This thread is timely. Kairos.
Spirituality in politics has been a subject under discussion with the rise of Marianne Williamson in the US Democratic primary.
The thought of an initiate as a candidate brought to mind a verse from The Book of Codes Ch.2 ver10 which recommends that high office political leaders should be high initiates.
While she isn't Thelemic she does appear to be someone who has gone through trials and done work to advance on the path.
I picked up Illuminata, a devotional book she wrote, a few weeks ago and some of the things she'd written in the introduction and Part I share a similar tone as some of Thelema's inspired writings. Interpreting it in the light of Liber XXX.
When I first started watching her candidacy she made a twitter post(later deleted) about Shakti, the quantum realm and energy and it read like Nuit, Hadit, Ra Hoor Khuit. I wish the tweet wasn't deleted so I could share it with you.
She makes these types of tweets on occasion and deletes them. Not very often. I think they're meant for initiates and not the general public so she doesn't leave them up. Just long enough to get the message out. Providing a visualization cue or focus or similar intent. They're probably archived somewhere.
She recently qualified for the first round of debates against all expectation and the desires of some.
It'll be interesting watching her campaign develop and how she does in the debates.
While she may not become the Democratic nominee she has already inspired others and opened some inroads and helped show the layout of some of the path and obstacles in the process for those who are seeking office and are openly spiritual. This could also apply to and benefit Thelemites.
I am happy to argue about politics, and why i am an anarchist-communist, and why i think anarchist communism is philosophically well-aligned with Thelema.
However, i am not interested in providing basic education in anarchist and communist theory, practice, and history. If you want to tell my why i am wrong, please at least have some idea of what might be meant by anarchist communism.
You need to have some idea what, eg, Marx, Kropotkin, Stirner, Bakunin, Malatesta, Goldman, Berkman, and Bookchin said/wrote, and what happened in the Paris Commune, the Russian revolution (Kronstadt and Makhnos's struggles in the Ukraine especially), the IWW's labor struggles, and the Spanish Civil War.
I would urge reading at a bare minimum the following two wikipedia articles:
Ig: I am happy to argue about politics, and why i am an anarchist-communist, and why i think anarchist communism is philosophically well-aligned with Thelema.
AC described his OTO Constitution as Aristocratic Communism. I don't think that's the same as arnarchistic-communism.
1. A member of a ruling class or of the nobility.
2. A person who advocates government by an aristocracy.
3. Government by the best individuals or by a small privileged class.
4. A government in which power is vested in a minority consisting of those believed to be best qualified.
This last definition (#4) seems the best, if "best qualified" means "Wisdom."
I have deep reservations about the "small privileged class" in #3. Why in the hell should they be "privileged" above and beyond the common person?
aristocrat here is a huge slot machine company.
None of those four definitions of Aristocrat are acceptable as society stands today. Your number 4 best qualified interpretation wisdom works best for me but again, as believed by who. If we take this forum and the regular crowd for example. Who you would believe to be the best man for the job of king lashtal probably differs greatly from mine. Then again possibly not it may align if we both used our own wisdom. Interesting thought there anyway.
I have sex pistols singing in my head, reminiscing about my "punk days" to tell the truth It was one of the only punk songs i really liked. I walked the walk, talked the talk but it wasn't a right fit. I skimmed the wiki anarchy page, a few paragraphs in it lost me. I saw a design fault.
The other link however.. brb that one sparked me
The New Law of Righteousness, that there "shall be no buying or selling, no fairs nor markets, but the whole earth shall be a common treasury for every man," and "there shall be none Lord over others, but every one shall be a Lord of himself"
a simplistic form but the "common treasury" bit is the stopper. it implies mankind has dominion. He doesn't .. Anyhow Im off to bed and will read through that page in more detail when I wake up. Thanks Ignant and everyone else for some new ponderings
It would be nice to see a working model of Anarchism to gauge it's success factor. I think any anarchistic society would revert back to a pyramid of power after a period of time. Because human nature.
If our society switched to anarchism, which it could possibly do in an instant, if something like a massive solar flare hit then it's survival of the fittest first before any community ideals are bought to the table.
The trouble I see with a sudden switch like that is once again, you have a power versus non power situation. The smartest (not brainiest) and the toughest would be at the top of the pyramid. using myself as an example as I think from my perspective and expand out.. I may be smart but Im old, 5 foot nothing, scrawny as. So not able to get by on beauty and whats between my legs so to speak, being smart I'd figure out what the tough guys NEED... and trade.. my brains for their backup. It would be a co dependent relationship, both benefiting, the brawn needing the brains and the brains needing the brawn. But I would always have to watch my back, some other smartbutt would want what I had and eventually figure out how to do it. So my ideal would be to set someone else up as the front, which from experience works better. let someone else be the fall guy. Guide them to what you want but step back when shit goes to clay.
In this type of system, I feel you would eventually get "the shadow". The power behind the power. What's that lodge all the pres's belong to? very masonic type. I remember a photo of them all grinning. Someone may know? Something like that anyway.
basically very much like our society today. We are capitalist. Every man for himself but the money still channels that pyramid shape, poor at bottom to the elite at top. As does communism.
Socialism comes close to working but once again human nature. It's not easy because of history. History sets that example. Prejudices exist. 7 deadly sins exist.
I've looked at this one all ways and still do.
The systems I wish to look at no longer exist. The oracle of Delphi is my biggest "curious" at the moment. Everywhere I look in Egyptian and Hebrew systems have the "priests" controlling. I'd love to see before the priests. Before Opollo turned the mother's mirror back at the temple and killed the serpents, when what I believe to be a female psychic line didnt rule as such but their word was law basically. It was the truth.
The royal lines of europe were developed after this. When Opollo killed the serpent, the original oracle and the twin serpents temple guards that became the cadaceus, oppollo bought "virgins" in, whom weirdly he had to cleanse. So I guess, oppollo was trying to breed a gene which he had killed off in the serpent and mix it with his genes and create the masters the royal lines of europe. The habsburgs and co.
So with that aspect a monarchy as government today has no value as a political system. Only because people arent stupid, it 2019 we are mostly all educated and we know that these royal lines are no better than us.
and oppollo wasn't successful. He didnt get the gene, he only got parts of it, so hence the queen isn't in buckingham palace sniffing vapours... although somethings keeping her going
Communism an ideal I always leaned to. Now that I am older, I see the bastardization in that system to. Roman A????? forget his name love his yachts though, I've spent many an hour on google poring over them. Owns a soccer team and is a great mate of Putin. Perfect example of a failure of a system.
Crowley says basically paraphrased: Each person is who they are and nobody else. he says a king is a king and basically a slave is a slave. I don't like the term slave, because history once again and i was never into D&B. So Ill use the example a soldier is a soldier a writer is a scribe a cook is a cook. A child carer is a child carer. What he is saying is that each person inside, with their true will is what he or she is was and always will be. None raised up and none tossed down.
So I believe him, he is yet to lie to me so that means either
no changes to how it is now everything is as it should be Or revelations to restore a community based society to allow everyone to become who they are.
I'd just like to pose a few questions before (or if I can) do further research.
Crowley said that Nietzsche was "almost an avatar of Thoth". With that said we can safely assume that a lot of AC's ideas about Thelema and politics criss-cross with Nietzschean socio-political outlooks. Therefore I assume that AC lumped the slave morality theory of Christianity with any type of urge towards 'dictatorship by the proletariat' as a malign force of resentement. How can you therefore reconcile any notion of Thelema with such movements? Unless of course the predatorial dominant blonde beast is using stealth in such chaotic situations where he emerges as shrewd, sneaky corrupt self-orientated party member (or leader) e.g. Joseph Stalin. Orwell's Animal Farm and all that.
Secondly, on the subject of Stalin, you are aware that the reactionary forces in The Spanish Civil War were genuinely shit-scared that Spain would become a Soviet satellite state. Stalin was interested in this strategy.
Finally, how do you explain the likes of Stalin or Pol Pot? Were such notorious figures always in it for themselves right from the get-go or did they ever have any genuine ,( how can I put this?), altruistic egalitarian impulses? I recommend you watch this movie which gives a great perspective on the self-conflicts that Max Robespierre went through;
david; as i said above, i am not interested in debating my politics with the utterly uninformed. Please read at least the two wikipedia articles above before trying again.
As an example of your utter ignorance of anarchism, anarchist-communism, 20th-century left politics, and 20th-century history in general, you are correct that
the reactionary [in fact Fascist, and allied with Hitler and Mussolini] forces in The Spanish Civil War were genuinely shit-scared that Spain would become a Soviet satellite state. Stalin was interested in this strategy.
However, the Fascists, and the Soviet-backed Communists alike, were even more "genuinely shit-scared" that the Anarchist forces of the CNT-FAI would succeed in their revolution.
Communist forces attacked Anarchist forces numerous times in their effort to hijack to Spanish Revolution for the Soviet cause. Shortly after Franco succeeded in crushing the government forces on behalf of the fascist counter-revolution, Hitler and Stalin signed a non-aggression pact.
Me, ignorant of the events of the 20th century and modern history per se? That's a sweeping statement. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone else here who even knows who Max Robespierre was.
Ego aside, I'm curious as to why you won't at least answer me on the issue of e.g. Robespierre and other harsh revolutionary leaders. Was he ever driven by initial egalitarian impulses? It's an important question.
Therefore I assume that AC lumped the slave morality theory of Christianity with any type of urge towards ‘dictatorship by the proletariat’ as a malign force of resentement. How can you therefore reconcile any notion of Thelema with such movements?
So you think that Crowley's understanding of Thelema is the last word?
It's not difficult to see a collectivist interpretation of Thelema. Take, for instance, the principle that "every man and every woman is a star". Stars don't usually cavort capriciously through abysses of interstellar space. On the contrary, they have their own orbits, which interweave with the orbits of other stars. They are parts of a greater whole, through and in which they find expression.
In the 1970s I spent several years living on a kibbutz in Israel. Though I was merely a volunteer worker and thus in effect hired help, I did find it interesting to observe how the kibbutz functioned. The members of the kibbutz were on the same wage, and received this same wage no matter how much or how little effort they made. Despite this, there seemed to me few backsliders; those were immigrants to Israel, rather than Israelis who had grown up on the kibbutz and were imbued with its values and ethics.
Having been politically of the left since my 'teens. I find no difficulty whatever in reconciling Thelema and socialism. I appreciate that others can do likewise with right-wing politics.
Me, ignorant of the events of the 20th century and modern history per se? That’s a sweeping statement. I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone else here who even knows who Max Robespierre was.
Robespierre died in 1794.
Was [Robespierre] ever driven by initial egalitarian impulses? It’s an important question.
Evidently, in addition to being abysmally ignorant of 18th-20th century history, you have never been to France. The motto of the French Revolution was/is "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité"
ms: So you think that Crowley’s understanding of Thelema is the last word?
Well, yes, if one wants to base their outlook/inlook upon Crowley's writings, and then interpret them according to one's predilection.
It seems you might be suggesting that we read Crowley, then move on to our own experiences - as recommended by ... Crowley. What a novel idea!