was more understanding about the desire for individual freedom. While the idea that a Christian could approve of Ayn Rand appears baffling in Europe, and remains suspicious to the majority of American Christians, there nevertheless exists a section of theAmerican Christian community which can move from the Bible to
Atlas Shrugged
without a problem. Yet ‘the virtue of selfishness’ is clearly a different philosophy to ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’.
Towards the end of Crowley’s life he boiled down the philosophy of his religion Thelema into a clear, simple one-page document, known as
Liber OZ
. It consists of five short paragraphs, and begins: ‘Man has the right to live by his own law – to live in the way that he wills to do: to work as he will: to play as he will: to rest as he will: to die when and how he will.’ All this sounds highly appealing. Crowley’s philosophy remains attractive as he runs through the next three paragraphs, which detail man’s right to eat, drink, dwell, move, think, speak, write, draw, dress and love as he will.
Then we reach the fifth section, which bluntly states that ‘Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.’ Here you may pause and decide that Thelema isn’t quite as attractive as it first appears.
This is an extreme example of the big problem with individualism, that of reconciling the contrasting desires of different people. One individual might wish to express their personal liberty in a way that prevents someone else from doing what they want to do. It’s all very well a Thelemite claiming the right to kill, but what if their victim doesn’t want to be killed?
Crowley and Rand believed that the solution to a clash of competing liberties was the use of force. When someone was stopping you from doing what you wanted, then the strongest will must prevail. This was also the approach favoured by the Italian politician Benito Mussolini, a key architect of fascism.
Mussolini was very open about his intent to force others to accept his will. ‘Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition,’ he said. ‘From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.’
Three years after being elected to the position of prime minister, Mussolini called a halt to Italy’s burgeoning democracy and began his rule as a dictator. He presented his dictatorship as an alternative to liberal democracy and the communism of Vladimir Lenin’s Bolshevik party in Russia. He viewed democracy as weak and ineffective, an opinion shared by many after the repercussions of the 1929 Wall Street Crash sent economies around the world into deep depression, most notably Germany’s.
Mussolini coined the word ‘fascism’ to describe his politics. The name came from the word
fasces
, which were a symbol of power in Imperial Rome.
Fasces
were a collection of thin sticks bound together into a rod that was considerably stronger than the sum of its parts. The nation would be stronger if its citizens were bound together in accord with the dictator’s will.
Mussolini’s fascism partly inspired the rise of Adolf Hitler. When Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, he attempted to transform the German economy through a totalitarian regime that exercised control over every aspect of the lives of its citizens. Totalitarian states may appear to be the antithesis of individualism, but that very much depends on whether or not you happen to be running them. In the eyes of Crowley or Rand, a leader such as Hitler was admirably exercising his individual will. This is another example of how what is observed is dependent on the position of the observer.
Unfortunately for Hitler, he was not the only psychopath intent on absolute power. Joseph Stalin,
Atlas Shrugged
without a problem. Yet ‘the virtue of selfishness’ is clearly a different philosophy to ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’.
Towards the end of Crowley’s life he boiled down the philosophy of his religion Thelema into a clear, simple one-page document, known as
Liber OZ
. It consists of five short paragraphs, and begins: ‘Man has the right to live by his own law – to live in the way that he wills to do: to work as he will: to play as he will: to rest as he will: to die when and how he will.’ All this sounds highly appealing. Crowley’s philosophy remains attractive as he runs through the next three paragraphs, which detail man’s right to eat, drink, dwell, move, think, speak, write, draw, dress and love as he will.
Then we reach the fifth section, which bluntly states that ‘Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.’ Here you may pause and decide that Thelema isn’t quite as attractive as it first appears.
This is an extreme example of the big problem with individualism, that of reconciling the contrasting desires of different people. One individual might wish to express their personal liberty in a way that prevents someone else from doing what they want to do. It’s all very well a Thelemite claiming the right to kill, but what if their victim doesn’t want to be killed?
Crowley and Rand believed that the solution to a clash of competing liberties was the use of force. When someone was stopping you from doing what you wanted, then the strongest will must prevail. This was also the approach favoured by the Italian politician Benito Mussolini, a key architect of fascism.
Mussolini was very open about his intent to force others to accept his will. ‘Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition,’ he said. ‘From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.’
Three years after being elected to the position of prime minister, Mussolini called a halt to Italy’s burgeoning democracy and began his rule as a dictator. He presented his dictatorship as an alternative to liberal democracy and the communism of Vladimir Lenin’s Bolshevik party in Russia. He viewed democracy as weak and ineffective, an opinion shared by many after the repercussions of the 1929 Wall Street Crash sent economies around the world into deep depression, most notably Germany’s.
Mussolini coined the word ‘fascism’ to describe his politics. The name came from the word
fasces
, which were a symbol of power in Imperial Rome.
Fasces
were a collection of thin sticks bound together into a rod that was considerably stronger than the sum of its parts. The nation would be stronger if its citizens were bound together in accord with the dictator’s will.
Mussolini’s fascism partly inspired the rise of Adolf Hitler. When Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, he attempted to transform the German economy through a totalitarian regime that exercised control over every aspect of the lives of its citizens. Totalitarian states may appear to be the antithesis of individualism, but that very much depends on whether or not you happen to be running them. In the eyes of Crowley or Rand, a leader such as Hitler was admirably exercising his individual will. This is another example of how what is observed is dependent on the position of the observer.
Unfortunately for Hitler, he was not the only psychopath intent on absolute power. Joseph Stalin,
Similar Books
