Against The Cant Of The Christo-Thelemite Mob And Their Metaphors

Arguing, unbelievably stupidly, as so many grazing Christo-Thelemites do, that Liber AL is just a book of self-transformational tips, ignores what Crowley believed about the book, and what he fought for concerning it. Liber AL is a book of Aeonic Law. And by Law is meant the irresistible conforming of human collective will to the higher Will of the Aeon, a process enabled and administered on Earth by the monarch-bishops born to rule (by right of battle): the Thelemites.
There is an argument, implicit in some of the critiques made against what I write about Thelema, that because I have misunderstood an allegedly basic notion—that Liber AL must only be viewed as metaphors for an interior spiritual exercise—my observations about any external implications of the Law, these critics assert, are superficial and indicative of someone who has suffered from a lack of proper initiation. When I rejected the assumption the "basic notion" was correct, and argued instead for what Crowley had argued for, that the external and surface meanings of Liber AL also have relevance, the criticism devolved pretty quickly into a defense of petty tribal beliefs and loyalties.

Here are a few examples of this offered lately on Facebook:

“Glenn Wright—I have a question for you Baby Boom: Why are you even here? If you think you're original in what you're doing you're not. Have been down this road numerous times already... some Baby Boomer asshole writing articles or books full of ignorant shit, which you proceed to flaunt all over, and when challenged everyone but you is the idiot. Especially the way you're challenging every single word anyone says.”—Written by Matthew Kobler*
*—Kobler’s Complaint (as we shall now always call it) about “challenging every single word” comes from the anxiety generated in younglings and other ignoramuses, when the old people, such as myself, who actually know and employ tools of online debate, use inline quotations to facilitate relevant discussion. Kobler Kiddies, being head-burstingly self-obsessed and dumb as stones, assume if you are quoting them—with their own words they wrote and everything—that is a form of abuse. They are stupid to the point of insanity. 

“Listen Glenn Wright I have tried to politely give you some feedback [example: “Your article is blinkered. Come back in 5 years when you've delved deeper!”], feedback which you sought by writing and promoting your article. Your article is childish as is your understanding. I'm sorry I can't spoon feed you the information you lack. The personal attacks in the article too speak volumes. Rather than seeking to find facts to fit your own ‘blinkered view’, you'd do well to have an open mind. But first of all grow up!”*—Written by James Gosling
*—I replied to James on the question of “growing up”, which obviously meant growing into a form resembling James: “You may find this hard to believe, but I do not count turning into a bloated moth as growing up, even though I suppose it involves some kind of maturation. Did you need some help getting back to the shadows?”

“No, Glenn, we will not read your troll article. You lost the last shred of respect when you thought body shaming was a valid form of magical criticism. [I asked how someone could know this if they had not read the article.] You are scum. Go away. [This was followed up by…] You are the worst kind of egotist—the kind that tries to become bigger by trying to put others down. Were it not for your insignificance, you would be toxic. Maybe you hope that by being rude to famous people you’ll somehow become famous, but no. This is the last warning.* Peddle your badly written narcissistic bullshit elsewhere.”—Written by Saddie LaMort
*—“Being rude to famous people”?? Yep, that was Saddie’s groupie-form complaint. People who threaten “last warning” are asking for assistance in working up the courage to throw you out. So I generously provided it to simpleton Saddie: “Go fuck yourself, you disgusting little maggot.” That was in fact offered mainly as dating advice.

None of this hysterical, perfunctory H8-M8ing (we used to call it “jk worship” on alt.tarot) on the part of these critics (or bleaters) follows from any objective criticism of the text of Liber AL, or any argument about what Crowley himself had to say, but is a vomiting forth of emotional sentiment, in part reacting to my saying something these individuals did not like, and in part because I had the nerve to criticize an extraordinarily minor "famous person", Lon Milo DuQuette.

One exception to the fact few critics have had any substantive, text-based, criticism of what I was saying, was the repetition, rather like slogan defenses or talking points put up by zombies of various political viewpoints, that I had missed one obvious verse that should have cleared up everything. The defenders of the mature, unblinkered, kindly Thelema complained Crowley's or Aiwass's verse about the “best blood” being of the Moon, clearly showed no child sacrifice could have been intended. Of course, I had talked about that verse in the Lon article, pointing out precisely what the critics were chanting I had stupidly missed. And that is another sign or symptom of the vain and lethargic emptiness in the heads of these critics—they didn’t even read what they were whining about so piously.

In spite of all of this nonsense, which is a typical reaction to facts being discussed in the occult, there is a worthwhile question raised about whether Crowley meant that the severity of Liber AL is to be applied only in the sense of people being hard on themselves (obviously not too hard—somebody might get cranky), or hard on the world of defective, deficient slaves (a notion many Christians posing as Thelemites find naturally abhorrent).

Let us focus on one verse and commentary from Liber AL to see if we can find any clues about how to interpret all the verses.
AL II,25: "Ye are against the people, O my chosen!"
Now, Crowley fully understands that verse is sufficiently vague that the Koblers, Goslings and LaMorts of the world might twist it into meaning: against the bad people, i.e. who have not equated initiation with being stuffed full of hallmark-card-brand love and light.

But that isn't what Crowley means.

Crowley’s Old Comment on the verse says:
"The cant of democracy condemned. It is useless to pretend that men are equal; facts are against it. And we [Thelemites] are not going to stay, dull and contented as oxen, in the ruck of humanity."
I doubt most people reading that will bother to look up the word “ruck”. Seriously, why put yourself out to gain a better understanding—through stupid old knowledge of the meanings of words—when you can just make up shit and call it wisdom?

For the other two of you, poor blinkered souls caring about denotations, “ruck” means “the mass of ordinary people and things”. In other words, “ruck” is the very opposite of "Thelemite".

In The New Comment, Crowley goes into this in much more interesting detail:
“By 'the people' is meant that canting, whining, servile breed of whipped dogs which refuses to admit its deity. The mob is always afraid for its bread and butter—when its tyrants let it have any butter…. And when the trouble begins, we aristocrats of Freedom, from the castle or the cottage, the tower or the tenement, shall have the slave mob against us.”
“Aristocrats of Freedom”?

In other words, those made noble by their natural condition of being, instead of by inheritance of a title. And so, regardless of whether or not the Thelemites wish to dominate the “slave mob”, it is natural and inevitable that they will do so.

This is the social and political analysis of AL II:25.

But then Crowley tells us:
“Still deeper, there is a meaning in this verse applicable to the process of personal initiation. By "the people" we may understand the many-headed and mutable mob which swarms in the slums of our own minds.”
So, Crowley tells us the social and political ideas can also act as metaphors for—something deeper. A process? A technique? An initiation?

It is a mirroring, in one’s mind, of the natural, Thelemic condition of the world, and society—that the few and free will dominate the many and the enslaved. And so, in one’s mind, the natural chaos of thoughts can be dominated by the few, directed, focused dictators of True Will.

What we should understand from this is two-fold:

1. Crowley very definitely saw in the verses of Liber AL external meanings and implications, and internal ones. The tendency of the New Aeon to push its agenda happens from without as well as from within. Thus to claim Liber AL is just a book of self-transformational tips, ignores what Crowley believed about the book, and what he fought for concerning it. By the latter I mean Crowley clearly understood and expected that society itself would undergo a kind of HGA-led revolution, which would bring about a Thelemic restructuring that would raise up the new nobility, and would eliminate the inefficient, and divisive, democratic demon that is the natural enemy of Thelemites.

2. And, more than this, the deeper, internal, meanings, relevant for “personal initiation”, were, in Crowley’s view, properly understood as metaphors reflecting the external, social and political, development of the Thelemic Aeon. So, it is not a sign of superficial reading or impaired initiation to see the often violent and bloody establishment of the new cosmic governance of the world directly mirrored in the internal spiritual conflict of an individual trying to beat down and enslave his mob of false selves. And it is definitely not Crowley’s idea that Liber AL is just a little red book of somewhat crazy and mean-sounding meditations. It is an action plan for the New Aeon’s world as well.

Comments

Popular Posts

Satanism, Dead Babies, & Lon Milo DuQuette

Thelemic Jihad

"Mercy Let Be Off", A Commentary on Liber AL III, 18