[Rei Murasame]

Can you name a single esoteric fascist - or for that matter anyone even associated with the same train of thought - that agrees with you rather than me?

[DeadPresidents]

Suffering is better than never becoming self-aware. You are both attributing to esoteric fascism the opposite of the position that it actually takes. In esoteric fascism, Lucifer was indeed doing humanity a favour in that story.

You are looking at it wrong still and you are looking at it from a basic Luciferian perspective.

Humans were self aware, how else they could eat the apple? They knew what the Tree of Knowledge was.

Eve was self-aware and brought Adam into her decadence into the Material World.


Thus which is why the Fallen Angels taught Man war, the arts, science, and other skills we have today.

Those things are only needed in the Material World, how can you be a fascist and support materialism?

[Figlio di Moros]

Suffering is better than never becoming self-aware. You are both attributing to esoteric fascism the opposite of the position that it actually takes. In esoteric fascism, Lucifer was indeed doing humanity a favour in that story.

We're in the wrong thread for this, but over in the other thread I think that symbolism was already covered.

Who said they weren't self-aware, Rei? They had no knowledge of Good and Evil, until a serpent, the cthonic symbol, presented it to them. What happened to Hyperborea? The pillar was shook and crumbled.

[Rei Murasame]

I think that neither of you understand this. When on one hand I'm being asked how I can support materialism on the one hand (I can't support or non-support a fact of life), and how I can support 'knowledge of good and evil' (which merely means the ability to make our own morality), on the other, these questions are pretty weird.

However, I am not going to have a drawn-out argument in the "divorcing fascist and esoteric thought" thread, on the view of Lucifer's constructive role in that story.

If you all for some bizarre reason won't believe me, then I'll baton-pass to Far-Right Sage to cover it if he's up for it.

[mikema63]

Eden, the snake, and the fruit were all symbols of female goddesses which were copied and figuratively tied to sin by the incoming religions that worshiped a male god. The history of abrahamic religion dates back to the invasions of cultures with male gods and the long dwindling and destruction of the once important female gods, until they were destroyed in the foundings of judaism.

There are other, historical, meanings behind the creation story, it is not at ll a spiritual one.

[DeadPresidents]

I think that neither of you understand this. When on one hand I'm being asked how I can support materialism on the one hand (I can't support or non-support a fact of life), and how I can support 'knowledge of good and evil' (which merely means the ability to make our own morality), on the other, these questions are pretty weird.

However, I am not going to have a drawn-out argument in the "divorcing fascist and esoteric thought" thread, on the view of Lucifer's constructive role in that story.

If you all for some bizarre reason won't believe me, then I'll baton-pass to Far-Right Sage to cover it if he's up for it.

Because it's backwards thinking.

You support the guy who caused it all in the first place only so you can use fascism to fix it.

Even thought historically the serpent only recently has been Lucifer or Satan....I'll go with the seperent being Satan/Lucifer.

Garden of Eden wasn't the material world. When Adam and Eve got kicked out they were put into the material world. The humans in the myth were having babies by with fallen angels who were teaching them material skills and then the human society went decadent. God floods the earth, kills all the decadent people save for the Noah.

The descendants of Adam and Eve went decadent after gaining knowledge because they wanted material things.

If you can claim that Liberal Capitalism is the cause of decadence and suffering of society then you support Lucifer/Satan who is a materialist and Liberal Capitalist...then what's the point of being a fascist that supports a mythical Liberal Capitalist.

You can't be both.

[Rei Murasame]

I'm not doing this. Economics has literally nothing to do with any of this, either. I simply refuse to have this conversation any further, because you are completely wrong and it's not my job to correct all of your mistakes (nor can I invest the time to correct them, in this medium), and it also isn't my job to initiate you (and technically we shouldn't even be talking about this in this thread).

I am simply correct and that is the end of that. Take it or leave it.

[DeadPresidents]

Eden, the snake, and the fruit were all symbols of female goddesses which were copied and figuratively tied to sin by the incoming religions that worshiped a male god. The history of abrahamic religion dates back to the invasions of cultures with male gods and the long dwindling and destruction of the once important female gods, until they were destroyed in the foundings of judaism.

There are other, historical, meanings behind the creation story, it is not at ll a spiritual one.

Yeah but there are many variations of the creation story...most are go like this:

A god or gods create earth with thought

Then mankind is created

Beings from the sky teaches man how to live in a material world


Then you have the Garden of Eden story, in a religion that is anti-materialist and the overriding theme of the religion is anti-materialism and the redemption of man by rejecting materialism.

How can I take the story and reduce it to something else entirely different?

Because here's what happened after the Garden of Eden...

Eve and Adam were kicked out into the Material World and taught by Fallen Angels or the Watchers on how to survive in the Material World

Humankind becomes decadent with acts such as rape and murder.

God decides to wipe out humanity and start over with Noah and creates Christianity to redeem mankind.


The creation story and the Noah story are warnings against materialism. Satan/Lucifer is a materialist. That's why when he tempted Jesus he offered riches and kingdoms - material things.

Now if you agree with Lucifer that Man needed to leave his non Material lifestyle in the Garden of Eden and be pushed into the Material World of Death and Destruction and Greed...then just say so. But then you can't say, " But I am against liberal capitalist...for the same reason I am a Fascist."

It's backwards thinking.

But don't take the story and try to make it this big "poor Adam and Eve didn't know anything about blah blah blah" they didn't need to, they weren't in the Material World. They were self aware and had autonomy they just didn't need to care about religion, politics, morality and sexuality.

[DeadPresidents]

I'm not doing this. Economics has literally nothing to do with any of this, either. I simply refuse to have this conversation any further, because you are completely wrong and it's not my job to correct all of your mistakes (nor can I invest the time to correct them, in this medium), and it also isn't my job to initiate you (and technically we shouldn't even be talking about this in this thread).

I am simply correct and that is the end of that. Take it or leave it.

You are not correct because


1. You looking at the story while you live in the material world and using your material world point of view

2. You are not considering the entire theme of the Garden of Eden story or Christianity itself

3. You do not even take into account the nature of the character Satan/Lucifer

4. You do not even take into account what happens after the Garden of Eden and once man is taught material skills ( Man becomes decadent and God wipes Man out save for Noah)

5. Morality is a man made construct as a method of control, they didn't need morality because they didn't have material desires

6. Garden of Eden is not in the material world

[Rei Murasame]

We're not going any further with this. I have drawn a line under it. You are trying to interpret that story through a Christian lens and you are wrong from the very beginning.

We reject Christianity and its simplistic narrative completely, of course we are not considering it from your perspective. To us it is just a symbolic story about a real descent of a deity and the awakening of humans.

You cannot be surprised that the entity you call "Lucifer", is recognised as not being 'bad' in other religions that have an entity with essentially the exact same attributes.

If you are a Christian, there is no conversation we can have, you think Lucifer is bad, we don't. The end. Don't drive this thread further off topic.

[DeadPresidents]

We're not going any further with this. I have drawn a line under it. You are trying to interpret that story through a Christian lens and you are wrong from the very beginning.

We reject Christianity and its simplistic narrative completely, of course we are not considering it from your perspective. To us it is just a symbolic story about a real descent of a deity and the awakening of humans.

You cannot be surprised that the entity you call "Lucifer", is recognised as not being 'bad' in other religions that have an entity with essentially the exact same attributes.

If you are a Christian, there is no conversation we can have, you think Lucifer is bad, we don't. The end. Don't drive this thread further off topic.

You are making it up like I thought you were, a luciferian.

And again like I said, The serpent was never called Lucifer until recently you don't even the know history. I call him Lucifer because you are making the serpent Lucifer like most do.

This is what I am saying, you can't make up stuff. The serpent in the story was just that...a serpent... he wasn't anything important.

Do you know Jesus was called Lucifer before Satan?

Do you know Jesus is really the Morning Star before Satan?

Don't you know Satan was really nothing more or less an Angel that just told on people. His role evolved as people made shit up.

This is exactly why people should not even be involved with the Christian story and it should be banned and all the characters should be banned because very few people actually know it.

You are making it up as you go along and you telling me I am wrong..when you just made up your own interpretation of the story and actually ignoring the story of Noah.

You can't just pick and choose what you want lmao. Either or.

So you are just a Luciferian and a materialist and nothing more and nothing less...who just taking the Christian story and making it into something entirely different for your own ego.

And I am still right and you are still wrong.

I am not even a Christian

[Rei Murasame]

You have your interpretation of the story, we have ours. We'll keep telling our interpretation because that's the interpretation that we find sensible. We can indeed pick and choose what we want, because we don't literally believe that it was an actual garden with an actual apple, in fact we don't believe anything in that book was literal.

It's a good story-telling vehicle for our religion which is completely different and narrates several traditions. Hence why I can refer to 'what you call Lucifer', since under other traditions that same entity has a different name.

We are done, since you are wasting my time.

[The Immortal Goon]

More importantly, I have always wondered as to the rationale behind the extreme veneration of Stalinism and indeed the person of Joseph Stalin? It cannot be described as fascistic.

It's partially symbolic, I think. Just as the hammer and sickle represents an ideal, Stalin does as well. As to whether this was his idea or that of others is up to debate. It could well have been simply that the iconography of the czarist regime transferred over in popular culture to the portrayals of Stalin—which would be understandable enough. He became a national symbol and a symbol of ideology—Stalinism.

I think it would be problematic, at best, to crudely say that Stalin is fascistic because a certain aesthetic seems vaguely similar though.

I've also thought Trotsky saw far in this, and I've seen Rei herself quote this as well:

A moralizing Philistine’s favorite method is the lumping of reaction’s conduct with that of revolution. He achieves success in this device through recourse to formal analogies. To him czarism and Bolshevism are twins. Twins are likewise discovered in fascism and communism. An inventory is compiled of the common features in Catholicism – or more specifically, Jesuitism – and Bolshevism. Hitler and Mussolini, utilizing from their side exactly the same method, disclose that liberalism, democracy, and Bolshevism represent merely different manifestations of one and the same evil. The conception that Stalinism and Trotskyism are “essentially” one and the same now enjoys the joint approval of liberals, democrats, devout Catholics, idealists, pragmatists, and anarchists. If the Stalinists are unable to adhere to this “People’s Front”, then it is only because they are accidentally occupied with the extermination of Trotskyists.

The fundamental feature of these approchements and similitudes lies in their completely ignoring the material foundation of the various currents, that is, their class nature and by that token their objective historical role. Instead they evaluate and classify different currents according to some external and secondary manifestation, most often according to their relation to one or another abstract principle which for the given classifier has a special professional value. Thus to the Roman pope Freemasons and Darwinists, Marxists and anarchists are twins because all of them sacrilegiously deny the immaculate conception. To Hitler, liberalism and Marxism are twins because they ignore “blood and honor”. To a democrat, fascism and Bolshevism are twins because they do not bow before universal suffrage. And so forth.

Undoubtedly the currents grouped above have certain common features. But the gist of the matter lies in the fact that the evolution of mankind exhausts itself neither by universal suffrage, not by “blood and honor,” nor by the dogma of the immaculate con ception. The historical process signifies primarily the class struggle; moreover, different classes in the name of different aims may in certain instances utilize similar means. Essentially it cannot be otherwise. Armies in combat are always more or less symmetrical; were there nothing in common in their methods of struggle they could not inflict blows upon each other.

If an ignorant peasant or shopkeeper, understanding neither the origin nor the sense of the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, discovers himself between the two fires, he will consider both belligerent camps with equal hatred. And who are all these democratic moralists? Ideologists of intermediary layers who have fallen, or are in fear of falling between the two fires. The chief traits of the prophets of this type are alienism to great historical movements, a hardened conservative mentality, smug narrowness, and a most primitive political cowardice. More than anything moralists wish that history should leave them in peace with their petty books, little magazines, subscribers, common sense, and moral copy books. But history does not leave them in peace. It cuffs them now from the left, now from the right. Clearly – revolution and reaction, Czarism and Bolshevism, communism and fascism, Stalinism and Trotskyism – are all twins. Whoever doubts this may feel the symmetrical skull bumps upon both the right and left sides of these very moralists.

For the liberal, the fascist and communist are joined in part for being too mechanical. For the communist fascism and liberalism both ignore the material too much; for the fascist, the communist is absurdly mechanical and the liberal sells his soul for a machine.

But each views things through a very different lens. Stalin, for a Stalinist, is a respected symbol of an ideology that differentiates itself, if even slightly, from Ebert or Trotsky. It is not rooted to, nor related, to the same kind of iconography a fascist may use. Any liberal that says otherwise may as well look at his dollar bill and describe all ideologies the same for the veneration of Washington.

At any rate, I appreciate this discussion in this thread—it's always nice to learn a little more about fascism. If nothing else, when I teach it, I like to underline a few things the students don't know.

[DeadPresidents]

You have your interpretation of the story, we have ours. We'll keep telling our interpretation because that's the interpretation that we find sensible. We can indeed pick and choose what we want, because we don't literally believe that it was an actual garden with an actual apple, in fact we don't believe anything in that book was literal.

It's a good story-telling vehicle for our religion which is completely different and narrates several traditions. Hence why I can refer to 'what you call Lucifer', since under other traditions that same entity has a different name.

We are done, since you are wasting my time.

What you mean ours...

It's in the damn book the metaphor was already written to mean something.

It's not sensible, it's not even logical.

So you are making up your own enemy just like the Christians did with changing The Satan into Satan into Lucifer when Jesus was already the Morning Star.

So you are telling me, you are intentionally being wrong for the sake of being wrong and in retrospect making a logical fallacy?

Okay this is it right here

Christian

Lucifer Evil Angel that creates the fall of man and destroying mankind...you know makes some sense

Luciferians

The being that really is Satan of the Christian story since we don't like Christianity we'll make him a hero and make it up on our own and ignore the rest of the Creation story because it doesn't fit

Judaism

An Angel that serves as a District Attorney for God to test people's morals...makes some sense

The things that Christianity make people do.

[Rei Murasame]

We don't care what the other religions think about it, we looked at it, came up with our own assessment, and that was that.

The reason that we 'ignore' the rest of their story is because it's not our religion. I'll give a parallel, the Yazidis might remark that they have a god that is 'quite like Lucifer'. They don't care what the Christians and Muslims say about that, since it's a tangent.

Similarly, we were doing our own thing, we saw the Genesis story one day, we decided that 'Lucifer' was vaguely like something we were already dealing with, and we don't care what the Christians, Muslims, or Jews say, because it's a tangent. Therefore we happily make the comparison when it suits us. Aside from that witty observation, we share basically nothing.

Get over it.

[starman2003]

Starman, people like you are actually the problem within the fascist movement, because anyone who wants to merely increase the power of the state for the hell of it

No, no no! The State should be much stronger so it can impose the sacrifices necessary for rectifying problems and meeting challenges. What I'd like to see is a new authoritarian US unifying the world, for the sake of permanent peace and stability, and to better address environmental etc problems of global scope. Also, in time, to build a great civilization in space. Greater State power is the key to a better world.

[Rei Murasame]

The State should be much stronger so it can impose the sacrifices necessary for rectifying problems and meeting challenges.

You mean a stronger version of the liberal-capitalist state, then? How much sacrifice do non-bankers need to make before enough is enough?

[mikema63]

Star an seems to be a bit of a caricature of fascism.

I'm sure corporations would just love you.

[Far-Right Sage]

I decided on my better judgment not to allow myself to become mired as I envisioned ending up in the same place with those who are setting out with an original ingrained pre-conception of the Eden parable, but I must say, Rei, that I thoroughly enjoyed your Melek Taus analogy, although I imagine it escaped some.

For the liberal, the fascist and communist are joined in part for being too mechanical. For the communist fascism and liberalism both ignore the material too much; for the fascist, the communist is absurdly mechanical and the liberal sells his soul for a machine.

Sweet and to the point. I couldn't agree more with this assessment, Goon.

But each views things through a very different lens. Stalin, for a Stalinist, is a respected symbol of an ideology that differentiates itself, if even slightly, from Ebert or Trotsky. It is not rooted to, nor related, to the same kind of iconography a fascist may use. Any liberal that says otherwise may as well look at his dollar bill and describe all ideologies the same for the veneration of Washington.

At any rate, I appreciate this discussion in this thread—it's always nice to learn a little more about fascism. If nothing else, when I teach it, I like to underline a few things the students don't know.

I was actually referring to Starman's personal veneration of the person of Joseph Stalin despite the fact he declares himself a wholist (a term coined to represent a variant of neo-fascist thought, people who seek to borrow from fascism yet firmly break with both esoteric thought and notions of ethnic solidarity) rather than a Stalinist, but I appreciated and enjoyed your analysis nonetheless, Goon.

I agree that cults of personality exist in all these ideologies. And while Noam Chomsky has some interesting things to say, there is certainly a fair bit of blind worship of both his words and person coming from an ideology (anarcho-syndicalism) which favors a break from the glorification of individualism associated with right-anarchism and actualized mass socialization. George Washington is held up as a liberal icon in the United States just as Mao is in modern China, despite the fact that the actual ideologies and collection of thoughts from both those men have been largely shamelessly abandoned by those two states and are now used as rallying symbols more than anything else. In this sense, blind obsession with the cult of one person carried for generations even after a person physically perishes becomes destructive in a societal sense, because it extends the legitimacy associated with a specific personality (one who may have perished either decades or even centuries ago) to a present-day regime whose incarnation may in actuality be in opposition to both said personality's political vision and the blood and soil interests of modern working people. Ataturk is venerated in Turkey, but it doesn't seem to have successfully prevented the Turkish republic from veering toward a rigidly socially conservative Islamic democracy under Erdogan now that the Cold War is over. This is perhaps why many leading German National Socialist figures, including the Strasser brothers, had poignant grievances with the Führerprinzip despite the fact that Hitler was still alive and well. If the war had ended differently, he would have retired to Linz, Austria, a couple years after its conclusion and probably died shortly after owing to a series of medical conditions, not least among them a heart condition. What the German state was never supposed to be was an entity set up to worship the person of Hitler one hundred years after his death with no creation of new ideas; that would have bred the type of sterile degeneracy liberals today refer to as Orwellian. It's a cartoon version of fascism, but not actual fascism. This is also largely why, I imagine, Khruschev endeavored to distance the Soviet Union from the continuation of mass Stalin worship after Stalin had already passed away. Damning aspects of his political legacy after the euphoria following the Great Patriotic War was probably the only way to achieve that.

At any rate I'm glad you have been enjoying the discussion. Though I don't hold a professorship, this is also why I occasionally browse the sub-forums discussing communism and even anarchism, although I rarely offer comment. There is nothing wrong at any time ever with increasing one's understanding, particularly of a rival camp, eh Goon?

[mikema63]

seek to borrow from fascism yet firmly break with both esoteric thought and notions of ethnic solidarity

That actually would be a system with more appeal for me but it seems like it still has national socialism in it which star man apparently does not.

What is the difference for wholist vs fascism proper.