More wild stuff (Aleister Crowley

More wild stuff..

Forty Years in the Wilderness

by Keith Preston

Note: Mutatis mutandis, this is worth discussing for England.

For some years now, I have advocated for the anarchist movement in North America a change in direction from the course it has followed since the 1960s. Essentially, the general flavor of the anarchist milieu is one that expresses the same set of primary values as Marxists, social democrats and left-liberal Democratic Party activists, with the added qualification of “by the way, we’re also against the state as well.” A principal problem with such an approach is that it fails to distinguish political anarchism from run of the mill leftism. Furthermore, anarchism exists primarily as a kind of youth culture/subculture which focuses on a very narrow ultra-leftism and hyper-counterculturalism that inevitably has the effect of relegating political anarchism into a fringe ideological ghetto.

This is a situation that I have sought to change. I have done so by advocating a broader, more expansive approach for political anarchism than what the current mainstream of the movement will allow for. This effort has won me many highly sympathetic friends within the anarchist milieu, and many bitter enemies as well. In a recent and highly controversial essay, I argued for a “revolution within anarchism.” What I was calling for is the future advent of a “non-leftoidal” anarchist movement, meaning one that is more substantive, comprehensive and original in its approach, rather than simply championing the run-of-the-mill causes and issues favored by leftists and post-60s counterculturalists. Continue reading

Libertarianism: No Threat to the Ruling Class

by Keith Preston

In what way does the actually existing libertarian movement, anarchist or otherwise, threaten the existing political order? If anything, the libertarian movement is a microcosm of the wider society. There are the “right-libertarians” who extol the virtues of capitalism, Christianity, and the American way (kind of like, you know, the Republicans). And there are the “left-libertarians” who jump over the Democrats and even the far left to demonstrate their opposition to racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, “bigotry, “brutalism,” etc. There may not be anything inherently wrong with these ideas, but in what way do they threaten the state or the establishment? They don’t. Instead, they just reflect contending factions of the system. Continue reading

“Ordinary morality is only for ordinary people” – Another perspective on Aleister Crowley

by John Kersey

Dr Gabb has recently posed to us the questions “Was Crowley a sort of national socialist, or a sort of libertarian? Was he a sex-obsessed libertine, or did he preach absolute self-control?” He suspects that all these questions have the same answer, and that such an answer does not reflect well upon the self-styled Great Beast. I hope I can propose to him a rather more nuanced appreciation of this complex and enduringly fascinating – though hardly entirely admirable – character.

An understanding of Crowley – and by that, I mean an understanding of what Crowley himself intended by his work and actions rather than the various re-interpretations and smoke-and-mirrors exercises that even he indulged in, should start from the context of the revival of interest in Western esotericism in which Crowley became a pivotal figure. The key to this revival is that it was by nature anti-modern; its proponents were counter-Enlightenment conservatives who sought to recapture the wisdom and ways of the ancients. Their models of spiritual belief were hierarchical and retrogressive at a time when the demos was in its ascendancy; they proposed not only an aristocratic replacement for modern ecclesiastical structures, but furthermore that progress towards the upper echelons of this enlightened aristocracy would involve exposure to and understanding of progressively more advanced ritual practices and the results thereof, bringing about the growth of the soul and rewards that were to be expressed beyond the present world. Continue reading


Rajandra Pachauri: Laughing Stock at Home

Further Comment on Clegg v Farage

by Robert Henderson

Note: We have a mature oligarchy in Britain. As oligarchies mature they become more and more exclusive – the Venetian council in the Middle Ages is a classic example – and the quality of their members becomes less and less. This failure of generational renewal is disguised from the oligarchy members by the sealed nature of the oligarchy and they all go around discounting the views of anyone outside the oligarchy and praising the oligarchies’ members lavishly. Clegg demonstrated how limited our political elite are as individuals. He did not even have the wit not to tell easily revealed lies.

As for Farage, he missed quite a few obvious points in the debates and he is poor at explaining the detail of policies. Time and again he starts making a point or a reply strongly, then two or three sentences later he fades noticeably. Ideally you want him exposed in situations where he can make his point quickly and get out. I could seriously improve his performance by preparing him to anticipate and answer questions in detail a Q and A, whereby you put down all the likely questions your opponent will ask and all the responses he is likely to make and then follow that with anticipated secondary questions and answers. You can go on ad infinitum, but my experience of using them when working for the Inland Revenue and questioning someone under caution is that an initial question or reply and one supplementary is all you can usefully create. Lawyers who have to cross examine often use such Q and As.
The other advice I would give Farage is (1) cut out the jokes because they are generally poor and he is not a natural comic and (2) never but never make the mistake of whining about how hard his job is, as he did in the first debate when challenged over putting his wife on the EU funded payroll – the general public really do hate that sort of thing.
It is important to understand that while the general public detest the likes of Clegg, Cameron and Miliband and have a strong dislike of the EU, that does not mean they have any great liking for or trust in Ukip or Farage. There is also the inertia factor whereby it is the devil’s own job to get people to vote for a party in Britain which does not have a Westminster presence. Moreover, most people will not to vote in UK elections – the turnout in EU elections is generally in the 30 per cents and only in the 60 per cents in recent general elections.

Seven Consequences of an EU E-Cig Ban

7 Consequences of an EU Ecig ban

Please include attribution to with this infographic.