The Solar Phallic King
-
Also I am not just mindlessly following Crowley. Rather at entire tradition with lots of people speaking on its behalf, Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Julius Evola, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Alain De Benoist, Tomislav Sunic, and many political parties, social groups, etc.
Such as the Rose Noire
www.rosenoire.org/essays.phAnd especially see this essay
www.rosenoire.org/archives/The_Occult_Technology_of_Power.tx -
@Nudor said
"This thread should go to the just plain nuts forum. It certainly qualifies for off-topic."
Considerations of the political application of Thelema may not be your forte Nudoro, that doesn't translate to being off-topic, rather on the contrary it ultimately may be the truest test of the validity of Thelemic philosophy. You didn't seem to have a problem with the Obama Nation of Desolation Thread??
-
Agreed. I'm spending some time thinking about how the following quote from Liber XXXIII may apply to our conversation:
"But all exterior societies subsist only by virtue of this interior one. As soon as external societies wish to transform a temple of wisdom into a political edifice, the interior society retires and leaves only the letter without the spirit. It is thus that secret external societies of wisdom were nothing but hieroglyphic screens, the truth remaining inviolable in the Sanctuary so that she might never be profaned."
And I'm also re-reading some Nietzsche, among others, in an old ethics textbook I haven't read in a very long time. Back in the day, I just thought he was the devil - you know, like Crowley... lol... Trying to give him a proper read and let him speak this time.
Nietzsche is on to something, of course, but I'll bet Epicurius enjoyed his life more. Kicking it all around...
Peace.
-
Nietzsche was all about life.
-
Could you point me to some of that? Most of what I've read is bleak and praises struggle for the production of strength. But there's no purpose in praising that strength that I can see other than providing a rationale for the rejection of the eternal "Christian" death and the revaluation of success. Which is great in it's own right, don't get me wrong. It just seems that someone who constantly is telling themselves how good tragedy and struggle are for them will create for themselves a tragic and struggle-filled life.
Personally, I'm not into strength for strength's sake alone. It just doesn't motivate me. Could you direct me to something in Nietzsche about enjoying one's own life? About pleasure? Friendship? Peace of mind? Something glad-hearted?
I must admit, the selection I have is rather limited in that regard.
-
Nietzsche kills people all the time who talk about waiting for the next world and being deserters of this world.
A friend should be your best enemy according to Nietzsche.
You probably should not read "selections" with Nietzsche because all I hear is that it confuses people. You've got to read his works in their entirety. Beyond Good and Evil and Thus Spoke Zarathustra are a good one, two combination.
-
the only thing that is not joyful about struggle and fighting is if you fear defeat. If you WIN then a struggle so always joyous, it brings a feeling of joy and self confidence with each greater victory. It is only those with such a hatred of self and fear of life (Life is struggle and fighting) who feel than struggles are sorrowful.
That is the difference between master and slave mentality, the Master loves to fight and to win, even in his lose the master learns from his mistakes and takes joy in his lessons. (That which does not kill me only makes me stronger) The slave has already been defeated before he enters the struggle, feels weak and helpless at the mercy of the world. The slave projects this weakness on others and bases ethics and life on saving people, on being safe from the hardships of life, and dreams of another world a heaven or some ideal state when he can be warm and safe and everyone can join him in being warm and safe and no one ever needs feel sorrow, disappointment or fear of losing. Thus the slave fears and hates life, (struggle for power and survival) and seeks death (peace, quite safety, and absence of overwhelming emotions)
The Overman in the Ideal of the Master and the Last man in the ideal of the slave.
A solar phallic King has a very keenly developed master mentality. A very high confidence in his own power, not out of arrogance or narcissism but out of tried and true tested knowledge one from real struggles and earned by passing difficult ordeals and initiations that if he fail threaten, not only life and limb, but mind and soul as well. The greatness of the reward mirrors the Risk in failure. The Ordeal of the Abyss being the Greatest possible Risk and Reward.
The King then is another word for Magus. For example look to the Gospels where the story of the 3 Magi (called kings) of the eastern world, deferred their power to Jesus. Thus conferring or anointing him with the Solar Phallic crown, and power over their schools and territory.
-
A person who does not fear defeat is deluded. That works for only a short time because of boldness and the lack of knowledge of others. That is good for getting something, but not keeping it. It's as if you are sure you will never fall down as you run and walk. Part of the skill is to know you will fall and how to get up without injuries to walk again.
My thoughts.
In L.V.X.,
chrys333 -
@RosenKreutz said
"You probably should not read "selections" with Nietzsche because all I hear is that it confuses people. You've got to read his works in their entirety. Beyond Good and Evil and Thus Spoke Zarathustra are a good one, two combination."
I totally concur. I remember first reading Zarathustra and thinking that nearly everyone I have ever heard mention Nietzsche must have never actually read his works. They all took select quotes, out of context, and then assumed it was a representative of the whole. Absurd.
-
Nietzsche must be the MOST taken out of context philosopher!
-
Before a man can rule others, he must first rule his self.
If a man rules his self, why would he seek to rule an other?
-
If one is playing football and one it perfectly disciplined and playing the game to one best, why would one want the rest of the team to join in and play the game too?
I mean so long as oneself is working hard everyone else can goof off and do any random thing. I mean what does Wining the game have to do with anyone other than Me alone playing by the rules and actually trying.
Oh, you mean the WHOLE team has to work together and be on the same page, and to win the game means every person an the team has a unique function to play out, but yet each can't do just whatever random thing they might think is their role, rather they HAVE one correct role which is their purpose and no ethical restrictions on how to achieve that ends.
To function together the Team needs a coach, who is outside the game itself, but knows more about the logistics of the Game than the players.
-
Here is ch. 81 from the book of lies. I don't think we can mince words here or assert that Crowley was being ironic or facetious as this is not found in a pro-german news letter.
81 {Kappa-Epsilon-Phi-Alpha-Lambda-Eta Pi-Alpha} LOUIS LINGG I am not an Anarchist in your sense of the word: your brain is too dense for any known explosive to affect it. I am not an Anarchist in your sense of the word: fancy a Policeman let loose on Society! While there exists the burgess, the hunting man, or any man with ideals less than Shelley's and self- discipline less than Loyola's-in short, any man who falls far short of MYSELF-I am against Anarchy, and for Feudalism. Every "emancipator" has enslaved the free.And its comment.
COMMENTARY ({Pi-Alpha}) The title is the name of one of the authors of the affair of the Haymarket, in Chicago. See Frank Harris, "The Bomb". Paragraph 1 explains that Frater P. sees no use in the employment of such feeble implements as bombs. Nor does he agree even with the aim of the Anarchists, since, although Anarchists themselves need no restraint, not daring to drink cocoa, lest their animal passions should be aroused (as Olivia Haddon assures my favourite Chela), yet policemen, unless most severely repressed, would be dangerous wild beasts. The last bitter sentence is terribly true; the personal liberty of the Russian is immensely greater than that of the Englishman. The latest Radical devices for securing freedom have turned nine out of ten English- men into Slaves, obliged to report their movements to the government like so many ticket-of-leave men. The only solution of the Social Problem is the creation of a class with the true patriarchal feeling, and the manners and obligations of chivalry. -
Just a bit of background...
Evola was a Fascist and the folks who run the Rose Noire site have ties to the far-right BNP. Le Pen is of course a far-right politician. (For those unfamiliar with European politics 'far right' means xenophobic.)
-
Deleted
-
-
Evola was not a fascist but he lived in Italy under Fascism and was opportunistic in using the fascist regime to promote his own ends. He was an integral Traditionalist, and wanted to sway Mussolini away from the Catholic church an reinstitute the Roman Pagan rule in Italy.
-
Rose Noir is also integral traditionalist and politically expresses National anarchism, which is to say a sort of federation which promotes total autonomy withing its states. In a national anarchist system, you can have one city that is fascist, one that is republican, one than fallows plato's republic, one that is a gorean, another that is Mormon. etc. The National level has to power within any autonomous city, it only provides a structure for inter-relations between such cities.
-
Far Right does not mean xeno-phobic in means concentrating or centering a people that occupy a common land with a common language and common culture. It is not hatred of any race or peoples, it is merely the notion that colors separated makes a rainbow which is more appealing than a homogeneous mixture of colors washing the whole globe in a dull gray or brown.
-