/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17717995]

Why was Evola so soft on Crowley in this essay?

https://counter-currents.com/2010/08/aleister-crowley/

Crowley is one of the reasons for the extreme levels of sexual freedom and perversion in our culture today (the CIA course having spread his ideas) with faggots such as the Beetles and Bowie utilizing his message in there music, as well as Lady Gaga and other modern “satanist.” Crowley literally ate human feces (which Mussolini kicked him out of Italy for) and wrote garbage pornographic poetry about doing such things (Evola calls him a “poet”), has multiple homosexual relations, and yet Evola still gives him praise. I admire Evola’s writings greatly, not because of there political implications, which I mostly disagree with, but for his interpretation of mythology and lost history, yet someone of his intelligence saw some value in a degenerate egg head like Crowley. Why?

[Anonymous No.17718017]

Evola himself practiced sex-magic and brushed shoulders with what are now considered LHP types, but you'll also find other occultists of a higher caliber give the devil (Crowley) his due for certain insights, but they will make a clear case that his path is not one to follow.

In this instance with Evola, take it as a sign he's not someone to follow 110%, he was very experienced and knowledgeable, but still flawed.

[Anonymous No.17718019]

>>17717995
sounds like you're a bourgeois hylic anon. extreme sexuality is Trad.

[Anonymous No.17718055]

>>17717995
He later said, according to the author of the Sufi of Rome, that Crowley was a hack and possibly an MI6 agent. Why he changed his mind or did state his true thoughts in his books, I don't know.

[Anonymous No.17718078]

>>17717995
Have not read the essay in your link but the reason is proboably both of them being occultists. Since ocultism/magik is a practice rather than a religion you don't neceseraly need to be an upstanding exemplar of moral virtue to have insight into the occult.

[Anonymous No.17718086]

>>17718055
> was a hack and possibly an MI6 agent

Source? I suspect he is not just because of the rumors around him, or that he was a Freemason, but because he was such a debauched man, for example his promiscuous homosexuality, who never went on trial for his crimes, unlike say Wilde, despite Crowleys being many times worse.

[Anonymous No.17718093]

>>17718055
Crawly is pretty much confirmed mi6 so guess he wasn't wrong on that one.

[Anonymous No.17718109]

He was afraid Crowley would cast a magic spell on him

[Anonymous No.17718156]

>>17718109
Eggman was already dead

[Anonymous No.17718174]

>>17717995
>yet someone of his intelligence saw some value in a degenerate egg head like Crowley. Why?
Fascists aren't very smart and a lot of them were degenerates who were into the occult and extreme sadomasochism.

[Anonymous No.17718219]

>>17717995
I wonder if he just didn't know about Crowley's more degenerate shit when he originally wrote the essay. Evola changed his mind on things throughout his life and I think you can notice some differences between his early and later thoughts.

>>17718174
I wonder who you are speaking of...surely not Evola, correct? Even newbies to right wing thought know that Evola considered himself beyond fascism and not a part of that movement.

You must rather ignorant to make such a post -- that's ok! Everyone has things they are uninformed about and need to learn, no shame in making silly mistakes if you learn from them!
I would recommend you make use of this faux pas to brush up on Evola's use of the word "suprafascism". Surely you won't make such a mistake again, grouping Evola with Fascists -- that WOULD be stupid.

Good luck on your journey friend, and keep reading :).

[Anonymous No.17718238]

>>17718219
>I wonder if he just didn't know about Crowley's more degenerate shit when he originally wrote the essay
This is what I was going to suggest. Evola was a very broadly read man, and it's not like he focused his attention on Crowley to any great degree. It's very possible Evola was only acquainted with a certain small fragment of Crowley's writings.

[Anonymous No.17718239]

>>17717995
Have the decency to greentex quote a relevant passage in the OP
> But their destinies did not seem to have been the same. Those who were strong enough to hold firm, to not veer, said they came out renewed and integrated by these experiments done with the Great Beast 666; however, one speaks equally of other persons, kinds of women, who disintegrated, who even ended up in hospitals; it seems even that there were some suicides. In such a case, Crowley said that he was not able to work the magical transformation of the evoked forces either to which he was given a free way or that the doses of poison had been too high to be transformed into food; for this reason, those persons were broken. As for Crowley himself, he knew how to keep himself on his feet up until the end, dying in 1947 at the age of 72 with all his faculties lucid and normal. Apart from his disciples, different personalities, even of a certain rank (for example, Fuller, the noted general of the armored corps), had contact with him, and given the general climate of our days, it is natural that his character continued to exercise a strong fascination and that his ideas were often cited.

>If the Crowleyian view would seem troublesome and obscure to many, even objectively the “satanic” element, in spite of everything that the Great Beast 666 displayed almost theatrically, does not seem to us very relevant. The corresponding coloration does not have as much prominence as that which, fundamentally, possesses a magical, and in part initiatic, character.

Because the aim is the low bar of disambiguating the view that the occult as such = libertine Satanism, and that Crowley perhaps had some interest beyond this with his CV

>>17718174
Ok Reddit

[Anonymous No.17718269]

>>17718219
>Evola considered himself beyond fascism
This, that is why he was so interesting, he was his own entity in many ways often clashing with Mussolini and the SS being suspicious of his activities, sure they had overlapping interested but he had very different ideas

>>17718238
t's very possible Evola was only acquainted with a certain small fragment of Crowley's writings.

Probably, we over estimate peoples knowledge pre internet, unlike Evola I can download all of Crowley's works in minutes when in his day he would need to find a shop that carried the publication or be in contact with someone who posseted such information.

[Anonymous No.17718315]

sex magick is based and tradpilled

[Anonymous No.17718330]

>>17718239
>trying to deny the fact that more than half of the most influential nazis were disgusting sex perverts, sadists and occultists.
lol

[sager No.17718364]

>>17718330
> half of the most influential nazis were disgusting sex perverts, sadists and occultists.
He believes slander from the same people who lock up elderly woman for denying a genocide that happened 75 years ago.

[Anonymous No.17718373]

Why do modern new agers take larpers like Crowley and Evola so seriously? Is your horizon so limited?

Start with Gurdjieff and A. E. Waite if you want to introduce yourself to genuine mysticism.

[Anonymous No.17718534]

>>17718373
I personally do not take Crowley seriously but I do take Evola seriously, at least philosophically. I am not a magician and am far more interested in mysticism than magic but I think Evola was well read in the subject and I don't think he was just a larper.

I'm actually skeptical of any new age mysticism, and believe that the greatest mystical work can be done through Traditional religious paths. Vajrayana Buddhism seems promising, as does some Eastern Orthodox and Islamic (Sufi) mystical though. Basically, any living Tradition with a real and ancient lineage. Crowley seems like a libertine larper, but I don't think Evola was the same way.

I will eventually read Gurdjieff, as I believe he was initiated into Traditional orders and wasn't just a spiritualist grifter but I've heard he's not easy to read. I believe Ouspensky is recommended to read first -- would you agree?

[Anonymous No.17718566]

>>17718373
>new agers
Not even a occultist, just familiar with Revolt and enjoy his essays and writings but am also familiar with Crowley from my research on the elites (pizzagate, eyes wide shut, hollyweird, mk ultra etc.

[Anonymous No.17718583]

>>17718534
Gurdjieff's own advice was to reread every paragraph at least three times before advancing to the next, so take that as you will. His books are quite long as well. I have his Tales to His Grandsons sitting on my shelf that I will get around to eventually. I've had it there longer than Evola's books (which I sped through after first becoming acquainted with him due to genuine enjoyment of his writing).

[Anonymous No.17718966]

>>17717995
>Crowley literally ate human feces
Aghori in India have been known to consume feces and human flesh also. Perhaps it is an issue of context.
>which Mussolini kicked him out of Italy for
I'm not sure that's accurate. The death of Raoul Loveday, I think, would have been the more significant factor.
>wrote garbage pornographic poetry about doing such things
Evola did not speak English fluently and may have been unaware of the content of Crowley's poetry, which was not widely read during his lifetime. He also may have compared it to his own experience as a painter.
>yet someone of his intelligence saw some value in a degenerate egg head like Crowley. Why?
As he says in the last paragraph of that essay on Counter-Currents: because he saw Crowley's personal proclivities as secondary to the part of his work which 'possesses a magical, and in part initiatic, character'. You've mentioned only the negative side of Crowley. Both he and Evola were mountaineers. Crowley translated the I Ching, Evola translated the Tao Te Ching. Compare The Book of the Law to The Message of the Polar Star in Introduction to Magic.

Evola was not infallible. He had an opinion -- this essay being from one of his earliest works -- which (if you accept The Sufi of Rome as an authentic source) he would seem to have later revised when confronted with new information.

[Anonymous No.17719062]

>>17718219
I think you're being a little disingenuous about the extent to which somebody who, after writing for the official newspaper of the MSI and working for the SS Ahnenerbe, travelled to the Wolf's Lair to meet Mussolini and help plan the direction of the Salò republic, can be "grouped" with fascism.

[Anonymous No.17719114]

>>17718017
source

[Anonymous No.17719133]

>>17718219
>I would recommend you make use of this faux pas to brush up on Evola's use of the word "suprafascism".
i wish i can use "the Evola defense" if i ever get cancelled

[Anonymous No.17719135]

>>17718373
For one thing, after reading Evola (and to a much lesser extent, Crowley), one will have a broader and deeper understanding and appreciation of the esoteric and symbolic traditions of many historical cultures, including one's own. After reading Gurdjieff, his writing being framed in created vocabulary and science fiction, one will understand only Gurdjieff.

This is probably the case for Waite as well, but his reputation for being stylistically turgid is deserved. It's not by change he acquired the nickname "Dead Waite". Beyond that I see no contradiction between reading both. Why look for needless discord instead of, say, taking Evola's "Hermetic Tradition" and Waite's "Hermetic Museum" both as mutually supporting texts?

[Anonymous No.17719170]

>>17718019
Not everything that's old is trad. Now go along and get raped by modern barbarians.

[Anonymous No.17719194]

>>17718534
>Trotsky
>45

nigger should be right below Satan himself

[Anonymous No.17719287]

Author i'm reading also mentions Crowley was a secret agent. All these occult groups are probably infiltrated and used for who knows what.

[Anonymous No.17719336]

>>17719287
Gianfranco de Turris makes a good case for Evola himself being an agent for the SD after the allied invasion of Italy.

[Anonymous No.17719382]

>>17718086
I’ve heard this too, that he was sent to break up the golden dawn which was very pro-Irish nationalism, that he was in certain cities at the time of certain operations, and that he even admitted to some that he was a spy. I believe someone filed a request regarding any paperwork that mi6 had on him and were told that there was none. When the person who made the request produced evidence to the contrary, he was told all files on crowley had been ‘lost.’ He wrote a book about it, I think

[Anonymous No.17719545]

>>17718017
This, always approach an author, no matter how much you admire them, with an open and fair mindset, neither too hars nor too leinient to them

[Anonymous No.17719858]

>>17718534
where's The Kid?

[Anonymous No.17719904]

I think this should be pretty obvious if you’ve read even a handful of his books. Crowley was all about exerting his own will and self domination. Basically, he did what he wanted but not for the express purpose of hedonism. He was also a mountaineer. He saw Crowley’s project as an act of power, of creation. So he admired him. But anyone who’s read a lot of this guy knows that the issues with his thinking really start at his ideas about Yoga of Power, Tantra, left hand path stuff. That’s where probably half of the people who take him seriously do so at their peril.

[Anonymous No.17720752]

>>17717995
>During his youth, he studied engineering and received excellent grades, but did not continue his studies because he "did not want to be bourgeoisie"
I haven't read much of Evola but I know he's speaking of bourgeoisie mostly in its intellectual aspects as I have read from other anons. Can anybody explain to me why?

[Anonymous No.17720905]

>I was brought to Evola by virtue of his curiosity, a young right-wing anarchist, a lumpenproletariat, a certain Christina, who ran away from home and was literally barefoot, to whom I, out of pity, gave a required roof over her head in my studio apartment. Seeing my complete indifference to her charms, and perhaps in order to make me jealous, she told me how she had tantric sexual rituals with Evola, 'in a fluid way', because the man was completely deprived of movement below the spine due to a shrapnel blow at the end of World War II, during yet another bombing of Vienna. Looking at me, bold as i was and in a white play-boy uniform, in two rows, Evola saw in me the ideal interlocutor to whom he would brag about his conquests of the better half of humanity, assuring me that minors, especially those loyal to pickpocketing and begging , were much better in bed than countesses and princesses, even better than one von Hohenzoller. Still, he was enough of a gentleman not to say her name.

Dragoš Kalajić on meeting Evola and one of his many girlfriends. Hate to tell you guys, but Evola & you have different ideas of what it means to be a degenerate in the bedroom.

[Anonymous No.17720953]

>>17717995
>Crowley is one of the reasons for the extreme levels of sexual freedom and perversion in our culture today (the CIA course having spread his ideas)
Huh? I've never heard of this before. How is he responsible? I thought he was just a weird occult dude that nobody took seriously.

[Anonymous No.17721006]

>>17718219
You didn't make a single good argument as to why Evola should not be considered a Fascist.

[Anonymous No.17721160]

>>17718017
who is of a higher caliber

[Anonymous No.17721175]

>>17721006
He literally defended himself in court against the accusation of being a fascist and won, I'm not sure what other arguments you want

[Anonymous No.17721188]

>>17717995
Because Evola is basically a less active Crowley

[Anonymous No.17721276]

>>17721175
No, the charge he defended himself against was that he was that he actively was involved with a postwar paramilitary group by the name of Fasci di Azione Rivoluzionaria. Even his self-defence statement from that trial was adopted as inspiration by other neofascist groups like the Ordine Nuovo, with the ideological distinction being primarily whether they saw themselves as national or pan-European in scope.

[Anonymous No.17721380]

>>17721276
>No, the charge he defended himself against was that he was that he actively was involved with a postwar paramilitary group by the name of Fasci di Azione Rivoluzionaria.
If you read his statement, it will become clear that that group was seen as a fascist organisation, and that he was seen as allied with them, and therefore also a fascist. It was deemed illegal to partake in fascist activities, that was what the whole trial was about.
>Even his self-defence statement from that trial was adopted as inspiration by other neofascist groups like the Ordine Nuovo, with the ideological distinction being primarily whether they saw themselves as national or pan-European in scope.
Okay? How does that change Evola's case? Or are you saying the definition of fascist used there is wrong and yours is better?

[Anonymous No.17721390]

>>17719062
>>17721006
I never intended to argue with obvious trollbait, and I will not argue here. I was calling out stupidity only, I have no interest in spoon feeding in an age where the internet exists. As I said, claiming Evola was a fascist is either ignorant or stupid.

[Anonymous No.17721473]

>>17719114

[Anonymous No.17721519]

>>17721380
>If you read his statement
I have.
>it will become clear that that group was seen as a fascist organisation
>seen as
The name literally translates as "Fasces of Revolutionary Action"
>It was deemed illegal to partake in fascist activities, that was what the whole trial was about.
Thus his activities before and during the war and his engagement with organs of the Fascist and National Socialist states were beyond the scope of that trial.
>How does that change Evola's case?
That would be Julius "to the extent that Fascism follows and defends these traditional principles, in that measure we may consider ourselves Fascists" Evola?
Or are you saying the definition of fascist used there is wrong and yours is better?
I am saying, again, that he was not on trial for being or having being a fascist. He was on trial for being a member of a specific armed insurrectionary organization.

>>17721390
Because you know very well that he was heavily engaged the fascist and NS current of his day to an extent the makes any distinction negligible on the level of practical actions taken. All this "he was a good boy" pearl-clutching is nothing more than an inversion of the bourgeois horror at him referring to himself as a "superfascist".

[Anonymous No.17721542]

>>17721519
>Thus his activities before and during the war and his engagement with organs of the Fascist and National Socialist states were beyond the scope of that trial.
Is being fascist now only about his actions and not his ideology? Weird hill to die on anon
>That would be Julius "to the extent that Fascism follows and defends these traditional principles, in that measure we may consider ourselves Fascists" Evola?
Here you have your argument. His ideas overlapped somewhat with that of fascism, but not nearly entirely, and he did not consider himself a fascist.

[Anonymous No.17721774]

>>17721542
>Is being fascist now only about his actions and not his ideology?
'Only' is not required. His ideology was presented as a reform movement within the fascist structure, as his actions supported it on a practical level.
Why are you so keen to separate his actions and his ideology? Is that possible? Would Evola have done so?
>His ideas overlapped somewhat with that of fascism, but not nearly entirely
An idea doesn't have to overlap 'entirely' to be within the scope of such a label, especially within the kind of clearly casual use Anons were originally responding to when attempting to distance Evola from fascism. To what extent did the ideas Rosenberg, Strasser or Wirth fit the official doctrine of the NSDAP? Was Curzio Malaparte a fascist if he was stripped of party membership?
>he did not consider himself a fascist
If the modern world has taught us anything, it's that judging people only by what they 'consider' themselves is not always reliable standard. Am I to accept something prima facie simply because he said it? Especially when people to take pains to divorce it from context? The fact that he was discussing what he felt separated him from fascism in the context of explaining his association with the fascist government of Italy rather qualifies it.

[Anonymous No.17721925]

>>17721774
Evola said few times that he wasn't a fascist

[Anonymous No.17721964]

>>17721925
On the other hand, if he that "to the extent that Fascism follows and defends these traditional principles, in that measure we may consider ourselves Fascists," and if he outlines various ways in which, fascism did, in fact, defend those principles (even if imperfectly), is he not then, by his own admission, at least to some extent, a fascist? Regardless of whether he considered that the optimal definition of his position?

and that being so, how much of a fascist he have to be before somebody can, in casual conversation, call him "a fascist"? Is it a spectrum or a binary?

[Anonymous No.17722026]

>>17721925
> is he not then, by his own admission, at least to some extent, a fascist
Yes, but also to a greater extent not. That is evident from his treatment by the actual fascist party. That's why you could call him fascist-adjacent to some extent, but not fascist.
>and that being so, how much of a fascist he have to be before somebody can, in casual conversation, call him "a fascist"? Is it a spectrum or a binary?
It's a spectrum, fascism has a lot in common with both liberalism and communism. How much? I'd say when either the person himself or the authority of the ideology considers them as one. In Evola's case, that's neither.

[Anonymous No.17722031]

>>17721925
He said he was a super fascist, which is like saying that he was more fascist than normal fascists

[Anonymous No.17722071]

>>17722031

[Anonymous No.17722087]

>>17721925
Why does anyone care about whether you can call him a Fascist or not. So what.

[Anonymous No.17722102]

>>17722026
Meant for >>17721964

[Anonymous No.17722263]

>>17718330
The actual Nazis illegalized/burned pornography

[Anonymous No.17722293]

>>17722026
>>17722026
>That is evident from his treatment by the actual fascist party
Evola was better treated than a number of people who outright signed the Manifesto of Fascist Intellectuals. They literally had him at the Rastenberg for the conference where they founded the Salò republic. He kept a cigar box signed by Vittorio Mussolini from it as a souvenir.
>I'd say when either the person himself
This would seem to open the door to the current trend of people being able to 'identify' as whatever they choose, something with which I think Evola himself would have disagreed.
>or the authority of the ideology considers them as one.
This raises some questions about who counts as an authority. Party lines on who belongs tend to shift over time, so that's a tricky standard. But if we take 'authority' in the broader sense of people who have studied a topic in detail, many academics are happy to label Evola a fascist. I'm sure we might find a certain bias among those academics, but how many of them necessarily identify with the ideologies they reinforce any more than Evola identified with fascism? I honestly wonder if he would have accepted that kind of equivocation. "I'm not a Communist, I'm a Marxist-Leninist" or whatever.
It's not that I think that's a bad standard per se, only that language can be quite ambiguous. 'Fascist-adjacent' is a good example. It's the kind of thing which regularly gets shortened in everyday speech, in a way which I don't think needs to be treated as if it's a leftfield misunderstanding.

[Anonymous No.17722415]

>>17722293
I'm not sure why you're sperging out over this, but I'll bite.
>Evola was better treated than a number of people who outright signed the Manifesto of Fascist Intellectuals. They literally had him at the Rastenberg for the conference where they founded the Salò republic. He kept a cigar box signed by Vittorio Mussolini from it as a souvenir.
Whatever way you try to spin it, he never joined the party, was critical of the party (which wasn't allowed if you were in it), and was targeted by party henchmen rquiring him to get bodyguards. Being better treated doesn't mean much.
>This would seem to open the door to the current trend of people being able to 'identify' as whatever they choose, something with which I think Evola himself would have disagreed.
Retarded take. You have to try harder than that.
>This raises some questions
If you accept it from one side, accept it from both., or be a hypocrite. Evola did not consider himself a fascist, neither did the party. That would be a well enough case to anyone except a sperg who's obsessed with proving some retarded point because he's obsessed with word games.
>'Fascist-adjacent' is a good example. It's the kind of thing which regularly gets shortened in everyday speech, in a way which I don't think needs to be treated as if it's a leftfield misunderstanding.
No, that's your opinion and I disagree. In that case, words have no meaning at all and your entire premise makes no sense. In that case the word fascist means whatever you deem it to mean.

[Anonymous No.17722447]

>>17718019
Truly based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.17722494]

>>17717995
>in there music
>because of there political implications
Stop being a semi-illiterate.

[Anonymous No.17722564]

>>17722415
I'm trying my best to find something substantive in what you're saying beyond name-calling:
>he never joined the party, was critical of the party (which wasn't allowed if you were in it)
Those two things go together though, don't they. To exercise a reforming influence on the party required a degree of relative autonomy which did not preclude identification with it "to the extent" that it "follows and defends [...] traditional principles.
>and was targeted by party henchmen rquiring him to get bodyguards
As were several individuals who were party members. To fall out of favor with a regime says nothing about having been aligned with it at other times. The events at the Wolf's Lair I mentioned, for example, took place *after* what you've just mentioned.
>If you accept it from one side, accept it from both
I haven't accepted it from either. You've misunderstood that.

[Anonymous No.17722600]

>>17722564
>I'm trying my best to find something substantive in what you're saying beyond name-calling:
No you're not, you're pilpulling in order to win a retarded argument and you can claim evola is a fascist. You can claim it all you want, you're still wrong.
>Those two things go together though, don't they.
I don't see your point. Neither Evola nor the party nor its ideologues considered him a fascist. You're really diging for something that's not there. I'm very certain all these sides involved knew better what they were speaking of than you.
>To fall out of favor with a regime says nothing about having been aligned with it at other times.
But Evola was never aligned with them, at any point in time. Did he associate with them? Sure, but anybody who wanted something did.
>I haven't accepted it from either. You've misunderstood that.
Alright, at least you're consistent. I disagree though, I think those are useful distinctions to make, otherwise we'll only end up in binary opposition without nuance.

[Anonymous No.17722748]

>>17722600
>in order to win a retarded argument
Are you not also trying to win an argument? Or are your posts an expression of some Arjunian dispassion? Shitposting purely for it's own sake as an act of the spirit?
>Neither Evola nor the party nor its ideologues considered him a fascist
Which does not automatically make it unreasonable to label a fellow-traveller as a fascist from a distance of 80 years, when he expressed qualified support for that movement and practically aided it. To pretend that it does, which is how the topic started is, I still believe, a disingenuous way to behave based on falsely implying a far greater gap between Evola and fascism than actually existed, and that those who are opposed to fascism would somehow have a change of heart on his beliefs if they were only to read Orientamenti in sufficient detail.
>I'm very certain all these sides involved knew better what they were speaking of than you
But does somebody like A. James Gregor know what he's speaking about? Or must we only consider what people say about themselves?
>But Evola was never aligned with them, at any point in time.
Sufficiently so to be influential on racial doctrine, have his texts used by Mussolini to bother the Vatican, and to be employed by the SS Annenherbe (can I can consider the SS a species of "fascist"?). If Savitri Devi is coming over to your house for coffee, you're aligned, yes.

[Anonymous No.17722791]

>>17722748

[Anonymous No.17723316]

>>17722791
Rent free.

[Anonymous No.17723359]

>Now there is naught but a vast black triangle having the apex downwards, and in the centre of the black triangle is the face of Typhon, the Lord of the Tempest, and he crieth aloud: Despair! Despair! For thou mayest deceive the Virgin, and thou mayest cajole the Mother; but what wilt thou say unto the ancient Whore that is throned in Eternity? For if she will not, there is neither force nor cunning, nor any wit, that may prevail upon her.

>Thou canst not woo her with love, for she is love. And she hath all, and hath no need of thee. And thou canst not woo her with gold, for all the Kings and captains of the earth, and all the gods of heaven, have showered their gold upon her. Thus hath she all, and hath no need of thee. And thou canst not woo her with knowledge, for knowledge is the thing that she hath spurned. She hath it all, and hath no need of thee. And thou canst not woo her with wit, for her Lord is Wit. She hath it all, and hath no need of thee. Despair! Despair!

>Nor canst thou cling to her knees and ask for pity; nor canst thou cling to her heart and ask for love; nor canst thou put thine arms about her neck, and ask for understanding; for thou hast all these, and they avail thee not. Despair! Despair!

>Then I took the Flaming Sword, and I let it loose against Typhon, so that his head was cloven asunder, and the black triangle dissolved in lightnings.

-- Aleister Crowley

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

[Anonymous No.17723527]

>>17723316

[Anonymous No.17723599]

>>17719287
Gerald Gardner, founder of Wicca, was MI6. Henry Olcott, co-founder of the Theosophical Society, was also military intelligence.

[Anonymous No.17723613]

What do you guys think of Dion Fortune?

[Anonymous No.17723648]

>>17723599
it is said this connection between the occult and intelligence could be dated even from john dee

[Anonymous No.17723884]

>>17723613
She's worth reading, too. Pretty much everybody from back then is. Just filter the bullshit while you read them.

[Anonymous No.17723924]

That's why Guenon (PBUH) is the far superior traditionalist.
Evola is literally a Guenon downgrade plus some /pol/ race stuff.
Take the sufi pill.

[Anonymous No.17723954]

>>17718534
>I will eventually read Gurdjieff, as I believe he was initiated into Traditional orders and wasn't just a spiritualist grifter but I've heard he's not easy to read. I believe Ouspensky is recommended to read first -- would you agree?
Yes, Ouspensky’s “In Search of the Miraculous” is a fantastic introduction to his works. And Gurdjieff was initiated and taught by the Naqshbandi Sufis. There’s also apocryphal evidence he went to Tibet and learned from Vajrayana Buddhist gurus. Then there’s the matter of the Sarmouni school he was trained by, which people take to be a tall tale he was making up in his book “Meetings With Remarkable Men”, but which school (the Sarmounis) is actually also referenced by the traveler OM Burke in his book “Among the Dervishes” about his investigations of Sufism in Central Asia.

[Anonymous No.17723977]

>>17718583
>Gurdjieff's own advice was to reread every paragraph at least three times before advancing to the next, so take that as you will.
Hahaha God no, he said “each of my written expositions,” not every paragraph.

[Anonymous No.17725179]

>>17721160
Wrong way to look at it, you should not be searching endlessly for the perfect(ly based) literary hero, you'll just disappoint yourself again and again as you find tiny flaws in each one. These are men not gods they won't b perfect, allow them their flaws and take the good from them and move on. As for higher caliber, you should look somewhere else for a genuine higher caliber, and accept that there are very high caliber men but no perfect ones

[Anonymous No.17725423]

>>17718534
read gurdjieff in light of tradition by whitall perry, or guenon's views of gurdjieff. gurdjieff was a satanist

[Anonymous No.17725470]

>>17718583
I hope you have the older edition of Beelzebub's Tales. His followers edited the text in later editions, which changes some meanings.

[Anonymous No.17725788]

>>17723977
fuck you I read this thrice and now my neck hurts like shit

[Anonymous No.17726401]

>>17723977
One Gurdjieff interpreter, M.G. Readshaw, recommends pausing for about 10 seconds at every punctuation mark.

[Anonymous No.17726428]

>>17725423
Is Perry's book largely critical then? I've been curious about that one but there's no ebook and very little description of the actual content online.

>>17725470
To be fair, the translation process for the original was also insane. From Armenian into Russian then word by word into English IIRC?