New OTO/Thelema Podcast -

The first episode of Thelema NOW!, a new monthly podcast on Aleister Crowley, ritual, and magick, is now available for download. This installment features an interview with Jim Wasserman, author of The Secrets of Masonic Washington and Secret Societies: Illuminati, Freemasons, and the French Revolution.

Subscribe or download here.

---

Wasserman seems like a bit of a git sometimes, but I'll look forward to checking this one out...

Never heard of this guy before this podcast, but his opposition to public healthcare casts him in a pretty damn negative light imo. Actually, much as I appreciate a lot of Crowley's works, sometimes hearing Thelemites talking gives me the creeps somehow. Nevertheless, I'll probably keep listening to these podcasts.

One of these days, I'm going to try to map out some of the sympathies between spiritual outlooks and political views. It's a very strange topic to me, because the material and social conditions impressed on the individual seem to have a real bearing on how easily people can turn their attentions to "higher" matters, whatever we may conceive those to be.

neutralrobotboy wrote:One of these days, I'm going to try to map out some of the sympathies between spiritual outlooks and political views. It's a very strange topic to me, because the material and social conditions impressed on the individual seem to have a real bearing on how easily people can turn their attentions to "higher" matters, whatever we may conceive those to be.

What about Eliade? Evola? Da Free John? Lots of 'spiritual' people have supported dubious politics... Wasserman, sadly, wouldn't be lonely. His The Slaves Shall Serve left me with a lasting sour taste in my mouth for his work...

What about Eliade? Evola? Da Free John? Lots of 'spiritual' people have supported dubious politics... Wasserman, sadly, wouldn't be lonely. His The Slaves Shall Serve left me with a lasting sour taste in my mouth for his work...

Yeah, hardly a new phenomenon. Actually, Wasserman came off to me as someone who was just genuinely not all that bright, I'm not sure how much more could be expected of him. But you know, I know really intelligent and decent people who would say very similar things against nationalized health care, and they're also "spiritual" (at least in the sense that they belong to exoteric religions). I don't think it has anything to do with one's level of intelligence or kindness...

In any case, I guess what interests me about the topic is the idea that there are underlying tendencies which inform a person's spiritual and political views alike. I'd like to make an effort to find these correlations as a way of illuminating the core set of compulsions behind people's attitudes and opinions. In both spiritual and political matters, I tend to think that whether someone agrees or disagrees with my views, it's largely a matter of coincidence.

neutralrobotboy wrote:In any case, I guess what interests me about the topic is the idea that there are underlying tendencies which inform a person's spiritual and political views alike.

Do you think something like Jungian archetypes might factor into these tendencies?

Do you think something like Jungian archetypes might factor into these tendencies?

Wouldn't surprise me if some of Jung's work could provide a useful model for analysis. I was thinking of more mundane things, though. Just simple things like one's relationship to authority, degree of empathy, how quick a person is to anger... The list could go on indefinitely, I'm sure.

I'm partly interested in the hardliners who switch, say from extreme right to extreme left. Is this indicative of personal change, or is it indicative of an inherent tendency which ultimately was just at variance with the beliefs of others? There are certain to be numerous cases of both. In either case, what is the underlying emotional or cognitive tendency that made the crucial difference? And what do people of one religious and political viewpoint really have in common with one another?

Person X considers herself a libertarian socialist. Person X has always disliked authority of any kind in her personal life, and feels most comfortable and gratified with friends who she can relate to as equals. She is agnostic and tolerant of the beliefs of others, but not particularly spiritual.

Person Y is a modern capitalist who believes in current forms of representative democracy as the best kind of government. He has always been praised for pleasing higher authorities in his life and is angry when others don't do the same. He considers himself Christian (non-denominational) and goes to church every Sunday.

Those two examples are maybe rough, but the basic idea is there: There is a clear connection in those cases between their natural attitutes toward authority and their belief systems. Though the character sketches aren't fully fleshed out, for both X and Y, I know a handful of people who would be a good fit. Both believe that they are independant thinkers and the other person has been taken in by fallacious propaganda. I would say that they are both acting according to impulses currently beyond their control.

I don't know how well I've articulated what I'm getting at, but anyway, that's hopefully good enough to give an idea of my angle.

ankh_f_n_khonsu wrote:Wasserman seems like a bit of a git sometimes, but I'll look forward to checking this one out...

I've never been a fan of Wasserman, and the O.T.O.'s attempt at a podcast was pathetic, in my opinion. It's ironic, as well, considering there was a very successful and interesting Thelemic podcast which they did their best to kill!

Incidentally, the second installment of their podcast is now up on the website, featuring Richard Kaczynski this time.

Incidentally, the second installment of their podcast is now up on the website, featuring Richard Kaczynski this time.

Yeah, I thought that one was much better, personally. The guy seemed like he had his head screwed on straight.

neutralrobotboy wrote:Yeah, I thought that one was much better, personally. The guy seemed like he had his head screwed on straight.

His bio of Crowley is certainly better written than anything Wasserman has done.

Sascrunch wrote:His bio of Crowley is certainly better written than anything Wasserman has done.

YES!!!

Their 3rd podcast is now up, and it's worse yet!

Sascrunch wrote:Their 3rd podcast is now up, and it's worse yet!

Ouch! Since I haven't had the chance to tune in, what don't you like about it?

Khephra wrote:Ouch! Since I haven't had the chance to tune in, what don't you like about it?

Sorry, I've been away from my computer for a bit, so this response is late. At this point, perhaps you've heard it, but for the most part, it's void of any actual content. And, considering that the person who is being interviewed is a *musician*, one might expect to hear some of their music, right? And, the length of the podcast (20ish minutes) seems like they weren't even trying.

Color me unimpressed.

There's a new one up, I believe; although, I haven't listened to it, yet.

I think the O.T.O. looks foolish for helping to squash TCTC and thinking that this would be some sort of suitable replacement.

I enjoyed this most recent one (Rodney Orpheus), personally.

I was also interested in the last one (Kris Force), but thinking about it, there probably was room for improvement. I may have enjoyed hearing Kris Force's interview because I'm also a musical composer who's dealt with some similar issues. I have to admit that I found her actual music a bit bland for my tastes, and I was a bit disappointed about what was (or wasn't) evoked by it.