Originally posted by Extant Taxon
Thelemic theory is something I am only barely beginning to become acquainted with.
Part of the problem with victims of religious hypnosis and indoctrination is that they are essentially psychological slaves; and by "psychological" I
mean that it is an invisible slavery of the mind. They live in a state of fear and self loathing, afraid to pursue their natural will, in fear of some
demons called YHVH or Jesus throwing them into Hell; thus they are bound by the what Crowley referred to as the "sins of restriction" or what
Nietzsche referred to as "slave morality (i.e., religious morality)," however both concepts are precisely the same. Being haunted by ancient demons
who despise humankind, and who despise human nature can be as real to the victims as the voices inside the minds of schizophrenics. The human mind is
very powerful program which can be reprogrammed and hypnotised and the demons of the mind can seem to be just as real as the world of the five
In Christianity, for example, there are not only "sins of commission" but sins of "ommision," since there are numerous Biblical mandates to act in
certain ways which clearly do not conform to natural law. Further I think that anyone who understands the edicts (the "do this" and "do not do this
commandments") of Jesus and Moses can only come the conclusion that they are simply impossible to follow, and that anyone who did attempt to follow
them would become a total enemy of the gods of nature (i.e., of humankind) and would become an entirely tormented soul.
The religious slave is often under the spell of what is perhaps the central hypnotic keyword of keywords, the word "love" and they are convinced that
the psychopathic demon YHVH's hatred for humankind is love; they essentially appear to be in love with a demon which has enslaved them; it is a
psychological form of Stolkholm syndrome.
The Scarlet Women and the Prophet
Thelemic moral philosophy frees the human soul from the restrictive bindings of religious morality and replaces the anitiquated models of the Virgin
Mary and Jesus with the archetypes of the Prophet/ Hierophant (i.e., Crowley himself) and the Scarlet Woman.
The Virgin Mary is of course a sexually repressed model of celibacy and monogamy; she is primitive prefeminist domestic slave and a sex slave (i.e., a
wife); while Jesus is the model of an archytpal religious fanatic, fake evangelist and fake healer whose religion was essentially a fundamentalist
form of Mosaic Judaism. The Mary/Jesus archetypes are thus rather psychologically unhealthy models of "slaves;" who are bound to the demon YHVH.
The Prophet and the Scarlet women archetypes are very much embodied in the modern New Age and Neopagan culture; they are not merely imaginary by are
being manifested on earth a 1000 fold and 10,000 fold, etc. Such models act as memetic antiviruses to the virus of the old religions. The Masonic,
Christian, HIndu and Islamic models are in contrast very much buried in the past and represent the old Aeon; they are stuffy, conservative, boring,
enslaved to tradition and essentially they are the dammned.
Babalon is referred to as the Scarlet Woman, the Great Mother, and the Mother of Abominations. Her godform is that of a sacred whore, and her primary
symbol is the Chalice or Graal. Her consort is Chaos, the “Father of Life” and the male form of the Creative Principle. Babalon is often described
as being girt with a sword and riding the Beast, with whom Aleister Crowley personally identified. As Aleister Crowley wrote, “She rides astride the
Beast; in her left hand she holds the reins, representing the passion which unites them. In her right she holds aloft the cup, the Holy Grail aflame
with love and death. In this cup are mingled the elements of the sacrament of the Aeon” (Book of Thoth). In a more general sense, Babalon represents
the liberated woman and the full expression of the sexual impuls
Originally posted by Lucifer777
The dialectical process of human development is a "process;" the person who starts with a statement that there are certain objective transcendental
truths simply opens the floodgates of hell and lays the foundation for all sorts of fantastical utterences, and thus do we have the history of
religion and religious morality, much of which is simply a restriction on human nature and human desire.
In way I suppose you're correct, the negative aspects of that beast you call organised religion is indeed of repression, it's a mass control freakery
on a previously unprecedented level. The Catholic Church sought to immantize the transcendent and ensure that their "absolute truth" equalled
stability, an anchor in the face of the terror of existence. It was a system based on fear, fear of the unknown, fear of the mutable, transitory
nature of life.
Perhaps it wasn't so much a restriction of human nature, as being the disowned part of the collective psyche.
There is a fantastic series of lectures by Teofilio F. Ruiz on this very subject, called: "The Terror of History: Mystics, Heretics, and Witches in
the Western Tradition."
I don't really commonly speak of what I believe to have been occurring "inter-dimensionally" in the history of organised religion, in debates with
religionists, since it confuses them, and I prefer to oppose the religionists with human reason; however I do believe that there are other dimensions
of reality where there reside both malevolent and benevolent ancient intelligences, and that religion generally makes the victim subservient and
submissive to them.
Abramelin magick makes absolutely no sense to those who are not aware of other dimensions; however such a "magickal method," just like the
philosophicla method, is in principle the opposite of possession, obedience and servility; it are really about becoming more psychologically powerful
and attempting to insert one's will into history; "god's will" becomes the enemy and "my will" becomes paramount; and thus such a method constitutes
"Satanism (adversarialism)" and "rebellion against god;" but it is not about the "worship" of any of the gods; on the contrary it is quite the
opposite of worship; it is the magickian who demands the obedience of the gods; it is the total anti-thesis of the worship of the transcendental. It
is this "will to power" which the religionists fear, since for them it is a virtue to become weak, submissive, enslaved and essentially
Just read the Dawkins essay. I can see his point with some of the excerpts he included, but despite this I quite enjoy Baudrillard and think
Foucault's work (such as I have read) to be lucid and engaging, at times brilliant.
Suppose you are an intellectual impostor with nothing to say, but with strong ambitions to succeed in academic life, collect a coterie of reverent
disciples and have students around the world anoint your pages with respectful yellow highlighter. What kind of literary style would you cultivate?
Not a lucid one, surely, for clarity would expose your lack of content. The chances are that you would produce something like the following:
"We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this
multireferential, multi-dimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their
expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we
Visit the Postmodernism Generator. It is a literally infinite source of randomly generated, syntactically correct nonsense, distinguishable from the
real thing only in being more fun to read. You could generate thousands of papers per day, each one unique and ready for publication, complete with
numbered endnotes. Manuscripts should be submitted to the 'Editorial Collective' of Social Text, double-spaced and in triplicate.
I generally try to avoid the use of the language of academia, and if I need to use such language I try to offer definitions of terms in brackets. Most
of the population of the Internet do not have English as their first language and a third of global population are children under 16. I believe that
any philisophical truth or argument, which is important, must be important to everyone, and should be able to be expressed simply.
Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" which runs to almost 700 pages, while certainly not meaningless, could be reduced to a fraction of it's length in
essay form and is almost incomprehensible unless read in synopsis form. It is just a precursor to postmodernist ramblings.
Some of the most important political philosphers such as Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emily Goldman, Alexander Berkman and Chomsky have all chosen to
write in the most simple language that even a semi literate person can understand; similarly with the philosophers of anti-religion such as Nietzsche,
Dawkins and Hitchens.
Postmodernist philosophers are not philosophers in my judgement; they are much like the Internet "Trolls for Jesus" who just incessantly ramble on and
on and attempt to make themselves as incomprehensible as possible to human reason. A philosopher who has something of importance to say should be able
to say it simply and it seems to me that the postmodernists have almost nothing to say or to contribute to philosophy which is of any importance that
I am aware of.
Beyond Good and Evil
I shall take a look at the Nietzche essay you linked, thanks. But I would argue that philosophy really did start, and properly, with the Socratics,
Plato, Aristotle onwards. They were still of a transcendental mind, even of a religious one (though the Greeks didn't conceive of religion as we know
it). Another reason I see that philosophy was always intertwined with ideas of ultimate causes, the unmoved mover.
Not to disparage Nietzche, I have heard many great things about his work.
It could be said that philosophical method "begins" with the Greeks and "ends" with Nietzche, but when Neitzcheans claim that philosophical method
"begins" or "ends" with Neitzche, it is merely to make the point that with Nietzche we find a beginning of a truly "natural" and sacreligious
philosophy. Such claims, including Nietsche's claim that human history began again with the publication of "Antichrist" are of course exaggerations
and should not be taken literally; it is simply to make a point.
Moral philosophy has long been influenced by Plato's "world of the forms;" the idea that "absolute goodness" is transcendental (up above) rather than
immanent (within), and this belief is upheld today by the evangelicals and Biblical fanatcs for whom their sadistic, jealous, human hating and demonic
Biblical deity is the absolute definition of goodness; and since this demon war god is transcendental, it is beyond the human soul and the human
senses; thus we cannot verify or falsify their bizzare claims, and they can make up any claims they wish about this demon.
Natural philosophy is quite another matter. We do not refer to a lion or a horse or a fish as "evil." We simply consider them to be living according
to their nature; they live by their inner instinct and intuition and we consider them to be "beyond good and evil."
We might say "this horse is a perfect horse" but in the world of religion, the models of perfection are mostly models or imperfection; of persons who
lived in denial of their nature, and who placed many restrictions on human nature and who are rather models of archetypal religious shizophrenics who
often have clamied to have received revelations from the gods.
Crowley also claimed to have received revelations in channelling sessions from the Egyptan gods and secret masters, but it is significant that he
lifted all religious restrictions on natural human behaviour, with the exception of violating the free will of another person, so he is a much more
progressive model. Nietzche and his "superior man" on the other hand is a purely natural model, as is Crowley's Thelemic model; it is just that
Crowley was a mystic, not purely a humanist or a naturalist.
Originally posted by Lucifer777
Well the Capitalist elites obviously wish for a world which is under their control, but it will not be without widespread resistance; I think they
would prefer martial law, since in Europe, probably most of the population are socialists, including much of the academia, intelligensia and the
proletariat, and the elites are unlikely to get their way unless they can impose some form of tyranny.
I tend to adhere to Marx's view that societies will progress from slave societies to Capitalist societies to socialism to communism. Currently in
Europe we have a combination of Capitalism and socialism, but I believe that the future will eventually evolve into socialism and communism, though
probably not without numerous wars and revolutions and certainly one can expect the economic and military elites to seek to impose dictatorships which
favour them, but there is usualy always eventually a dialectical reaction and resistance, and the harsher the experience becomes for the masses, the
more potent become the conditions for revolution.
I'm not sure where it's all going, but for sure we are experiencing that bitter-sweet Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."
I think that we live in the most interesting of times in all of human history thus far. Many of us in the First World have the keys to the freedoms of
the kingdoms of he world, and the Internet age is certainly the ultimate communications revolution thus far, where we can speak from the sky to all
peoples and nations, and where the whisperers of truths in the skies, who speak freely, can have more power than the multi-billion dollar media
moghuls and the professional propagandists of the police states.
I may ramble on a lot, but it is quite premeditated and I try to "text mine" discussion group pages with certain key words which will attract search
engine programs and place the pages on the front page of many searches. It is simply my personal method of propagandising and attempting to educate
and change collective consciousness; if I only thought that I was debating with religionists who have anyway lost the use of their rational
facilities, I would have given up Internet debating years ago.
Internet activism opens a gateway to a kind of global communication which has never before been possible. One can speak to a 100 and 1000 and to
10,000 and to the myriads of human souls in this way. To spread a lie requires an expensive army of professional propaganists and a submissive multi
billion dollar mass media; a simple truth freely spoken can pass to all peoples and nations as the lightening flashes from the East to the West.
I do wonder just how much the ostensibly astounding revolutionary wildfires in North Africa are really organic and grassroots in nature. Even if they
are the fields (especially Libya) will be ripe for the pickings if Gaddafi is ousted.
It seems that probably the a main cause of these revolutions is the Internet discussion groups and social networking sites like facebook. Of course
there are economic problems also. we don't tend to notice rising food prices so much in the First World, but in relatively poor countries such as
Egypt, where a main stable is bead, wheat prices have risen 30% in the last year, and they have to import most of their wheat. Meanwhile European
farmers are growing rapeseed (for bio-fuel) and animal fodder for the livestock industry. As long as food is sold as a commodity it is in the market's
interest to have the highest prices. Thus the situation is also created by the nature of Capitalism.
In nations where the vast majority of people are Muslims, if Republican forms of government appear in the place of the current
tyrannies, they are likely to be Islamic Republics rather than modern liberal secular democracies; this could even be regressive rather than
progressive; it is one thing to have brutal 21st century dictators, and it is quite another to seek to impose the primitive laws of a 7th century
dictator, slave trader and militant religious fanatic, particularly in Egypt which has the biggest army in the region and US military technology
including F-16's. I could well forsee Israel anonymously nuking Egypt and beginning a global apocalyptic war.
Well, the arc of crisis looks set to ignite fully. Scary times ahead.
Yes. Crowley's prophetical vision of a New Heaven and a New Earth is a vision of the future world of human freedom and the End of Religion, but he
also envisioned an age of apocalyptic war where the armies of god will have to be mercilessly and genocidally crushed; it is rather the anti-thesis of
the End Times prophecies of the Bible and the Koran. Unfortunately since the religous fanatics have genocidal war gods, the short term future for
humankind is not likely to be good, especially in a post nuclear age where we are on the brink of replacing projectile weapons with new non projectile
technologies which could have genocidal consequences. In order the create the New World, the Old World will have to pass away.
You will find that, for example, among the European middle classes, they do not behave like football hooligans. Nietzche's "Ubermensche" is perhaps
the simplest model of an ideal human being, and a replacement for the older models which were simply models of archetypal religious schizophrenics.
Nietzsche's "superior man (and woman)" is already a model widely accepted by modern humanists, scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, atheists and
much of the secular middle classes and academia; it is simply a model that can be defined as a modern, educated, rational, scientific, ethical, free
thinking, sacreligious human being, and it is as simple as this. Unfortunately whatever political philosophy one adheres to, one simply cannot have an
ideal society without ideal people and the Nietzchean ideal will take time to arrive and will require a process of education.
There's a lot to be said about education. The problem is when it's controlled by a power elite who has little interest in producing truly autonomous
I still think that at least at university level there is an atmosphere of academic freedom and critical, analytical thinking is encouraged; probably
most of academics in humanities departments are socialists and radicals to some degree or other; it is not quite an Orwellian system.
However in what in the UK is defined as "Secondary Schools (for 12-18 year olds)" the situation is quite anarchic in the worst sense of the term.
Classrooms often resemble riots and children commonly do not value education. In the Capitalist system an education is seen mostly as a means to a
career and to earn money, but even minimum wage jobs are becoming impossible to find for many of the youth; student fees are going up next year in the
UK to 9000 (pounds sterling) per annum for many univercity courses, which students are required to borrow, and yet graduate unemployment is at an all
time high, with many graduates working for minimum wage.
We are really seeing the transformation of First World Captalism, and due to globalisation, the exportation of many industries to the slave labour
markets of the Third World. This may also increasingly radicalise the population and hopefully there will be a reaction from the socialist left. There
is simply no hope for humankind in pure "anything goes" Capitalism.
Originally posted by Lucifer777
Plato was so opposed to democracy was because he feared that "mob rule" would be worse far than tyranny and oligarchy, especially when you have a
"mob" of largely uneducated savages. Any modern society would have to be a technocracy and a society governed by educated people; no political system
could be ideal if ruled by a bunch of football hooligans or by Islamic mullahs, whether elected or not.
Plato was an authoritarian at heart, he believed that the nature of peoples, and their position in society, was fixed and immutable. He feared mob
rule as he thought that the lower breeds could never be educated. Fortunately we can see things differently today.
But I'm all for learning, perhaps not by a centralised authority. Not that I'm saying you're advocating that. I'm more in favour of
anarcho-didacticism, if you know what I mean.
Anarchism is future ideal, but it would require an educated, technocratic and entirely ethical and civillised proletariat; we don't seem to have
reached that point yet; much of the European working classes are depoliticised, dumbed down by their diet of bread circuses (sports, entertainment,
celebrity gossip etc,); the welfare state is a wonderful thing but it also demands agricultrual and technological collectivisation on the traditional
Communist model, and in the UK most of the formerly nationalised industries has been sold off.
We are still recovering from Thatcherism and there seems to be no political will to collectivise, apart from among the radical left who are currently
a political minority and not represented by New Labour Capitalism. All the three major political parties here seem to be submissive to the will of
the Capitalist elites. It is still early days yet in terms of creating the conditions for world Socialist Revolution and we seem to have a long way to
go. I forsee no short term solution
Didn't know that about the Kibbutz system. Will have to check up on the details. The problem with socialism is that if leads to external authority,
institutions and hierarchy, the same old problems rear their head. I heard many favourable reports about Hugo Chavez' regime in Venezuela, but after
looking into it in more depth much troubling news emerges.
I'm in favour of the emancipation of the oppressed. Just as long as it doesn't lead to further oppression. Which it often does. Again, as you said
earlier, I'd favour anarchism.
Chavez is dissapointing; he has the oil wealth to collectivise Venezuela and he does not do so. Yes he is authoritarian, but consider Castro and
Guevara, they were far more authoritarian and militant; authoritarian socialism is sometimes a necessary response to militant authoritarian
Capitalism. Latin America which was once infested with Neofascist US allies, often put in power with their assistance, has taken a swing to the Left,
but it is not really radical or progressive enough in my opinion. Anyway time will tell.
Originally posted by Lucifer777
Unfortunately the further one goes back in the history of religon, usually the more primitive and savage one finds religious cultures to be, many of
which were blood sacrifice religions, not so far removed from the religion of the Aztecs; human progress in my judgement really requires the
eradication of the curse religion. For humankind to stll be revering human sacrifice cultists like Abraham and relatively savage religious fanatics
like Moses, Jesus and Mohammad indicates that we still have a long way to go until humankind is liberated from the savagery and barbarism of the
Yes, one would hope that the myth of progress, so beloved of academics, is not just a myth. Yet we're still rumbling away with ever increasing
bloodshed with ever more efficient weapons of destruction to show for our "progress."
The more things change....
There is a subforum on ATS about secret weapons technologies. I have been studying this matter for years and it really does look like future weapons
technologies will be rather terrible and dreadful, and by "future" technologies, I mean currently developed technologies which just have not been used
overtly in a theatre of war.
Even the Chinese and the Cubans are developing DEW (Direct Energy Weapons) technologies which will undoubtably change the future of warfare, however
since some of these technologies, such as microwave weapons are extremely simple to build, it could also spell the end of US imperialism, as it could
be impossible to protect an army of occupation if their enemes have similar weaponry, and it could even be impossible to defend any police state if a
guerilla army had such weapons. I think that DEW technologies may be the ultimate "guerilla warfare" weapon, but they could also lead to
indiscriminate mass murder; if you did not like your neighbour you could just microwave him anonymously, or if you were really insane, you could just
microwave your entire town.
The Austin Powers era of Dr Evil and his "Death Ray" is upon us, and it is not a bizzarre conspiracy theory.
I didn't think you were ignorant of the subject relating to "mind blowing experiences," I had read some of your threads on the David Icke forum and
here and it seemed you had knowledge of altered states of consciousness. It's just I saw that you were using a prejudiced definition of schizophrenia
to further your argument.
Well bear in mind that only a tiny proportion of human beings are truly considered to be schizophrenic by the psychiatry profession. The most common
mental health issue is just depression (i.e., unhappiness) which seems to me to a natural consequence of a dysfunctional world, and unhappiness can be
cured without treatment, by simply doing things which make human beings happy.
However I am of the opinion that some of the world's major evangelists and religious leaders are and have been classic religious schizophrenics. Some
of them such as Benny Hinn, I think may just be businessmen who are preying on the vulnerable and simply pretending to have the symptoms of religious
schizophrenia, but I do suspect that cult Messians such as Jim Jones, David Koresh, Sun Myung Moon may have been truly schizophrenic.
The problem is that following models of religious shizophrenia such as Jesus and Mohammad encourages the religionist to copy such behaviours and to
imitate the symptoms of religious schizophrenia. I am not at all suggesting that all religoinists are truly schizophrenic; they are simply suffering
from religious psychosis and this is entirely curable; it is a condition which ends when they begin to analyse and reject the totally irrational and
often contradictory beliefs they have and when they awaken from the state of hypnosis and indoctrination.
I can agree that a grounding in basic rationale and material practices are important, rather than grand metaphysical conjecture as a
foundation, which can be all hot air.
Yes; human ethics are better defined by philosophical humanists without reference to a god.
As far as I am concerned the mystical experiences that consciousness can reveal can be fascinating, but they can also lead to delusion. The lesson of
cult leader Shoku Asahara is in interesting one; due to immersing himself in a Timothy Leary lifestyle while in India, he began to hear voices telling
him he was the Messiah, he returned to Japan, started a cult and made $100's of millions from manufacturing '___'; he then went on to plan how to
initiate Armageddon and began experimenting with chemical and biological weapons; allegedly according to one of his biographers he tried to source
nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union.
A lesson of the story is: having models of religous perfection which are models of "religious schizophrenia" can have genocidal consequences Futher
"be careful about mystical delusions and experiences." If you hear a voice from god telling you that you are the Messiah (which is a commonly reported
experience) remember the tale of Shoku Asahara.
edit on 22-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Formatting