have any other spiritual authorities, those presumably more advanced than Crowley (new "secret chiefs" perhaps?), condescended to correct him for us on this issue? Anyone have any details on that front?

If he is correct, then what are the implications of a "collapse of humanitarianism"? What will this mean and what is indicated by it?

Is abandoning "humanitarianism" no big deal? Or, if we stand with Crowley in asserting that it has to go, then what will this entail?

Nothing in the quote above suggests a complete abandonment of humanitarianism. That's your unique interpretation. Obviously we've already seen a collapse of humanitarianism at the start of the Aeon of Horus with the Holocaust and other examples of genocide which still go on to this day.

Crowley advocates humanitarianism in this quote from The Confessions which comes in a section describing the new Thelemic society he envisions:

"In the past, the mob without will or mind have been treated without sense or scruple; a mistake socially, economically and politically, no less than from the humanitarian point of view. We must remember that each man and woman is a star, it is our duty to maintain the order of nature by seeing to it that his orbit is correctly calculated."

The communist 'civilization' already fell apart, and the captialist one doesn't seem that far behind. The 'civilization,' called the British Empire, has already largely fallen apart compared to what it was toward the closing of the old aeon.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/06/2010 10:46 am  
"Keith418" wrote:
[…] how will a genuine politics of Thelema, as opposed to a pseudo-Thelema that seeks to reconcile Crowley's teachings to conventional humanism (and always at his expense), ever manifest and assert itself?

One must keep in mind that whatever Crowley envisioned as an objective for Thelemic politics – this objective is far from beeing implemented in a scale that makes a difference in the real world. It would require Thelemites to be far more interested in influencing society in a far more co-ordinated effort than they do now. Instead of viewing the political ramifications of Thelema as some add-on on top of their magico-mystical private efforts, it would need to be an integrated part of their understanding of Thelema.

Michael Stahley’s vision of how individual efforts will somehow radiate outwards and set an example for others to follow have some merit. But when it comes to practical politics I believe this notion tends to be an idealism akin to the belief in the Maharishi Effect.

Currently, I think ’Thelema as applied politics’ lacks both the numbers and the zealous dedication neccessary to make a difference - although the contemprorary state of society has no lack of issues that should invite such dedication.

Alain de Benoist has been mentioned – and I think Thelemites interested in applied politics should study him. De Benoist is deeply influenced by a strain of ideas developed by the marxist theoretican Antonio Gramsci, i.e. the method of metapolitics. Gramsci perceived that the marxist prediction of class-warfare and revolution did not manifest as the marxist theory postulated they would. He then described this effect to what he termed ’cultural hegemony’ – i.e that the ruling capitalist class had succeeded in making their culture and values and perceptions of life into universals. These values where then taken as given in academies, in media, in cultural institutions, in entertainment and in education etc – resulting in a society where the civil sphere supported the political sphere, although, according to marxist understanding, most members of the civil sphere did not gain anything from such a support – on the contrary they were repressed and exploited.

Gramsci perceived that in order to change society one ought to begin to change the cultural hegemony rather than engaging in party politics or revolutionary violence. By thus gaining influence in the civil sphere one could then be in a position to disseminate mariginal ideology in a much more effective way than attempting the same through old school political discourse.

Well - one could say that the metapolitical efforts of the Left has not succeeded in the marxist goal of destroying capitalism – but it has succeeded in establishing a cultural hegemony where marginal ideas (as the field of so-called ’critical theory’ within academics and so on) have gained a much larger influence than otherwise possible.

Likewise, if one were to coordinate the combined efforts of all individual Thelemites I believe one already would have seen the construction and operation of initiatory abbeys as well as a more effective propagation of the Law in society at large. The metapolitical perspective may prove to be a valuable tool if used properly towards such objectives.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/06/2010 3:37 pm  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
You are engaging in false dilemmas here.
"Patriarch156" wrote:
[Quoting Crowley:] “Our whole object being to establish a just and strong law, our first principle must be for law as such however unjust."
"Patriarch156" wrote:
[Quoting Crowley:] "[o]n no account will orders be given which would infringe the law of the country where they are to be carried out. Our whole object being to establish a just and strong law, our first principle must be for law as such however unjust."
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
Constitutional law does "bear constantly in mind" first principles.
"Patriarch156" wrote:
I am not really sure what this has to do with my point about how you must seperate the mystical concept of True Will from the practical program of politics of Thelema?

Hope I am not – to use your words Patriarch156 – “engaging in false dilemmas here.” Patriarch156, I am not interested in “the mystical concept of True Will” as I have rejected Thelema, I am only interested in what implementation of “the practical program of politics of Thelema”, as envisioned by Crowley on the level of a nation state, will mean for the political power and influence of any legally adult individual in such a nation state. Does it mean that someone calling themselves Thelemites, will in the name of Liberty take away all common voters’ democratic rights to general elections in said nation state?

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
Or do you see no possibility for what Crowley envisioned for Thelema politically, of being fullfilled in any form of a democracy?
"Patriarch156" wrote:
I do not really understand your question, never the less I will attempt to answer it. Obviously Crowley beleived that one could work towards harmonizing the existing law with that of the Law of Thelema through social activism within the boundaries of the Law itself.
"Patriarch156" wrote:
Consequently along a continuum the existing legislature will be more or less in harmony with the Law of Liberty and if the social activism proves effective increasingly so.
"Patriarch156" wrote:
In the case where this were hundred percent fulfilled, in order to be work, it would need a liberal democracy that did not elect away our liberty for safety and one that were capable of electing something else than mediocrities.
"Patriarch156" wrote:
I do not think this is either a realistic expectation of the avarage voter or politician to accomplish. Moreover our doctrines are in agreement with a more realistic as opposed to idealistic view of the avarage human being. If you differ that is your right 🙂

Patriarch156, do I understand you correctly when I interpret the quotes from you above, to mean that “the practical program of politics of Thelema” as envisioned by Crowley, does include – in the name of Liberty – taking away the democratic rights, political power and influence of any individual common voter in a Telemically governed nation state, to general elections in such a nation state?

"Camlion" wrote:
As for the actual role of the average voter in a modern democracy, I'm sure that we will get to that shortly.

Camlion, I hope you find my questions to Patriarch156 above, as for the actual role – if any – of the average voter in a Thelemically governed nation state, to be of some relevance.

"Camlion" wrote:
I would enjoy hearing the thoughts of anyone interested in these ideas, most particularly those of wellredwellbred, Patriarch156, Keith418, Zardoz, MichaelStaley (a liberal of my own generation) and Hecate, from her perspective as a citizen of Greece - a country presently in relevant political and economic circumstances.

Your ideas in this regard sound fine to me Camlion, as they do not seem to involve – in the name of Liberty – taking away my democratic rights as an average voter.

"Keith418" wrote:
If "sinister" practices do not challenge basic moral values, then how "sinister" can they really be? Instead, it seems like people want the "glamor" of evil (vampires, monsters, spookiness, etc.) without the risk of real transgression or challenge. Doesn't this seem shallow?

In light of the situation of liberty outside the so called western part of this world, the powers that be in the majority of countries, are likely to find Crowley’s focus on liberty to be most "sinister", and so are the electable powers that be in the West, if Crowley's focus on liberty means permanent removal of democracy. In that case, all powers that be in this world are likely to find Crowley’s focus on liberty to be most "sinister."

name538, I am not concerned with any ethical or moral implications of your promotion of ideas inspired by the political theorist, professor of law and Nazi party member(from 1933), Carl Schmitt, or the semi-fascist and - through Heinrich Himmler - Nazi employed(from 1943 or 1944) philosopher and esotericist, Julius Evola. But I am concerned by that some of Schmitt’s and Evola’s ideas – as promoted by you - are outdated and dangerous for our survival as a species, because various packs of our species possess a large number of weapons of mass destruction. My strongly critical approach to you in this regard where you recommend these various packs emphasizing more on their antagonism to other packs, is mainly focused on the currently impracticable nature of the said ideas promoted by you. Inaccurately mingling these impracticable and outdated ideas, with what Crowley envisioned for the future of Thelema politically, does not improve the impression you give name538.

*Some reflections on Thelema, leading me to reject it (also straying into the eventuality of electable Thelemic politicians):

- Individual development or intiatic progress within Crowley’s Thelema consists of a plait work of speech functions. The individual works for to – through both its thinking and its actions – live as much in accordance with Thelema as possible. Questions of will are absolutely central. If something is really seriously the will of the individual, then this can be turned into reality. This includes the capability of an individual to totally change its identity, as if the baggage of previously learned codes is not a constituting power in the personality of any individual.

That is, one can recreate oneself anew totally from scratch by letting oneself be filled by “the correct thoughts” and the “the correct actions.” At the core of this lays a viewpoint upon individuals as some sort of container that can be emptied and filled at will. This is clearly illustrated by the ideal initiatic candidate within Crowley’s Thelema, after an eventual passing of what Crowley calls the Abyss, being described by Crowley having emptied itself of “every last drop of blood” into what he calls “the Cup of Babalon.”
After this “passing of the Abyss”, the individual is ready to get its identity filled up, ready to be reborn, ready to become into existence anew.

Like Aleister Crowley, convincing oneself of – according to this common way of thinking within the dominating meme(=a unit of cultural ideas, symbols or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals or other imitable phenomena) of modernity during Crowley’s lifetime, of that everything is possible and that all paths lay open – having succeeded in such a supreme transformation, can lead to a Crowley-like arrogance towards others “less fortunate.”

Presence of such arrogance will clearly be counterproductive in electable politicians. It will also be counterproductive for such electable politicians to repeat Crowley’s faulty reasoning of claiming that Thelema – like for example in its garb of magick – is scientific and thus by necessity bound to be leading to specific and previously decided/planed results, and – like Crowley – thus making Thelema “infallible.”

Because then they will end up like Crowley did when faced with lack of success, namely constantly complaining about his adherents, instead of questioning the infallibility of Thelema, or like Stalin when faced with lack of success, looking for scapegoats, instead of questioning the infallibility of “scientific socialism.”


Picture above – from the gallery of lashtal.com – of Aleister Crowley dressed up as Winston Churchill, the latter being a personal favorite of Aleister Crowley among politicians.[Description of image used in this posting, for those readers who are blind or visually impaired.]

Quote from Winston Churchill in House of Commons, 11 November 1947:

"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

Source:
http://richardlangworth.com/2009/06/democracy-is-the-worst-form-of-government/


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
16/06/2010 4:26 pm  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
Does it mean that someone calling themselves Thelemites, will in the name of Liberty take away all common voters’ democratic rights to general elections in said nation state?

Yes, noone will be allowed to exercise their socalled democratic rights to infringe upon the liberty of others, in order to subordinate them to their false ideals and concepts of safety first.

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
Patriarch156, do I understand you correctly when I interpret the quotes from you above, to mean that “the practical program of politics of Thelema” as envisioned by Crowley, does include – in the name of Liberty – taking away the democratic rights, political power and influence of any individual common voter in a Telemically governed nation state, to general elections in such a nation state?

Yes you will not be able to exercise your socalled democratic right to barter away the freedom of others for safety.

"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

You do realize that at the time when Churchil declared the above Crowley was seriously ill as he would die the next month? Moreover his diary does not mention this quote at all, so your attempt at stringing too unrelated concepts (Crowley's admiration of Churchill's caretaking of GB during WWII and a statement Churchill declared one month before he died) together is a bit disingenious to say the least.


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 127
16/06/2010 4:39 pm  

"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.?

Thus we could instantly solve the "problem" of a Thelemic politics...


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 127
16/06/2010 5:16 pm  

One way to approach the nature of a "Thelemic politics" is to question whether or not it would be a politics of the "left" or a politics of the "right." If it is a politics of the left, what would the challenges of that be for people on the right? Likewise, if we insist, or discover, that it is a politics of the "right", then what challenges would that offer people coming from the "left"?

If, instead, we decided that Thelema is a politics that is situated "beyond left & right" then we would have to look at the difficulties such a politics would present to the people committed to either left or right political positions. How would each side seek to pull Thelema back to something they were more comfortable with? If they were to abandon their previous commitments, what would they have to give up - or "get over"?

We might say, instead, that the old "left & right" distinctions are increasingly meaningless in modern politics. In that case, we might wonder where Thelema was if we were to divide political factions, or political categories, into other kinds of categories - like those between a politics of the "center" and the political thinking that exists on the "periphery." Do we want Thelema to be something that will appeal to the people in the center? Then what will we have to compromise in order to get it there? What will we have to play down, diminish, or avoid discussing to make it more appealing to those in the political "center"?The people desperate to legitimize Thelema in the eyes of the world, and among those seen as possessing moral force, the power of persuasion, and an established sense of authority at their command, usually choose to curry such favor by tossing Crowley under a bus as fast as they can. Instead of Thelema being here to change the world, the world seems to be here to change Thelema.

In Liber Aleph, Crowley describes people being warped by the values of their society:

"For we are born into a World which is in Bondage to Ideals; to them we are perforce fitted, even as the Enemies to the Bed of Procrustes. Each of us, as he grows, learns Repression of himself and his true Will."

I have noted that when people in the Thelemic community perceive these Ideals of bondage as having their origins on the right (racism, sexism, homophobia), they cheer Crowley's offer of liberation here in this passage. But aren't the ideals of the left, and its increasingly omnipresent, attendant, and repressive "politically correct" culture, just as dangerous and destructive to the individual? Why is "right guilt" bad and "left guilt" good?

It seems clear that unless the left's ideals are questioned and exploded in the same ways as the right's are, then Thelema is reduced to only being a sort of occult appendage to the larger left political and social project. As any occultism instantly appears as being far less effective as an agent, or tool, of mass cultural change for the left than, say Hollywood films, it will become increasingly meaningless and redundant.

Now, one could insist that in Crowley's time, people were born into a world that was "in Bondage to" bad and deforming "Ideals" - but, due to "progress" this is now, fortunately, no longer the case. Instead, the democratic, multicultural, and leftist social engineering we are now subjected to not like this "bed of Procrustes" at all. What was true for Crowley in his time and in his world is no longer true for us and our world. But if we are no longer being born into a world that is in bondage to ideals, then we have no need for Thelema or magick at all. "Progress" has taken care of most of those terrible things for us, and if we sit back and enjoy the ride, progress" - by its very nature - will improve things for everyone steadily as we go. I would suggest the more people insist that Thelema is not one whit different from the general left consensus, the more meaningless it becomes for them... and for everyone else.


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 127
16/06/2010 5:54 pm  
"Taxidermist" wrote:
Alain de Benoist has been mentioned – and I think Thelemites interested in applied politics should study him. De Benoist is deeply influenced by a strain of ideas developed by the marxist theoretican Antonio Gramsci, i.e. the method of metapolitics.

Actually, while I myself have written about a possible "Thelemic Gramscian" approach, Benoist claims that Gramsci's influence on him and his groups has been greatly exaggerated. He did say, "Since political changes are generally preceded by a conceptual transformation, Gramsci set for intellectuals the task to venture out on the level of values which determine public opinion."

Here we face the question as to whether Thelema is about values or not - and specifically whether it is about "political values" or not. Some appear to think that "mixing Thelema with politics" is dangerous or a waste of time. They usually compartmentalize their Thelema away from their politics - treating them as unrelated topics. This reminds me of the way any deeply religious, spiritual, or ideological practices in the West must become, or are forced to become, subordinated to a myriad of other more pressing and important factors and concerns.

Thelema is about values or it is about nothing. Metapolitics begins with examining many things - but it also involves being able to state what a political position is for and what it is against; what it accepts as legitimate and what it declares illegitimate; who are its friends and who are its foes. Such decisions are not always easy, they become more difficult as one seeks to reconcile inherently opposing values, or find themselves torn and conflicted.

Gramsci himself recognized this situation:

"The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear."

Isn't this true for us in the Thelemic community?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/06/2010 6:12 pm  

Interesting post, Taxidermist.

"Taxidermist" wrote:
"Keith418" wrote:
[…] how will a genuine politics of Thelema, as opposed to a pseudo-Thelema that seeks to reconcile Crowley's teachings to conventional humanism (and always at his expense), ever manifest and assert itself?

One must keep in mind that whatever Crowley envisioned as an objective for Thelemic politics – this objective is far from beeing implemented in a scale that makes a difference in the real world. It would require Thelemites to be far more interested in influencing society in a far more co-ordinated effort than they do now. Instead of viewing the political ramifications of Thelema as some add-on on top of their magico-mystical private efforts, it would need to be an integrated part of their understanding of Thelema.

Yes, implementation on a scale that makes a difference in the real world is certainly the goal. But, as a 'voting block,' even a united and committed front of the total number of Thelemites on the planet would not be significant, even if they were all citizens of a single nation of reasonable size. No, political success would require the participation of very high numbers of people, many of whom had never even heard of Thelema or Crowley or Liber AL, who would favor the changes being made only because these changes benefited them personally, not to overtly advance the cause of something called "Thelema." In simple terms, the system being proposed must actually work better than the present systems for all individuals everywhere within the geographical bounds in question.

"Taxidermist" wrote:
Michael Stahley’s vision of how individual efforts will somehow radiate outwards and set an example for others to follow have some merit. But when it comes to practical politics I believe this notion tends to be an idealism akin to the belief in the Maharishi Effect.

Agreed. This vision may have some merit, as in setting a "good example" for others, but this "good example" is rather unlikely to be identified by anyone as being related to any given worldview that the average person could relate to in any way. It is also not focused in any way on any sort of political action, but rather on political inaction. The downside is that it is so often just a rationalization for complacency, which is fine for those disinterested in the sort of change being contemplated in this thread, but is far from fine for those who are interested.

"Taxidermist" wrote:
Currently, I think ’Thelema as applied politics’ lacks both the numbers and the zealous dedication neccessary to make a difference - although the contemprorary state of society has no lack of issues that should invite such dedication.

Yes, overt Thelema will lack the numbers for the foreseeable future. It's principles must attract the interest of the general population to result in any sort of real success in the near term.

As for Abbeys of Thelema and all that this implies, this has been done, is being done and will be done in the future, but this is a very slow multigenerational process. (I'm only at the beginning of the third generation of my own efforts.)


ReplyQuote
Page 7 / 12
Share: