Chaos/Meme Magick and the New Right
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"You're welcome to hold that opinion if it suits you, but you seem to be reading past what I said in order to put Nietzsche up on that pedestal. My comment was in response to you claiming that Crowley is Nietzschean. I was critiquing that bit of reduction by making the analogy "If Crowley can be reduced to Nietzsche, then Nietzsche can be reduced to Schopenhauer," both of which are obvious over-generalizations. Some of Crowley's writing can be seen to have derived from Nietzsche (or Burton, or Eckartshausen, or Swinburn, or Rabelais) in much the same way that some of Nietzsche's can be see to have derived from Schopenhauer (or Wagner, or Hegel, or Kant, or whomever you please, all the way back to Socrates if you like); but some of it most certainly does not. Reducing him with the label "Nietzschean" glosses over this in a most unhelpful way.
."Crowley *is *.... ok fair enough. The point still stands though, Nietzsche, after his initial study of philosophy, carved out his unique niche as the one who attempted to wipe the slate clean all the way back to pre-Socratic Greece.
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
As I've demonstrated above, She is the ultimate, though I might not use the word "identity". I'd have to see the actual wording to know what you (or he) mean by ultimate attainment. I would presume he's speaking of the ultimate unification of the individual with the All which is Not: i.e. the Union of Hadit and Nuit.
."Anyway "seek me only" 1:32 and "to me to me" 1:62 to 1:65 alludes to the Hierophantic task and means work to scale yourself up the sephirothic grades, that was my point.
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
]Well yes Tzaddi is Crowley at his most Nietszchean."So you've said. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.
[."
I guess.
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
Yes, in his Confessions. He also wrote that Eckenstein was an Ipsissimus, that Agustus John was a "supreme genus", that Burton was his "hero", etc. etc... None of these do anything to define the man, in toto. They are all notes in the symphony, some louder at times than at others.Hitting one note over and over doesn't make for very interesting music."
Yeah the statement "Crowley is Nietzschean" is limiting but , as I keep saying, he doesn't repeatedly refer to Eckenstein et al in The Old and New Comment but he does namecheck Nietzsche a fair bit. The Liber Al commentaries is where Thelema is defined. *The Confessions *were just a general hagiography so y'see this isn't one of mu hobby horses, i'm looking at it in *The Liber Al *comments. It's there for all to see.
-
@gerry456 said
"Anyway "seek me only" 1:32 and "to me to me" 1:62 to 1:65 alludes to the Hierophantic task and means work to scale yourself up the sephirothic grades, that was my point."
Huh... I wouldn't have connected either of those verses to the Hierophantic task or the sephirothic grades. Where do you see that connection?
@gerry456 said
"Yeah the statement "Crowley is Nietzschean" is limiting but , as I keep saying, he doesn't repeatedly refer to Eckenstein et al in The Old and New Comment but he does namecheck Nietzsche a fair bit. The Liber Al commentaries is where Thelema is defined. *The Confessions *were just a general hagiography so y'see this isn't one of mu hobby horses, i'm looking at it in *The Liber Al *comments. It's there for all to see."
My copy of the Old and New Comment only namechecks him twice (II.21 & III.57). I'll grant you that in the first of those he specifically says "There is a good deal of the Nietzschean standpoint in this verse," but he doesn't extend that viewpoint beyond the verse to the other 219 of the book. Nor did he ever waver in his claim that Aiwass wrote the book, not him.
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"[
Huh... I wouldn't have connected either of those verses to the Hierophantic task or the sephirothic grades. Where do you see that connection?
."Sorry ,for me, it's blatant. I can't say any more about it other than ........
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"Old and New Comment only namechecks him twice (II.21 & III.57). I'll grant you that in the first of those he specifically says "There is a good deal of the Nietzschean standpoint in this verse," but he doesn't extend that viewpoint beyond the verse to the other 219 of the book. Nor did he ever waver in his claim that Aiwass wrote the book, not him."
Well actually you're missing it because he espouses* Nietzschean concepts *in 2:25 where he criticizes "the people" and false concepts of equality. He uses the phrase "Christians to the lions" here. That phrase becomes a reprise as he uses in later verse-commentaries to echo that sentiment e.g. 2:57 and 2:59. In fact 2:57 could be lifted from Nietzsche's Antichrist as could a lot of AC'S writings. Go to 3:3 on the new aeon and the destruction of Christian culture via the Great War. You also missed 3:18 comments on "the artificial protection of the unfit" and 3:52 and 3:53 in which Nietzchean slave morality is discussed. When I say Nietzschean this includes harsh critiques of Christianity.
In 2:52 he comments about vice and virtue and cowardice. In 2:33 he says that reason is like a woman if you listen to it you are lost. This echoes Nietzsche's "chauvinism" e.g. Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the 'powerful', the 'strong', the men-" The Will to Power.
Ok I appreciate that you're criticising my logical expression and reductionism in defining A as B i.e. Crowley as Nietzchean I..e in the great span of the aeons these are merely two modern thinkers and nothing under the sun is original however, once again you're not appreciating the revolutionary impact of Nietzsche's work.
..... but yeah I get it, you appear to get off on being pedantic as stated by Mercurius. Y'know if someone calls you out on a flaw then they could be operating from a pov of ignorance but if two do it then there could be something in it.
-
@gerry456 said
"When I say Nietzschean this includes harsh critiques of Christianity."
So, when you said "he does namecheck Nietzsche a fair bit," what you meant was not that he actually references Nietzsche but that he's regularly anti-Christian and occasionally chauvinist? OK, if that's what you and the alt-right hack are calling "pedantic", I'll take it. To me, clarifying that level of over-generalization is just the basic critical thinking necessary for rational discourse.
"Ok I appreciate that you're criticising my logical expression and reductionism in defining A as B i.e. Crowley as Nietzchean I..e in the great span of the aeons these are merely two modern thinkers and nothing under the sun is original however, once again you're not appreciating the revolutionary impact of Nietzsche's work."
I very much appreciate the revolutionary impact of Nietzsche's work on Western Philosophy. I also appreciate that Crowley admired him and worked with many of the things he wrote. I don't, however, see any justification in painting the entirety of Crowley's literary output with that one brush. He was a multi-faceted personality and wrote and thought from a multitude of different viewpoints.
But, you know... continue seeing things through that tunnel if it serves you. What the thinker thinks, the prover proves.
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
@gerry456 said
"When I say Nietzschean this includes harsh critiques of Christianity."So, when you said "he does namecheck Nietzsche a fair bit," what you meant was not that he actually references Nietzsche but that he's regularly anti-Christian and occasionally chauvinist? OK, if that's what you and the alt-right hack are calling "pedantic", I'll take it. To me, clarifying that level of over-generalization is just the basic critical thinking necessary for rational discourse."
Let's get to the crux of the matter which involves the OP. Was Crowley an admirer of Herbert Spencer's Social Darwinism? Was Crowley a white supremacist? He made racist comments here and there but he made it clear that he didn't like Anglo Saxon culture. In the Confessions he rails against American southern states racist lynch mobs. I'd say his favourite places were Mexico and/or the Middle East.
More importantly, can a racist who wants apartheid or a sexist ,attain to their KACHGA and to further attainments? If not then why not?
Do I think that *Liber Al *is a white supremacist document? Well if the Law is for All then All are called to attempt to align with that Law. Black rights? White rights? Working class rights? Women's rights? Thou has no right but to do thy will ....................
Cp 2 ;* 17. Hear me, ye people of sighing!
The sorrows of pain and regret
Are left to the dead and the dying,
The folk that not know me as yet.- These are dead, these fellows; they feel not. We are not for the poor and sad: the lords of the earth are our kinsfolk. 19. Is a God to live in a dog? No! but the highest are of us. They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us. 20. Beauty and strength, leaping laughter and delicious languor, force and fire, are of us.
As you can see, no particular race, class or gender specified.
-
@gerry456 said
"
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Not me. White supremacy is incompatible with "Every man and every woman is a star""Ditto on the male supremacy."
Supremacy exists. Are you trying to deny that? "
No, not at all. Supremacy exists. However, male supremacy does not exist (except for things like producing semen from your own body).
"People are called to Nuit but many don't make it."
This can't be accurately distinguished by gender or race, though.
"The question is, why is Thelema Eurocentric?"
Is it? "Also the mantras and spells; the obeah and the wanga; the work of the wand and the work of the sword; these he shall learn and teach." Is this metaphorical, or was Crowley being instructed to learn and teach African-rooted Caribbean magick?
-
@gerry456 said
"
"Crowley was Nietzschean."This comment is so reductive as to be nearly empty of meaning. One could equally well say Nietzsche was Schopenhauerian and mean just as little by it."
If you're an ignoramus yes but seeing as I'm assuming you've read the New Comment and the references to Nietzsche therein I wouldn't be bringing Schopenhauerian comparisons into this."
He also mentioned Oscar Wilde. I assume you wouldn't object to Crowley being called Wildean. But, then, he also mentioned Jesus...
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
"People are called to Nuit but many don't make it."This can't be accurately distinguished by gender or race, though.
"The question is, why is Thelema Eurocentric?"
Is it? "Also the mantras and spells; the obeah and the wanga; the work of the wand and the work of the sword; these he shall learn and teach." Is this metaphorical, or was Crowley being instructed to learn and teach African-rooted Caribbean magick?"
Yeah I agree and I stated that above in my* Mon Dec 26, 2016 3:34 pm * post where I wrote,
"*Do I think that *Liber Al *is a white supremacist document? Well if the Law is for All then All are called to attempt to align with that Law. Black rights? White rights? Working class rights? Women's rights? Thou has no right but to do thy will ....................
Cp 2 ;* 17. Hear me, ye people of sighing!
The sorrows of pain and regret
Are left to the dead and the dying,
The folk that not know me as yet.- These are dead, these fellows; they feel not. We are not for the poor and sad: the lords of the earth are our kinsfolk. 19. Is a God to live in a dog? No! but the highest are of us. They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us. 20. Beauty and strength, leaping laughter and delicious languor, force and fire, are of us.
As you can see, no particular race, class or gender specified i.e. the addressees in those passages are not categorized as such.*"
-
There is a hell of a lot of confusion about Kek and the alt-right. Unless you are in the front seat daily and sometimes hourly of the right blogs, twitter and youtube and have been there since gamergate I swear most of you won't understand what it is at all. But it's nothing that the media are telling you. Of course. Why would it be?
The truth is.
1.The alt right ie Stormfront do use Kek yes.(v small group who get trolled and mocked by 2+3)
2.Trolls also use kek. (largest group)
3.Center left , center right and liberals use kek. (second largest group but influences the larger group of trolls - yes there are that many trolls)
edit
The rest of it was explaining why and how the center left feel this way but. meh. Deleted. It's not helping anything. -
Read through the article, the meaning of the synchronicity seems to stem from a particular subjective interpretation and culmination of symbols drawn from an incredibly vast range of possible connections and distinctions. What, why, and how this information has any prevalence at all to the connection of Trump's inauguration to some "new-right prophesy" is totally determinant on a predisposed view-set that is not synonymous with Thelema.
Will with a capital "W" in Thelema is different from the collective will of a socio-political faction intent to instill a leader in a governmental body through the use of internet "meme-magick." Anyone can push their will in a direction to achieve a desired mean, magick occurs in each moment through all motion. -
@Hannah said
"Read through the article, the meaning of the synchronicity seems to stem from a particular subjective interpretation and culmination of symbols drawn from an incredibly vast range of possible connections and distinctions. What, why, and how this information has any prevalence at all to the connection of Trump's inauguration to some "new-right prophesy" is totally determinant on a predisposed view-set that is not synonymous with Thelema. Will with a capital "W" in Thelema is different from the collective will of a socio-political faction intent to instill a leader in a governmental body through the use of internet "meme-magick." Anyone can push their will in a direction to achieve a desired mean, magick occurs in each moment through all motion
."I'm not so sure about that as part of Thelema is about belief in gods. Gods have a strange way of behaving and manifesting e.g. from Liber Al "1:64. I am the blue-lidded daughter of Sunset; I am the naked brilliance of the voluptuous night-sky." or, on a note appertaining to this thread the god may manifest as a sociological aggregate; "3:46. "*I am the warrior Lord of the Forties: the Eighties cower before me, & are abased"
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
@gerry456 said
"part of Thelema is about belief in gods."Is it? First I'm hearing of it."
Yes, see the collected works of Aleister Crowley. I suggest that you start with the introductory chapters to* The Book of the Law*.
-
Yes, I know them well. I've read them many times over and yet this is the first time I'm hearing that Thelema is about belief in anything, much less gods. Could you provide a citation for that premise? I'd love to study it more deeply.
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"Yes, I know them well. I've read them many times over and yet this is the first time I'm hearing that Thelema is about belief in anything, much less gods. Could you provide a citation for that premise? I'd love to study it more deeply."
I must remind you,. although i'm not forum admin, the message of admin is found here; <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=13595">viewtopic.php?f=48&t=13595</a><!-- l -->
A couple of quotes from that statement;
*
FIRST, we are most fundamentally a school of spiritual matters. SECOND, we use the Thelemic worldview (received and developed by Aleister Crowley throughout his life) as our framework. Phyllis Seckler (Soror Meral) founded a system devoted foremost to awakening people encased in the illusion of their mortality to their immortal, spiritual natures. I happily continue and expand on that foundation* andThe boundary is this: On a forum devoted foremost to spiritual, magical, mystical things, it is off-topic to the entire forum to come from a place opposed to or dismissive of spiritual, magical, or mystical things. Makes sense, right?
You're side tracking this thread, we're onto gods as aggregates.
If you want to start another 27 page thread such as "Crowley: "Materialist or religionist?" elsewhere, then be my guest. -
@gerry456 said
"You're side tracking this thread."
This thread started with a question about the alt right and a picture of kek. I fail to see how my calling you out for false premises is any more off-topic than is your introduction of "belief in gods" as a pre-requisite for Thelema.
You are resting your response to Hannah's post on the premise that there is some sort of "belief" that is required in the practice of Thelema. I am calling that premise into question. If you can't defend your premise, then your following argument loses its foundation.
So, once again... from where have you gleaned this premise that part of Thelema is about "belief" in anything, much less "gods"?
@Soror Virakam said
"Frater Perdurabo is the most honest of all the great religious teachers. Others have said: "Believe me!" He says:"Don't believe me!" He does not ask for followers; would despise and refuse them. He wants an independent and self-reliant body of students to follow out their own methods of research. If he can save them time and trouble by giving a few useful "tips," his work will have been done to his own satisfaction.
Those who have wished men to believe in them were absurd. A persuasive tongue or pen, or an efficient sword, with rack and stake, produced this "belief," which is contrary to, and destructive of, all real religious experience.
The whole life of Frater Perdurabo is now devoted to seeing that you obtain this living experience of Truth for, by, and in yourselves!
- Book 4"
-
Once again, It may be a good idea for you to re-educate yourself on the "Who we are" section because you appear to want to start a sceptical-materialist versus religionist debate. I said all this in my last post here, the contents of which answer your latest questions.
I'm on this thread where I'm saying and AC is saying that Gods can be "the collective will of a socio-political faction intent to instill a leader in a governmental body through the use of internet "meme-magick" as well as many other things. I already quoted from Liber Al and I suggested that you read the introductory chapters of that same book
-
"I'm not so sure about that as part of Thelema is about belief in gods. Gods have a strange way of behaving and manifesting e.g. from Liber Al "1:64. I am the blue-lidded daughter of Sunset; I am the naked brilliance of the voluptuous night-sky." or, on a note appertaining to this thread the god may manifest as a sociological aggregate; "3:46. "*I am the warrior Lord of the Forties: the Eighties cower before me, & are abased""
I like the previous discussion on "What do we mean by God anyway?" From what I have seen, different people/viewpoints resonate with different facets/conceptions of God, language is confounding, especially in matters such as this.
I find the Qabalistic philosophy most resonant, a pure Light descends the Tree, casting different variations of currents that culminate in the physical realm. These currents seem to have particular behaviors/patterns... All of the workings go vastly unseen, and much of what we do see is through the lens of our own particular/limited view of the world through our mind. Some interpretations serve well for some, others do not. -
I read the article. Seems to be some loose patterns there. From a data collection standpoint, the conclusions drawn from the premise are weak. Cool article and seems persuasive. Interesting to see someone talking about chaos magic with an apparent dislike of SJWs. I'm not exposed to that viewpoint often.
I would generally say that one political standpoint (right, left, etc.) from a magical practitioner is interesting to say the least. I would wonder what made their personal stance/perspective the correct one, especially if it fits so nicely into someone else's fabricated box.
Do memes work? Hell yes they do. A symbol in the consciousness and concentration on it by one entity (or even better, more than one entity) is attention. Attention is energy. This gives the symbol a life of its own. The trick is to be able to control the entity once "life" is given to it obviously - this gets even more difficult in a "group working." Anyway, this applies to symbols/sigils or anything else that brings consciousness into concentrated energy - it is stronger with numbers (e.g. flags, gods, etc.). It's not a new theory - egregores are a very old idea. Even history is a perfect example of how a talisman (written idea) can completely reshape reality, which is arguably a type of meme.
As far as KEK, haha I'm not convinced from this article. There is a thing called false pattern recognition. Never mind how insignificant a president is to an overall, more powerful agenda. As if a middle manager's ideas matter in relation to what the CEOs want to do.
As far as belief in particular gods as being an intrinsic part of Thelema - that's ridiculous. The first words of Liber OZ will clear that up.
In ceremonial magic, it is part and parcel to believe in gods - or at least to "believe." The Instructions of concentration exercises, energy manifestation, etc. are aimed at teaching one how to empower the consciousness of the practitioner with tools. This requires belief (or at least suspension of disbelief). Belief is a tool. Doubt makes magick less effective or ineffective.
I would say a VERY large aspect is to control the belief mechanism (as well as the emotional mechanism - look at the Tower (House of God) between Hod/Netzach for further symbolism) and the practices are pretty revealing of that. So, it isn't so much about belief in gods per se, it is more about being able to turn belief on/off and learning to master the "I" in "I believe _________." Liber III shows a good example of this. Or even better, Liber XVI.
Easy to see why the ego (untrained belief in identity from skewed self-narrative, etc.) is a problem when it comes to success in magick.