The Magical Battle of Britain
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"You're not saying there was a German "Aryan" before Hitler coined the term, are you?"
Heavens no! My point was that the concept of a German Aryan has nothing to do with the true anthropological term "Aryan" which defines a culture in the Russian steppes that invaded northern India.
Is it thought that Crowley selected the swastika because it was from an "Aryan" tradition, confusing the true Aryan with that made up by the Nazis? Or was it just coincidence that the symbology he selected just happened to be from the real "Aryan" peoples?
-
@Redd Fezz said
"I didn't change the Crowley quotes at all"
I'm sure - never suspected otherwise.
"I'm sorry for being slow, but I'm still not sure what you're saying. Is this quote "representative" of Crowley or "representative" of the lies Symmonds makes up about Crowley? I can't figure out if you're agreeing with this quote or saying it's ridiculous."
Sorry for being obscure. Obviously don't have my full attention on this for this weekend.
I meant that the part I requoted sounded quite representative of Crowley. At least the ideas and, for the most part, the language. I can't say for sure that this was him, but it sounds like his ideas in very close to his words.
"BTW, as for Symmonds, I only knew that he co-authored something with Kenneth Grant and so I never imagined that he had an agenda against Crowley."
His biography of Crowley is pretty much serial slander and distortion. Really sad, since (at that time) he had access to more material than anybody else.
-
@Nick Rusch said
"I don't know of any evidence where Hitler indicated in writings or any speeches that he was using Thelemic (i.e. Crowley's) material for formulating the National Socialist society. If you know of any material that points this out I'd really like to see it."
Oh, I don't know of any either. Nor do I think we'll ever find any. Nor that Hitler would have 'fessed up.
But I think there's an excellent change that Crowley was correctly seeing his own ideas and words quoted in Hitler's private conversations, and I'm more inclined than not (say, certainty of 7 on a 10 scale) that Hitler had significant exposure to Liber L. and to Crowley's writings during key periods, at the hands of someone he valued as a teacher.
Of course, I could always be wrong.
"So based upon historical fact and lacking any historical evidence to the contrary that Hitler said or wrote anything about using Thelemic material for creating a national socialist state, I would say we have no known evidence that Hitler used Liber Al to find cosmic validation."
I disagree with this kind of analysis.
Though, of course, it depends on what you mean by "evidence." The ideas reflected in his private conversations at a time when he was known to be receiving instruction from someone committed to putting Liber L. in his hands, and who stated to Crowley that she had done so, constitutes evidence. The jury must determine the evidence's proper weight.
-
@Nick Rusch said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"You're not saying there was a German "Aryan" before Hitler coined the term, are you?"Heavens no! My point was that the concept of a German Aryan has nothing to do with the true anthropological term "Aryan" which defines a culture in the Russian steppes that invaded northern India."
Then we're in agreement. That's the position I was holding when making my (evidently badly stated) original statement.
"Is it thought that Crowley selected the swastika because it was from an "Aryan" tradition, confusing the true Aryan with that made up by the Nazis?"
No, it was stated by Crowley that he proposed the Svastika because of its Nordic implications within the Golden Dawn. He identified it as "Aryan" (meaning, northern Indian). I am proposing that this remark to Ludendorf was the origin of the adoption of the term "Aryan" in its modern German sense.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"But I think there's an excellent change that Crowley was correctly seeing his own ideas and words quoted in Hitler's private conversations, and I'm more inclined than not (say, certainty of 7 on a 10 scale) that Hitler had significant exposure to Liber L. and to Crowley's writings during key periods, at the hands of someone he valued as a teacher."
Point taken Jim and by association your responses as well Redd Fezz. Based upon what you’ve read from Crowley’s personal writing we can only assume he was exposed. However, I stand by my original statement that Hitler's concept of a National Socialist Germany developed long before his exposure to Liber Al. Perhaps he found Liber Al sympathetic to some of his existing political agenda?
At the same time I don't know how one justifies genocide in light of Liber Al's main thesis, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law". I doubt very much that Crowley was aware in any detail of the death camps within Nazi Germany when he made the notes in "Hitler Speaks". Yes, I know there were public reports about some of the atrocities taking place such as Krystalnacht in the early ‘30s. I can't explain why people at the time chose to turn a blind eye to these reports. Why did Britain decide not to honor its defense treaty with Poland after Germany invaded? It’s complicated no doubt.
Getting back to what started all this reference to Crowley and Hitler… My point being Crowley should not be thought of as sympathetic to the Nazi political cause, and by association with the atrocities of Nazi Germany, just because Hitler had exposure to a Thelemic teacher and Liber Al. Could it be that Crowley was 'rooting' for Hitler for the sole reason that it appeared Hitler was interested in the Thelemic current? And potentially because Crowley may have had hopes that Hitler (who was thought of as a dynamic leader by other world leaders prior to WWII because he pulled Germany out of a serious economic depression in less than a decade) may adopted Thelema? And not because Crowley necessarily agreed with National Socialism?
It would have been interesting to see what Crowley thought of Hitler during that same time period if Crowley had known about the death camps and the other savage acts that the Nazi's committed in the name of their cause. I just don't see how Crowley could have accepted what the Nazi's did to others and at the same time espouse the teaching that each individual has the right to pursue their true will. Similarities can be found between any two complex structures – even opposing ones. But that doesn't make them sympathetic to eachother. If there ever were two opposed agendas Nazism and Thelema are certainly good examples.
OK... I've probably belabored this point more than was necessary. I'll get off my soapbox now.
-
@Nick Rusch said
"At the same time I don't know how one justifies genocide in light of Liber Al's main thesis, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"."
I don't either - and that's the core of where Hitler failed on the matter.
There is admittedly very much in Chapters 2 and 3 that can be taken to support savaging the downtrodden, building an exclusive elitism, "master race" type of thinking, war as a tool for one's own self-justified ends, etc. However, those levels of reading the Book are only supportable if taken out of context of its core message and more fundamental principles. Once the whole is considered, an entirely different understanding of Chapters 2 and 3 is mandated IMHO. - Hitler missed the core message.
"I doubt very much that Crowley was aware in any detail of the death camps within Nazi Germany when he made the notes in "Hitler Speaks"."
Pretty much nobody was. That was a shocking revelation after the camps were liberated (even the Germans, for the most part, having no idea about such things). - At the same time, I can't (going just from memory) think of any particular notes or observations that this would likely have changed. The marginalia partly annoted where Crowley's writings were referenced (with a particular emphasis on The World's Tragedy IIRC), partly observed his incorporation and adoption of sound principle, and parly acknowledged his failure to get it right and the foreshadowing his his downfall. All of those stand on their own pretty independent of Hitler's genocidal and other political agendas per se.
"My point being Crowley should not be thought of as sympathetic to the Nazi political cause, and by association with the atrocities of Nazi Germany, just because Hitler had exposure to a Thelemic teacher and Liber Al."
Agreed. Virtually unrelated.
"Could it be that Crowley was 'rooting' for Hitler for the sole reason that it appeared Hitler was interested in the Thelemic current?/
"
To the extent that he was rooting for Hitler at all (still to be proven IMO), Hitler was almost irrelevant to the matter. He was actively rooting for the possibility that any nation might actively adopt Liber Legis as the basis of its operation. (Pretty much what you said in following sentences.)"I just don't see how Crowley could have accepted what the Nazi's did to others..."
"
"Agreed - but I actually think that's irrelevant to the point. In this case, it would have more deeply convinced him that Hitler was not, in fact, following Liber Legis, and therefore wasn't the "child" (as Kuntzel believed he was) who would manifest Thelema on a world scale.
From within Germany, the p.o.v. remains understandable. Hitler was broadly seen as the salvation of Germany up until all but the end - in a virtually messianic sense.
-
Richard Noll's two books on Jung: The Jung Cult and the Aryan Christ are, IMO, unfair to Jung in over-blowing the man's sense of his own importance. However, the latter in particular is excellent on the topic of 'volkisch' German movements that were combining nationalism, occult ideas and, increasingly, anti-Semitism through the period 1870 - 1920.
If you ever have the chance to read The Aryan Christ, it will make Hitler's rise to power much clearer. You will also find that ideas of the collective will of the German people ('volk') were well-entrenched before WW1. Pinning Nazism or Hitler's activity on Liber AL is, I'd say, a wild improbability. Hitler and his circle essentially evolved an existing movement to its peak.
Hitler's own avowed inspiration was Karl Lueger, the Mayor of Vienna in the early 1900s, before Liber AL was available even in English. Remember, Hitler was Austrian. The Mayor's anti-Jewish policies were so extreme that the Emperor Frank-Josef overruled some of the laws he had passed, because he felt they were too divisive for Viennese society to be able to function properly.
Edward
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
I meant that the part I requoted sounded quite representative of Crowley. At least the ideas and, for the most part, the language. I can't say for sure that this was him, but it sounds like his ideas in very close to his words.
"So, this quote is what I was talking about. I've never heard Crowley talk so black-and-white about God. Here it is again:
""I never met... someone so demonic as Herr Hitler. Why do you think I spend so much time with him? And come when he bids me? I tell you only the universe can prevail against Hitler. But the universe for the present doesn’t seem to be interested; though Hitler is the enemy of the universe, that is to say of God; for the universe is only God’s instrument. It is as if God said, “Let mankind learn a lesson; they need to open their eyes a little wider. Hitler will do that for them. Just wait. They will see things that men have never seen or heard before—such horrors that there will be no word in the German or any other language to describe them.’ That is what the demonic is when it appears in a very ordinary person, a man of the people, someone the intellectuals are contemptuous of but not the masses. With an uncanny instinct, they know who he is.”"
The key phrases that sound "rooting for Hitler" to me are:
"I never met... someone so demonic as Herr Hitler. Why do you think I spend so much time with him? And come when he bids me?"And that he knew Hitler was a horrible, horrible man is made clear in these statments:
"...though Hitler is the enemy of the universe, that is to say of God... They will see...such horrors that there will be no word...to describe them."And what does he mean by this, I wonder?:
"That is what the demonic is when it appears in a very ordinary person, a man of the people, someone the intellectuals are contemptuous of but not the masses. With an uncanny instinct, they know who he is.”Oh yeah? Who was he? Whoever he was, obviously by these statements, Crowley knew he was a very bad dude with a very powerful demonic personilty possessing or advising him who was the enemy of God and would cause unspeakable horrors unlike the world has ever seen before.
So, does this sound like Crowley was totally ignorant of the gas chambers, etc.? Maybe specifically he wasn't aware of gas chambers, but it sure sounds like he expected the most terrible horror-show in the history of the world. And, knowing all this, he supposedly said, "Why do you think I spend so much time with him? And come when he bids me?"
So, if that's "representative" of Crowley, what is the way of looking at it that doesn't make it seem like he was rooting for Hitler, knowing full well what a bad man he was and would turn out to be?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"No, it was stated by Crowley that he proposed the Svastika because of its Nordic implications within the Golden Dawn. He identified it as "Aryan" (meaning, northern Indian). I am proposing that this remark to Ludendorf was the origin of the adoption of the term "Aryan" in its modern German sense."
I thought the German use of "Aryan" came from a modified use of Blavatsky's aeonic history by the German occult group that set up the worker's association that became the National Socialist Party.
I don't know what parts of National Socialism Crowley saw as reflecting Thelemic thought, but I can take some guesses. Having done so, I think we can see some more probable influences on Hitler than Thelema. First of all, certain strands of German occultism, which emphasized a pan-German racial nationalism rooted in blood and land, as well as emphasizing a new age in which the Germanic peoples embodied the perfection of human evolution. Second, second-hand and screwed-up versions of Nietzsche's philosophy. Hitler subscribed to a magazine called Superman, that promoted German supremacy. But Hitler's racialized superman concept turned Nietzsche's idea on its head. Whereas Nietzsche saw the superman as a rare individual achievement by which a person transcended any subordiance to any other and did only their own will, National Socialists turned the superman into a genetic/racial group - and one obedient to the messianic Hitler.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"The key phrases that sound "rooting for Hitler" to me are: "I never met... someone so demonic as Herr Hitler. Why do you think I spend so much time with him? And come when he bids me?""
The one's I entirely missed on the first reading and therefore intentionally dropped from my quote on the last round.
I have no reason to believe he wrote this (unless there is a context utterly obscured by excerpting this). That's why I left it out when I made my last remarks on it.
"And what does he mean by this, I wonder? "That is what the demonic is when it appears in a very ordinary person, a man of the people, someone the intellectuals are contemptuous of but not the masses. With an uncanny instinct, they know who he is.”"
Pure sociology of the most observable kind. Doesn't seem obscure to me at all. This is one of those rare cases where I really think the best advice is: "Meditate on it." This is one of the most self-evident truths of the human race that I know.
"Oh yeah? Who was he? Whoever he was, obviously by these statements, Crowley knew he was a very bad dude with a very powerful demonic personilty possessing or advising him"
You're thinking of a separate kind of textbook demon. The statement is that he was the demon.
"who was the enemy of God and would cause unspeakable horrors unlike the world has ever seen before."
And, of course, these "enemies of God" are always also servants of God. They're part of The Plan.
"So, does this sound like Crowley was totally ignorant of the gas chambers, etc.?"
These were unknown to the public in England until after the war.
"Maybe specifically he wasn't aware of gas chambers, but it sure sounds like he expected the most terrible horror-show in the history of the world."
I doubt it - that would have been horribly short-sighted of him.
"And, knowing all this, he supposedly said, "Why do you think I spend so much time with him? And come when he bids me?""
Already answered multiple times.
"So, if that's "representative" of Crowley..."
Now you're quoting me out of context, because I've previously explcitly excluded that phrase from the part I called representative.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
I have no reason to believe he wrote this (unless there is a context utterly obscured by excerpting this). That's why I left it out when I made my last remarks on it."I actually didn't notice you edited the quote to remove the first two sentences. Yes, without those, it sounds much less like he's "rooting for Hitler."
@Jim Eshelman said
"
"Maybe specifically he wasn't aware of gas chambers, but it sure sounds like he expected the most terrible horror-show in the history of the world."I doubt it - that would have been horribly short-sighted of him.
"I'm just going by the "quote" (if he really said this, of course) and it doesn't seem all that short-sighted to me: "It is as if God said, 'Let mankind learn a lesson; they need to open their eyes a little wider. Hitler will do that for them. Just wait. They will see things that men have never seen or heard before—such horrors that there will be no word in the German or any other language to describe them.'"
So, I guess what I sum up from analyzing this quote to death is that it was something BIG and this is why Crowley was interested in it, not that he was rooting for Hitler, but just interested in watching God's plan unfold. Surprising to hear him talk like that about "God" though, if he really did say all that.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"
"Maybe specifically he wasn't aware of gas chambers, but it sure sounds like he expected the most terrible horror-show in the history of the world."I doubt it - that would have been horribly short-sighted of him.
"I'm just going by the "quote" (if he really said this, of course) and it doesn't seem all that short-sighted to me"
I meant short-sighted that it would be "the most terrible horror-show in the history of the world." As bad or worse happened before, much worse has happened since. That's all I meant.
"Surprising to hear him talk like that about "God" though, if he really did say all that."
It's a technical term. Not unusual for him. You have read much of his early writings (especially in the poetry volumes Collected Works), his unpublished papers, his published diaries, occasional mention elsewhere.
-
I wonder what it was exactly that would have made Crowley think Hitler was going against the Universe / God back in those early stages before the world found out about the death camps. If the German people were behind him and brought him to power, that doesn't sound too much like he was going against the whole Universe. (Once again, this wondering of mine is based on if the above quote is even true.) I wonder how he could've predicted Hitler would produce such horrors.