wow, that poster really stuck you in a sensitive spot?

"FUCK YOU!!!!! "

I'm not really sure where you have a problem. I mean, dont get me wrong, I understand you have a problem with the post - but your posts dont really seem to make it clear what you have a problem with, specifically, apart from my comment that given the chance, Crowley would have been a Hitler. That point is of course infinitely debateable. No one can ever know how Crowley would have turned out if he had been successful, say, in getting a few thousands to follow him, as he clearly wanted. (If you argue this, I can give you a few quotes from his diaries, some quotes from his recruitment materials, etc). I'm basing my opinion on things like "The Slaves shall Serve", his rampant anti-semitism etc. "Human sacrifices are to-day still practised by the Jews of Eastern Europe,as is set forth at length by the late Sir Richard Burton in the MS. which the wealthy Jews of England have compassed heaven and earth to suppress, and evidenced by the ever-recurring Pogroms against which so senseless an outcry is made by those who live among those degenerate Jews who are at least not cannibals.""

Or how about "Monsters, niggers, jews", a chapter in Magick without tears www.hermetic.com/crowley/mwt/mwt_73.html

Here is a random selection of Crowley quotes:
Similarly, hashish, which excites certain types of Arab, Indian, Malay or. {490}. Mexican
to indiscriminate ... In Colombo this world problem solves itself; for the
Indian toils, without ambition or object, from sheer habit; ... No one could have suspected that he had a Bengali
grandmother. But in the first twenty-four hours I had
discovered the truth of the aphorism "Blood will tell". ... The doctor was a
Bengali named Ram Lal Sircar, a burly nigger of the most
loathsome type. ... We have the gross, hooked, pendulous proboscis; the thick,
flabby, moist lips; the patient stupid eyes, and timid, hunted
gait of the bad type of Jew. ... .. A similar case is presented by the Jew, who really does
only too often possess the bad qualities for which he is
disliked; "One cannot fraternize with the Chinese of the lower classes; one must treat them with absolute contempt and callousness.""...we [British] always somehow instinctively think of the Italian as a nigger. We don't call them "dagos" and "wops" as they do in the United States, with the invariable epithet of "dirty"; but we have the same feeling."
(most of these taken from www.arcane-archive.org/faqs/c...faq.php simply because I dont have the time to do all my own research here, and this site is the first I came across with a few crowley quotes that were relevant).

----
How would these thoughts have translated if Crowley had been given the controls of a country? Who can tell.

"This is no original thought of mine; Stalin and Hitler both saw it crystal-clear" (from monsters, niggers, jews as linked above)
"The slaves shall serve"
"I will interpret every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with my soul"
"Ordinary morality is only for ordinary people."

There are a few more quoes I cant think of offhand, where Crowley basically outlines the brave new world where thelema is triumphant, and how the lower orders will be treated.

Given his callous disregard and mistreatment of his wife, Neuberg, and scores of others, it would not be a massive leap to consider him pathological. If you want me to go over the details - his abandonment of wife and child in India while he left for his mistress in shanghai, his depiction of the death of his child as solely the result of a drunken wife, his forcing of Neuberg to sleep on a bed of gorse in chilly scotland, the whole ritual cursing thing when neuberg found a girl... abandoning his friend in the libel trial... killing the cat in cefalu... crucifying the frog (yes, torturing animals figures prominently in a lot of psychopaths).

Churchill also was a eugenecist, a racist and a bigot. The Americans too sterilized the unfit, and turned away the jews fleeing from Europe (Guess why).
Whether you appreciate it or not, Hitler was a man of his time. You may not agree with him, and I certainly dont, but to think that Hitler was an isolated monster is to ignore the facts.

"auschwitz was a work camp FUCK YOU!!!!! "

Again, this seems to be the only other coherent statement of disagreement on fact.

From Wikipedia: The entrance to Auschwitz I was—and still is—marked with the sign "Arbeit Macht Frei", or "work makes (one) free". The camp's prisoners who left the camp during the day for construction or farm labor were made to march through the gate to the sounds of an orchestra. ...All inmates had to work in the associated arms factories, except on Sundays ...The harsh work requirements, combined with poor nutrition and hygiene, led to high death rates among the prisoners. ...On June 15, 1940 the Nazis open Auschwitz Concentration Camp, officially to provide 100,000 labour force for I.G. Farben Factory. The surrounding work camps, of which there were approximately forty, were closely connected to German industry and were associated with arms factories, foundries and mines. The largest work camp was Auschwitz III Monowitz, named after the Polish village of Monowice. Starting operations in May 1942, it was associated with the synthetic rubber and liquid fuel plant Buna-Werke owned by IG Farben. 11,000 slave laborers worked at Monowitz. Seven thousand inmates worked at various chemical plants. 8,000 worked in mines. Approximately 40,000 prisoners worked in slave labor camps at Auschwitz or nearby,[25] under appalling conditions.

"This gas chamber operated from 1941 to 1942, during which time some 60,000 people were killed therein; it was then converted into an air-raid shelter for the use of the SS. " -nb 60,000, by OFFICIAL estimates of the winners of the war, out of a claimed 1100 000 total deaths at Auschwitz, or about 5% of the dead were gassed (what would have been your guestimate?); OR, if you take the camp commanders "confession", he claimed he killed 3 million - 3 times as many as the modern estimate. Why would he do that?

Reading the entire article, you must remember that there is a definite intent by many to write a simple picture of history. That history was written by the victors. Sure, they would never lie, or exaggerate? So how definite are we about what happened? Lets take the numbers who died: "The figure "4,000,000" was used on the original Auschwitz memorial plaques." "According to Harmon and Drobnicki,[2] estimates range from 800,000 to five million people. More recent and better researched estimates are on the lower end." But surely they know?


=====

Now I want to make myself VERY CLEAR here.

I am NOT a neoNazi. I have family who were killed in concentration camps (Jehovahs witnesses). I think ALL WAR is EVIL. Including the US war on Iraq, by the way. I think all killing is wrong, and I think it gets more wrong, the more are killed.
Because I place Hitler in his mileu of racist bigot egotistical supremacists with Crowley and Churchill, DOES NOT MEAN I LIKE HITLER. It means I detest the evil actions of all three (and many more).

However, I can discriminate: Hitler got the chance to do as he pleased. Churchill firebombed Dresden, incinerating hundreds of thousands of women and children. Truman incinerated tens of thousands at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Churchill was denied permission to gas the kurds, which he requested. Crowley never was entrusted with the power to do anything. He did shoot a few indians, and maltreated porters and campmates everywhere, however.

I look a little deeper into these things than most. Zimbardo did his prison experiment which turned Ameican college kids into sadistic guards and victims in just over a week. The experiment had to be shut down. And this was in a carefully monitored and controlled experiment in an ivy-league institution. What do you think happens in a prisoner of war camp? In Auschwitz? In Abu Ghraib? (before AND after the US adventure)? In Guantanamo? America was never shown all of the pictures, as some were too gruesome. A point forgotten. What did the missing photos hold? Then there is the electric shock experiment where people are pulled in off the streets and told at random to shock people, even to apparent death. And these people, in an hour or so, DO IT!!!!! This has been repeated in many societies. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

"Before conducting the experiment, Milgram polled fourteen Yale University senior-year psychology majors as to what they thought would be the results. All of the poll respondents believed that only a few (average 1.2%) would be prepared to inflict the maximum voltage. Milgram also informally polled his colleagues and found that they, too, believed very few subjects would progress beyond a very strong shock.[1]
In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40)[1] of experiment participants administered the experiment's final 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment, some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment. Only one participant steadfastly refused to administer shocks before the 300-volt level.[1]"

So I'm well aware of human evil.

I just choose not to scapegoat it all to one person, in one place. In a carefully choreographed history in which christians are not allowed to place crosses to their dead at auschwitz, because it interferes with the official message.


Youre clearly disturbed by me pointing out the fact that Auschwitz was set up as a work camp, with factories all around it. The question that I would have would be why?

Were you equally disturbed at the opposition to calling the genocide in Armenia a genocide last year in congress? Most people only cared about how it might affect trade with Turkey. Aha. Perhaps it was because only 1-1.5 million died. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide

"facts that support your own bullshit blind pre-conceived world view."

Which would be what precisely?

Your posts are full of blind anger. At a few simple statements. In some countries I'd be arrested for them (for the record, I dont DENY "the" holocaust, I merely place it in the horrific context of mand continued inhumanity to man, and the use of DEMONIZATION as a tool to control the mob - like the demonization of Saddam that allowed the holocaust of Baghdad to happen. I merely discriminate between some acts of Hitler, and other acts of Hitler. Today, one cant even admire one of his watercolors without shouts of hatred. The world needs to get a grip, stop believing the official version; look for the motives, look at the true history of evil, critically examine the facts, and most importantly, look for the patterns and see where they occur today, so we can stop it.

Its too easy to think that the holocaust could never have occurred in America. The Zimbardo and Milgram experiments prove the opposite. What ACTUALLY happened in Auschwitz? All I know is that the allies and the jews both had vested interests in making it sound as awful as possible. And they are the ones who wrote, and keep writing, the history. I dont disbelieve that a lot of it happened. It probably did. But to ignore the context, is to partake in the evil.

To say that the US had a reason for incinerating the japanese suburbs, with their tens of thousands of people, is to do what the german population did - rationalize evil.

ALL WAR IS EVIL. And in wars, people are brutalized into doing bad things - things they wouldnt do in peacetime. History throws the coin and assigns the people into guards and victims, as they did in the Stanford experiment.

If you think you wouldnt do it? Youre an idiot.

"Dr. Thomas Blass of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County performed a meta-analysis on the results of repeated performances of the experiment. He found that the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, 61–66 percent, regardless of time or place."

Sorry if this messes with your mind.

----
Carmelite nuns opened a convent near Auschwitz I in 1984. After some Jewish groups called for the removal of the convent, representatives of the Catholic Church agreed in 1987. One year later the Carmelites erected the 8 m (26 ft) tall cross from the 1979 mass near their site, just outside Block 11 and barely visible from within the camp. This led to protests by Jewish groups, who said that mostly Jews were killed at Auschwitz and demanded that religious symbols be kept away from the site. Some Catholics[who?] have argued that the people killed in Auschwitz I (as opposed to Auschwitz II) were mainly Polish Catholics (including at least one Catholic saint, Maximilian Kolbe). The Catholic Church told the Carmelites to move by 1989

Yeah. Back and forth fuck you's happen once again in the world.
Nothing revolutionary there.

just fyi, I'm not taking it personally and you may recall.... I started off tempering my comments about your ideas by
saying you may be a swell enough guy....

But after reading your first round of slop, I see no reason to read all of your newest posts.
And this has nothing to do with being closed minded... if you have ideas outside the norm
and want people to understand them to be true... you don't start with those ideas as if they
will be accepted as facts... you start with where people are at and walk them through all the facts
to see the alternate reality.... but you can't do that for us because you don't do it for yourself....

Each time you make statements... they are so informed by a pre-conceived world view
some of which seems very sane and other parts which are just totally deluded... (and
that does not mean you love war).

What it means is you don't even really discern or know your own evidence...
You evaluate something .. not just because it is backup by various amounts of evidence or not
but moreover one judges the validity of a thing by Einstein's standard..."by its internal coherence."
The Burton stuff is crap. You can tell by the stupid, illogical, backwards way he is arguing his point
and setting out his prejudice against the occult or possible jewish occult activity from the outset.

So I read as far as your citing of a chapter by Crowley....
If you actually read the chapter, it's whole point can be summed up by this line:

"Now we may return, refreshed, to the main question of monsters,
real (like Treves') or imaginary like Jews and niggers."

And then because a brit born in the late 1800's makes comments about things
like "your arab" - we are supposed to think he was somehow sub par. He was
actually well ahead of his time on issues like race and gender... but somehow
you miss all that.

And there was nothing random about your selection of Crowley quotes even though they don't
help your point at all.

And I will not debate with you on the holocaust... because no matter how smart you are in some ways
there you are just an idiot... yes I know an insult and not an argument or debate... too bad.
... and no I don't reserve the word holocaust for just the jews....
Armenia, Rowanda, Native Americans.... it's all a crime.

So as for the rest... the end. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Good night and good luck.