ONION-PEELINGS

Goodbye and hello

2011-03-13T07:15:00.000-07:00

As you may have noticed, I have not written much here in a while. This is because I made the decision to retire or "kill" Jess Karlin, the character I created many years ago and who wrote this blog.

The blog and content still exist. And I think the discussions in it are still worthwhile. Perhaps from time to time some new entries will appear here.

But my efforts at Thelemic commentary, blended with my (meaning the writer guy's) observations of a life lived Thelemically, will now mainly appear at the XVII-Star blog. So, good luck with your studies and life, and be seeing you.

Glenn Wright

Postings at XVII-Star

2010-08-22T12:55:00.000-07:00

A blog entitled XVII-Star, done by my good friend, Glenn Wright, will likely be of much interest to those interested in Thelema.

Give it a try.

The "Last Generation" Argument

2010-06-07T08:31:00.000-07:00

Now the Christians and their Old Aeon mimickers are asking the obvious and vital question. They are even making it mainstream to discuss it. Their ultimate expression of vanity, to imagine their presence or absence matters a whit to the Way. Look there goes another rubber-tree...plant.

But I see a certain revealing light...as I have been seeing more and more this year. Unfortunately, part of becoming a Thelemic saint is losing everything. How else to shrink to the necessary point?

But the thing is, I now see a path to Thelemic hegemony that does not involve having to overthrow the dominant regimes. They, guided as they shall be, by the Old Aeon common human sentiments, which mass produce and deliver something like McDecency's, will do the decent thing---and commit suicide.

It is thus the virtuous Work of Thelemites to do one thing for now and for the time of this change. Survive.

Inheritance is a lot easier than conquering or convincing.

Thelemic Jihad

2010-04-15T06:10:00.001-07:00

"Now this age is pre-eminently a 'time of war', most of all now,
when it is our Work to overthrow the slave-gods."

At some point, all Thelemites know this, there will be a call from without and within the Thelemic current of divine destiny, and Thelemites will go to war. The enemy will be easy to locate, for he shall be anyone who is not a Thelemite; specifically he shall be anyone defending the faiths, powers, and practices of the Old Aeon.

If this war were declared today, it would not last long. Indeed, it likely would not amount to much of a war at all, as the vast majority of Thelemites are cute little hippies who wouldn't die for much of anything except more drugs and sprout-burgers. Their leaders, on the other hand, are pasty negheads, who couldn't command or plan an insurgency if their lives depended upon it, which they assuredly do not.

At most, the OTO might be able to stage a newage festival, and hope some SCA types would show up so at least an ornamental threat might be engaged against the tanks and planes and highly-trained killers of the combined militaries of the Old Aeon. Imagine Lon Milo DuQuette attempting to wipe out brigades of enemy warriors with his singing—well, OK, that MIGHT have the intended effect, but a chorus of lousy singers and magicians on the Thelemic side would not win a military battle, much less the war.

How then shall this war ever come about, and when shall it be declared, and even more importantly WON by the Thelemic side?

It’s only too easy to form a cult, To cry a crusade with “Deus Vult”— But you won’t get much of a good result from empty-headed Athenians.

Well, we get some idea about this by looking at Crowley's vision of that other religion which came close to being Thelema centuries before Thelema—and that is the martial faith of Islam. Of course we have listened to endless American meatheads tell us "Islam is a religion of Peace!" while trying to wipe enough blood and gore off the Koran to find those peaceful verses. But, the fundamental truth about Islam is that it was born, and spread, and flourished in greatness by the sword. An Islamic theological argument was the edge of a sword on the neck of an infidel. These days, the blade is used only ceremonially, to make horrific decap-vids for the Jihadist web. Generally, Muslim faithful prefer to blow motherfuckers the hell up (or down) using IEDs or suicide bombers.

Now, let me interject here that this sort of discussion is likely to make the Thelemic managers extremely uncomfortable, as it raises serious questions about their commitment to real versus carny Thelema; the real sort being that which engages in a serious manner Liber AL (LAL), and its many provocative verses; the carny brand being what OTO operates as an Old Aeon business. The latter necessarily kowtows to the laws and traditions of whatever state in which it resides, sets up the Abomination of Desolation and gladly worships it, and of course collects a living for the managers out of the blood of the ignorant members.

It is a comfortable, pestilent, pond of saturnine aspic (see Eight of Cups). But it is no training ground for Thelemic warriors, or Thelemites of any sort at all.

For anyone truly obeying "Do what thou wilt", but also truly acknowledging and accepting "I am a god of War and of Vengeance" AND "Kill and torture; spare not", understands that before Thelema can flower upon the Earth, it first must conquer and destroy the gardens of the enemy—and of course the gardeners and worshippers of those dying beds.

As we said, it is to Islam that we might apply ourselves to see what Crowley particularly valued about it, to such an extent that he even used the Islamic term "Caliphate" to describe the global goal of Thelema—world hegemony.

Many people may be surprised to learn that, at least in the view of Aleister Crowley, Mohammed was in the same holy order as himself, and was in fact, a founder of one of the "originating constituent assemblies" of the OTO.

More than this, Crowley speculated that Mohammed may have been a forerunner of the Equinox of Horus, i.e. a kind of bridge between the Aeon of Osiris and that of Horus. Mohammed was based in the cultures and the theology of the dying gods, while looking forward in style and vigor of faith to the Aeon of war and vengeance of Horus. Thus, Crowley suggested there were aspects of Islamic faith that Thelemites should admire and aspire to copy.

One virtue of Islam, or its believers, as Crowley noted, was their willingness to "fight and die for their ideas". Crowley constantly reminded Thelemites that a life lived in fear and compromise of one's liberty is no life at all. This is certainly not a new message of course, as most of us have heard the notion of "Liberty or Death"—which sounds great when you're young, male, drunk and not looking at much of a future anyway. To most people, that famous exhortation to fight for ideas is like a nostalgic bit of advertising, approximately the same in real force and depth of meaning as "Merry Christmas", or these secular days maybe "20% off all housewares". It's just something some crazy guy said a long time ago that doesn't mean much of anything to anybody.

For one thing, most of us know quite well that our choices are infinitely greater than liberty or death. If in fact that were not the case, maybe the binary would be more urgent in its appeal. But we can do many more things than be free, or completely free as we would have it, and many of those alternatives are infinitely more appealing to us than being dead. Now, of course the premise of the charge—to fight for the idea of Liberty—is that having the freedom, for example to decide what freedom even means, is a better thing than being a slave. That is the easiest way to understand it. Would you fight to the death to keep from being chained to—what exactly? A plow? A job? A set of expectations others have for you? A life that is as alien to you, though you live it every day, as a Martian meatloaf? The Devil?

And what does fighting to the death really mean? We can mostly agree I imagine that what we would prefer to do, if fighting is required, is to fight to the other fellow's death, not our own. Indeed, to have much chance to work on any future Work, we had better survive the battle to be available for it. Thus, either discretion or valor had better come to our aid, and some hard and effective training in combat wouldn't be bad either. Nobody is going to lease us a warrior's body, mind, or spirit, although we may be able to purchase mercenaries, which is to say people whose principal ideas are symbolized by little dead pieces of clinkage, to fight for us. This is what Americans have decided to do. And it has only enabled repression of liberty, because the citizens no longer demonstrate the ideals of the nation, such as those can even be agreed to, are worth fighting for.

Crowley, in that infamous exhortation to the violent defense of liberty, Liber OZ (Devil Book), said: "Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights." It is in fact the role and purpose of the Devil that calls us to liberty, and to the defense of liberty, because it is the force which pulls the Sun north (towards Life), and a Martian (individual) expression. Its counterpart, which pulls the Sun down to the darkness of Bliss, is called appropriately Death. Yet Death paradoxically yields Netzach-Victory, the apprehension of Beauty through individual valor and devotion. It is all about fighting for the Love of God, and for Love as God. And here Crowley placed Mohammed and his faith. On the opposite side he placed Buddha, and the heartless rationale of Indolence. In the synthetic position, in 6-Tiphareth, he placed himself, and Thelema, and one can see many borrowings from the antecedents. But chiefly from Islam, is its heart and passion to express and defend the faith with complete prejudice favoring the Will and Work of God.

Now, you may reasonably ask what I am saying here, respecting practical action on the part of Thelemites and their organizations. Am I saying that the only truly Thelemic life must be martial in nature, and aimed at, for the time being surreptitiously, preparation for Armageddon?

Yeah, that is what I am saying.

What I am not saying is exactly when this battle shall be fought. It might happen only in the aftermath of a cataclysmic exchange of military destructive force between the OA powers. But if that happens, if that is the opening that allows the Thelemic rats to conquer the OA dinosaurs, it may be centuries before civilization can right itself into anything Thelemites, or anybody else, would wish to rule.

This may be inevitable. Human beings, faced with utter annihilation if they refuse to deny their gods and their most cherished beliefs, often choose death for everyone and everything. So it may be for the OA ministers and armies. So it may be for many or most Thelemites too.

Of course, there is another way—there usually is. And that would involve an appropriation of the OA means of command, an infiltration of its command structures, and an indoctrination of key command figures allowing for the subversion and overthrow of the various OA regimes. This is essentially the Christian method, used successfully to overthrow the pagans of the Roman Empire. That could take a very long time, and certainly would put Thelema into the position of being labeled by the old regimes as a "terrorist" movement. No doubt many Thelemites would be thrown to the lions before emperors would start declaring Thelema to be the state religion.

Finally, and I will talk more about this soon, but there is always the possibility that Crowley's writings about war and about the martial nature of Thelema were just literary exercises, or attempts to satirize religious extremism. That seems unlikely to me, since to take seriously that notion, one has to think Crowley the most devoted satirist in the history of the world. Of course, a satire taken to a globally transformative level of seriousness might have been the cosmic joke Crowley (or Aiwass) intended all along.

What if Thelema Were True?

2010-02-27T12:51:00.001-08:00

What would that mean?

I don’t mean what would it mean for Bill Breeze.

I mean what would it mean for you?

That you can feel good about wilting your do?

The thing is, Christianity makes no distinction between the pope and the pauper, not spiritually. And it is easy for the pauper to understand this, because he knows that all he has to do to be saved is to express his faith in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. He might live like a rat in his human time; but this is merely a sign to others of the essential rathood underlying any presumption of righteous value in even the most virtuous or materially prosperous human existence. In the end, all the rats are redeemed in the Body of Christ, where they will once again be individually extinct, but fully alive in the Unity of Divine Light.

The Thelemite, on the other hand, does not have an easy time of things. First off, he is told that faith is a corpse, and that he had better rely upon something more tangible, like himself, to get saved. And the best way to do that? “Do what thou wilt”. But, nobody can say with authority or certainty what that means exactly. Or what it means to anybody generally, since it could mean one thing to a person at one stage of his life and something else entirely to that person at another stage of his life. And then there is the question of whether doing what “thou” wilt means doing what YOU want, or something else. And why is there really a difference? We are told there is this “higher” self that wants to be in charge of directing traffic, but it requires the lower self to submit in order to have any power and authority. What a strange way to get any Great Work done in the world!

Of course, people make careers, such as they are, addressing these questions, but the point is that Thelema introduces a whole list of quandaries for any believers, or knowers, and these are not intended to be easy to understand or to follow consistently. The ethics of Thelema, the moral guidelines that would shape behavior are in fact extremely problematic. Unlike the fictional Thelemites, whose nobility both qualified them to belong to the exclusive Abbey of Thelema, and disinclined them from vice, Crowleyan or Aiwazan Thelema is supposed, somehow, to be the natural law affecting everybody. Yet, it argues, just as does Christianity, for a hierarchical social arrangement, with the vast majority of people doing their Will by being the slaves of the Thelemites.

The very essence of a Thelemic community and government is demonstrated in OTO, which is a dictatorship of an elite (not necessarily enlightened) handful of people over the mass of its (presumably unenlightened, and certainly uninformed) members. The argument is made that if people allow themselves to be dictated to, or to be treated as slaves, that is what they deserve. In essence, it is their Will and their destiny to be ordered around by their Thelemic masters.

And you might, reasonably, ask, and many have asked this—so what exactly is the difference between the Thelemic dictatorship and any other brand? Supposedly, the Thelemic dictatorship is largely free of any bigotry in its treatment of others. It is, in other words, an equal opportunity dictator. If one who is born to poor economic circumstances rises up on his own mettle, he shall not be prevented from doing so merely because of his impoverished origin, his skin color or ethnicity, or any other irrelevant consideration. Of course that is a self-fulfilling prophecy, since by definition only the Thelemically deserving would “rise up” or be allowed to rule in the system. The ones who are defeated in their Will to rule, by bigotry or whatever obstacle, were simply too weak to obtain the goal.

As with bugs, Nature or the Way or Nuit makes plenty of copies of a type, and most may in fact fail to achieve their personal attempt at the portion of the Great Work assigned to them.

But again, what is the difference between that and what we see here and now, in the collapsing edifices of the Old Aeon? One might say the difference cannot be apparent to current or any near-future generation.

For if Thelema is true, and true in the sense Crowley believed, than for many centuries to come the strains of a crumbling world and the struggles of the rising world will make the Earth a bubbling cauldron of war, destruction, and all the other good old-fashioned human values. These latter expressions are not subject to extinction merely because some Aeon or the other has passed away or taken up residence and control. And even if that were the case, no cauldron of war and destruction is likely to pass away, but instead will be lifted up, as the main temple of the gods in the administration of Horus and Mars.

When warriors have conquered—everything—they are left to ponder rule and order and even the dreaded notion, peace. Crowley felt a kind of decay would inevitably set in at that point, as the challenges become more complex, political, and “victory” fades into a discursive ambiguity. But again, that is a problem for Thelemites a long time from now to confront, and no doubt a big part of the answer they will seek at that time will be an exploration of the need that will still exist for an inner conquest. If and when Thelema has been transformed into the dominant doctrine, the point of the establishment of that new regime would be to engender and to encourage a society of introspective extroverts—meaning those whose Work is directed first to the rectification of self, to the honing and tempering of self as a weapon of will, then to the exploitation of time and place (i.e., one’s circumstances) to complete the Great Work of the rectified self.

One again can challenge this achievement and opportunity, to ask what is particularly unique about this desirable outcome, that sets its aside, as a peculiar expression of Thelemic Law, contrasted to the usual occult challenge to seekers to reform within and without.

The main difference I think is one of mode of conduct, and the nature of the energy, which is going to be martial in its essence, and ruthless in its application. If Thelema does take hold, and does inspire a movement of political and social revolution, it is likely to be something which even current, enlightened, adherents, will find extremely troubling, and alien to their nature.

But this, again, is what we should expect, given the prediction for the scheme of development of the Aeon.

I asked this question, what if Thelema were true, because I see so much idle debate about “defining” Thelema, as if Thelemites themselves had some collective responsibility or power to define the current. If Thelema is true, that notion is an absurdity, as if a planet or a star requires a human name or permission to keep moving upon its natural course. The thing is, if Thelema is true, no Thelemites are required to make it so. But, if Thelema is true, all humans who move in accord with the current of the Way of the Aeon of Horus, are Thelemites.

What needs to be defined is one’s understanding and personal conviction.

Fewer words need to flow at this time. Much more mindful action.

What wilt thou do?

Satanism, Dead Babies, & Lon Milo DuQuette

2009-12-23T11:13:00.000-08:00

Lon Milo DuQuette just wants everyone to know that Satan DOES NOT EXIST!
Of course he is talking about the South Park Satan, not the Thelemic one.
Disclaimer: I dislike listening to or reading Lon Milo DuQuette. That was my first reaction to him, many years ago when I watched him lecturing about (and peddling of course) his own Tarot cards, the "Yes We Put In Every Demon And The Kitchen Sink Too" deck, one of the ugliest things ever foisted on Tarot.

At that time, I complained to Bill Heidrick that I thought something weird was going on, because Lon Milo seemed more like a used-car salesman, than a magician or occultist. Of course that is the thing most people find appealing about him. He says a lot of silly, stupid, things, and they laugh, and the occult feels warmer and fuzzier that way. As I have said, Lon Milo is the Art Fern of Magick. Heidrick replied to me, disparaging an entire regional culture to make excuses for his Order brother: "He's from Southern California." Heidrick noted that people from the northern part of the state, where he was from, didn't naturally act like fools.

When DuQuette's book on the Thoth deck came out, many people were very excited, and I was curious to see what a long-term student of the occult, and a high-ranking member of the OTO, might say to elucidate Crowley's Tarot. I was one of the very few people who gave Lon's book a bad review, and in fact I considered it such a bad book, I decided the OTO must have an organizational objective to thwart people's understanding of Crowley and his Tarot.

I had one email exchange with DuQuette, where I asked him if he was such a great magician, why couldn't he lose some weight. Maybe that sounds mean, but we're talking about a man whose motto is "I can change only one thing with Magick—myself." OK, so at the least you might change to being a little less roly-poly. Just to show it wasn't all snark and no heart, I also told Lon that I had a couple of magick words—DIET and EXERCISE—that I happily dispensed to him as a professional courtesy. He thanked me, and said he was already attempting to employ those words, and had lost some weight. I told him I would offer him any assistance he might need to help him sveltecize. He never asked for my help.

From time to time on forums, I will ask Lon topical questions, and he will refuse to answer.

I sent a Facebook "friend" request once or twice to him, but he declined the honor.

I suspect he will not love me more for this review:

Satan's Nuts
Recently, Lon Milo DuQuette was interviewed on Blogtalk Radio, on the Beyond Worlds show, an alleged fusion of Tarot and Angel beliefs and practices, where they claim to help the "naturally intuitive" listeners tap into their own "inner knowing". In the 90-minute interview, we were told that Lon would be "debunking the Myths about Aleister Crowley" and also talking about Thoth Tarot.

As it turned out, and this is certainly no fault of Lon's, or maybe it was in an ironic way (given the co-hosts of the show felt they were obliged to find DuQuette's every snort and whinny hilarious), but so distracted and goofy were the two women interviewers, who talked over Lon, finished his halting responses, drowned him out with their inane cackling, and generally sounded perfectly idiotic, they only managed to get to a few topics. As Lon pointed out at the end, that is often a problem with him anyway, as he tends to drone on peripatetically, averse to getting to any destination—or shutting up.

One of the topics they did get to was the question of Satanism, a recurring issue and theme for any Thelemite to address, as Crowley of course had no problem admitting he worshiped the Devil or Satan, and that he was in fact a Satanist. Certainly, many people who have written about Crowley mention that he was a Satanist, and that his religion is a form of Satanism. And, needless to say, the representatives of the OTO are pretty sensitive about this, as they naturally would be about many things having to do with Aleister Crowley, and Lon Milo sought to correct people's alleged misapprehensions.

The problem is, he sought to do this by saying things that were both unfounded, and disparaging of the beliefs of millions of people who do happen to believe in a power or entity called Satan. In Lon Milo's myth of Crowley and Satanism, Crowley just liked to say things to filter out the unworthy, things like "I worship Satan."

Well, Crowley repeatedly admitted that he worshipped Satan, and for that matter pointed out that Thelemites, given that they worshipped the Sun, were worshipping Satan too. In Liber V vel Reguli, for example, Crowley speaks explicitly of "the Devil our Lord...Lord of the Sabbath of the Adepts, [who] is Satan, therefore also the Sun, whose number of Magick is 666, the seal of His servant the Beast."

And Crowley implies that the Beast (i.e., Crowley) was not only Satan's servant, but since, according to Wynn Wescott, who Crowley quoted on this matter in the Equinox, the Beast is the child of Samael (Satan) and his wife, the harlot Isheth Zanunim, that means Aleister Crowley, at least in his Thelemic office and role as Beast 666, was also the son of Satan.

So, Satan is not just a fringe notion in Thelema. Satan and Satanic thinking, whatever that may be determined to be by study of Liber AL and its antecedent sources, are central themes in Thelema. It is not unfair to then suggest that Thelema has at least something to do with Satanism, and that Thelemites can fairly be called Satanists.

But, Lon Milo DuQuette dismissed that notion entirely, alleging that only "nutty people" would believe in Satan, or call themselves Satanists, and that in fact these "nutty people" were really Christians, not Thelemites. The fact is, these are not wholly baseless statements, given that Satanism would seem to be largely a Christian heresy, but the "nutty people" would also seem to include Thelemites.

At one point, one of the hosts put a simple, straightforward question to DuQuette: "Lon, can you define for us what Satanism is?"

There was a big beat of utter, desperate silence, followed by Lon's stumbling reply:

"Oh...well...the...I...the...uhm...more easily I can define what it is not. It is not an organized group of people...ah...ah...who are in touch with the anti-Christian god. The Satanism that I was afraid of was a figment of my imagination, because the Satan that I thought people worshipped doesn’t exist...and...and...anybody who you can’t convince that to, I’m sorry the discussion ends. I’m through arguing with you.”

Now, Lon could of course have imagined all kinds of Satans I suppose. Maybe in Lon's head, Satan looked a lot like Santa Claus...and of course Lon looks a lot like...well, you know. So, yes, it is always possible that Lon Milo DuQuette had imagined an absurd idea for Satan, and that idea, being nonsense, does not really exist. But the problem is he implies that a lot of other people have the same idea about this notion of Satan. And to those people he shows not understanding, but contempt.

Let's be very clear about what Christians actually believe, because I think it often confuses people that Christians call the Devil by the name of Satan, or that they think it applies somehow to the Edenic Serpent. How did they get that idea? Well, my dears, they got that idea from their Bible, and from the very important book in the Bible that is so influential on Thelema—the Apocalypse of St. John, or Revelation.

See if this little verse, one of two in Revelation that use this language, can clear it up for you:

“And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.”—Revelation 20: 1-2

SO—DRAGON=OLD SERPENT (i.e. Eden’s Serpent)=DEVIL=SATAN

So, no matter the name, it is the same Satanic station, the same host—the eternal enemy of humanity—the one who opposes, prosecutes, and leads to destruction God’s creation. But Satan accomplishes this in a peculiar way, by seeming to lift up humanity to the position of gods themselves. His only purpose in this is to demonstrate the arrogance and impiety of humans, so that God, according to his own rules, has to destroy humanity. And Satan does this because it is his job. Also his pleasure.

At some point, we are told, it becomes such a pleasure, such a demented mission of Satan’s, that he decided maybe God was kind of a weakling for not following his own rules and permanently eradicating humanity from the face of the Earth. And a lot of the angels agreed with Satan, presumably the lot standing on the side of Severity. These launched a heavenly rebellion, leading to a war that is ongoing. The Severe-team angels, Captained by Satan, were outnumbered, 2-1, and also of course they were opposed by God, who you figure has to count for a whole number himself—at least, so maybe 3-1 or hey, 4-1. The odds against Satan were not so good, and either because he was cast out of Heaven or chose to strategically retreat, the host of “evil” angels came or fell to Earth, established themselves as demonic forces of the most assuredly disloyal opposition, and began to work assiduously for the destruction of humanity.

The inevitable failing of humanity, in listening to the almost irresistible temptation of Satan, makes God regret ever having created such a defective, irredeemably arrogant bunch of losers. God says at one point his choices are few—destruction of humanity on the basis of its defective nature OR remaking of humanity in a manner that will eliminate the possibility of disobedience. This remaking is essentially what Christianity is all about, being reborn in the spirit, to create a Christ-driven life, which is impervious to the destructive temptations of Satan, just as the perfect man, Jesus Christ, was able to resist Satan in the wilderness.

In addition, via the enormous and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ, humanity is saved from Judgment and destruction, and thus Satan’s power is neutralized at its heart. However, humanity can still choose whether to accept the Light, and salvation, or to listen to the question of the Shadows—what do you want? Because Satan will most definitely appear to provide just that. In fact, he will be willing to meet you at a crossroads, and sign a contract to give you exactly what you claim to want, in return for the ownership and destruction of your soul.

Now, THAT’S the story as Christians actually understand it, and as millions of them believe to be the truth.

When a Thelemite laughs about Satan, and acts like it’s just a silly myth nobody could reasonably believe in, he is acting in accord with Satanic impulses to con people into thinking Satan is a joke, a myth, a metaphor. But, why would Aleister Crowley spend so much time talking about the centrality of a joke to his belief system? True, he was given to distancing himself from his own piety to Satan often enough. If you think about it, impiety is actually a Satanic virtue, but he ended up destroying his own life (or emptying it into Satan’s butt if you prefer), and maiming the lives of many people he touched with his Thelemic sensibilities.

If Aleister Crowley did not worship Satan, certainly from a Christian perspective he acted like he did. And it is that perspective that the Thelemic managers, such as Lon Milo DuQuette, most fear, because on the one hand, all Thelemites are commanded by Aiwaz to “throw the Christians to the lions”, which I suppose could be interpreted metaphorically, but given Crowley’s hatred of Christianity, especially certain expressions of it, that seems questionable. On the other hand, the Old Aeon hierarchy, while certainly under pressure and threat of diminishment, is still largely in control, and far more influential than the fledgling Thelemic organizations.

At any moment, if the Christian, or other Old Aeon, powers, decide Thelema is a threat, it will be “the Thelemites to Gitmo”, or whatever will be employed during the Ordeal XI of Thelema.

Dead Babies and Best Blood

Sacrificed Male Child, XII-Hanged Man, from Crowley's Thoth Tarot,
perhaps the only Tarot card suggesting a felonious act.
One of the other myths Lon attempted to correct in the Beyond Worlds show, was the idea that Crowley promoted or in fact committed human sacrifice, specifically child sacrifice. That is of course a recurrent charge against Crowley and against Thelema.

Lon went to tediously long length to make a simple point—Crowley was just talking about sacrificing his sperm, in the bodily fluid he called "blood", and which most people call "semen". And Lon claims Crowley wrote about it using the child sacrifice symbolism because at the time (1920's), one couldn't write openly of sex-magickal practices without getting into some kind of trouble, but you could allege you were a mass-murderer of children, as a way of veiling your sex-magick secrets, and nobody would mind in the least.

Lon misstated the facts to enable this dubious explanation, by alleging that the myth of Crowley murdering children originates solely from the "Bloody Sacrifice" chapter in Magick in Theory and Practice. This is the infamous chapter, where Crowley plainly tells us that blood sacrifice is the most important and effective magickal technique available to the magician, and "[a] male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim." In a footnote to this text, Crowley appears to confess to having murdered 2400 children: "FRATER PERDURABO...made this particular sacrifice on an average about 150 times every year between 1912 e.v. and 1928 e.v."

Now, it is often alleged that this is the main reason child sacrifice is ever associated with Crowley or Thelema, and, as Lon Milo said, this is based on a misunderstanding of Crowley's veiled language. However, this argument is factually incorrect, and quite misleading.

Thelema is associated with child sacrifice in a fundamental way mainly because child sacrifice is commanded in the Thelemic holy book, Liber AL:

AL III,12: "Sacrifice cattle, little and big: after a child."

As with many Liber AL verses, the language here is at least a bit vague. It after all explicitly says to sacrifice cattle, but is somewhat unclear about whether "a child" is also sacrificed, like a calf, or has some other function "after". As always, in any occult verses, one could argue that none of the words should be read flat or literally to obtain the intended or essential meaning.

But, we have the evidence of Crowley's commentary here, which fixes that commandment to a particular and real child sacrifice, one Crowley and Rose certainly did commit, or suffer, through gross neglect, especially on Crowley's part, as he abandoned his wife and baby in Southeast Asia to run off by himself to America. Ultimately, Crowley blamed Rose for what happened, saying her drinking and poor hygiene led to the typhoid infection of their baby girl, Lilith, who died in Rangoon on or about May 1, 1906.

Further, Liber AL had included a warning (AL III, 43) to the Scarlet Woman, i.e. Rose Crowley, saying that failure to continue her "work" for the Thelemic gods would result in the sacrifice of her child to Ra-Hoor-Khuit, who speaks of taking his vengeance against Rose (and Crowley too presumably) by "slaying" her child. What are the chief sins Rose might exhibit to suffer this terrible penalty: pity, compassion, tenderness—basic faults of character in Thelema.

Now, in spite of this, true believers and defenders of Thelema (the fluffy-fake brand of it anyway) might complain that this is no smoking gun. After all, Liber AL does not have any explicit verse that says something like use the blood of a child to do some magick or something.

Except of course it certainly does:

AL III, 24: "The best blood is of the moon, monthly: then the fresh blood of a child, or dropping from the host of heaven: then of enemies; then of the priest or of the worshippers: last of some beast, no matter what."

We should note that here, "beast blood" is the least blood, while "blood of a child" gets the silver medal. And so, one way of reading AL III, 12 could be to note it is advising two levels or brands of efficacy concerning sacrifice, noting the easier beast blood of cattle would be the primary choice, but only AFTER one had sought out the better grade blood of a child.

Now, "the fresh blood of a child" in AL III, 24, according to Crowley's commentary, means "BABALON and THE BEAST conjoined, the Secret Saviour", so it refers to the mingled sex fluids of the magical partners. Crowley says he chooses to use language that, without commentary, could easily be taken to say he is promoting the magical use of the blood of actual children, because he is concerned that plain talk about the magical principles involved in the verse "could lead only to the most fulminating and irredeemable disaster."

In that respect, it seems his reasoning in the choice of language is not so different from what DuQuette alleged on the Beyond Worlds show.

Yet, veiled talk in the form of plain statements about sacrificing children could lead to some pretty irredeemable disasters too, but maybe that is also part of Crowley's plan, to inspire the profane to commit terrible acts in accord with an uninitiated reading.

Certainly, Crowley did not care much about the welfare of children, and had parental tips such as: "the Beast 666 adviseth that all children shall be accustomed from infancy to witness every type of sexual act".

Regarding the proper levels of initiation in readings of Crowley's writings, it is useful to point out that Lon Milo DuQuette dismissed any possibility that the "Bloody Sacrifice" comments by Crowley should in any way be taken to suggest he advocated real child sacrifice, even though Crowley plainly believed he and the Scarlet Woman had, perhaps inadvertently, sacrificed their first child to Satan.

DuQuette says Crowley was clear in his rejection of a literal taking of his "Bloody Sacrifice" comments, that he was meaning "I’m saying something here behind what I am saying. What you think I’m saying, I’m not really saying. And then in a huge, long footnote, he says I’m not saying what I’m saying, I’m saying something else."

However, the "huge footnote", which Crowley called an "initiated interpretation", is blamed on Soror I.W.E. (Martha Kuntzel), whose name Crowley is known to have used on at least one other occasion (in The Book of Thoth) as a pseudonym to express his own satiric or misleading commentary. Whether or not Kuntzel actually wrote the "initiated interpretation", Crowley later called it "nonsense" and "dust in the eyes of the profane" in notes to Emblems and Mode of Use.

But for DuQuette to raise that complication would of course run the risk of perhaps clarifying something for the profane, and everybody else. That is not to say Crowley actually sacrificed 2400 children. But it is to say that while he may have intended a sex-magick metaphor in mentioning his prolific sacrifices of sperm, Crowley never intended blood sacrifice and its magickal efficacy, or the grade of children's blood as a sacrificial agent, to be taken only as metaphors.

We know this for the reasons I have mentioned, plus there is the case of the speaking of the initiatory Word of the Aeon, which is associated with an immense and real bloody sacrifice. You know that sacrifice by its historical appellation—World War One—which Crowley understood to be part of the global bloodbath required by the change of Aeon to announce and anoint the rulership of Horus the Avenger. Crowley plainly says: "This Bloody Sacrifice is the critical point of the World-Ceremony of the Proclamation of Horus, the Crowned and conquering Child, as Lord of the Aeon."

What one should really take from the whole "Bloody Sacrifice" chapter, and its footnote, and its controversy, is that Crowley often used rash and questionable judgment in his veils and blinds, delighting in saying things which while "technically" correct as far as occultism was concerned, are potentially quite dangerous insofar as his ideas are made available for a wider, uninitiated, audience. And they are dangerous not merely because someone might take Crowley at his word, and miss the subtextual and perhaps truer meaning, but also because a lot of the subtextual or technical meanings of his writing do not necessarily negate the surface meaning.

Occultism does not offer a hierarchy of increasingly truer understandings of its symbolism, each one erasing the meaning of the previous insights. What one actually encounters is an increasingly complex understanding of the ways in which "truth" is a relative feature of life, except in certain deep and high grasps of it. This is to say that the surface reading and meaning of an occult verse or idea is one level of truth, one way of understanding something, which has a material implication. That way of understanding is appropriate for a certain level of initiation. As one progresses, he will understand more of the meaning, and what was once the whole meaning, will be understood to be just one part, and perhaps not the better part any longer for the point at which the aspirant now finds himself.

Crowley well understood this, and wrote in accord with it. The problem is that, unlike the vast majority of occultists, Crowley was contemptuous of the idea that the innocent or unready should be protected from the dangers of premature exposure to the secrets. While he would not explicitly reveal to them the protected ideas, he would point to these in language that plainly articulated the dangerous power he alleged was inherent in them.

Fundamentally, Thelema is not a jolly, harmless, belief system. Given the predictions for the New Dark Ages, it is difficult to see how it is in fact a very hopeful religion in any way for the vast majority of humanity, certainly not a for a long time.

When public spokespeople for what is alleged to be "official" Thelema present themselves and the religion with buffoonery, and inane attempts to make something terrible (in its meaning and its power to incite baleful deeds) seem safe for children or anybody else, they dangerously misrepresent Thelemic ideas. And of course, one can complain very much in the same way about Christianity, that its verses can be distorted to lead people to commit heinous acts in the name of "love" and "peace". The problem for Thelema, which is one reason the Thelemic managers do like their comforting clowns, is that heinous acts and policy are the Law in Thelema, not the corruption of a beneficent dogma.

(jk)

Technorati Tags:
Tarot, Occult, Aleister Crowley, Lon Milo DuQuette

Is Thelema The Religion of Divine Atheism?

2009-12-05T04:14:00.001-08:00

And yes, there is an obvious paradox in the question. We'll get to that.

In contemplating the last post, Suspending Disbelief in Thelema, I went back to Liber AL, looking for comments about an idea I had, or thought that I had—now it seems like an idea I recalled—that God is an Atheist.

And sure enough, we read in Liber AL II (Hadit), 23:

"I am alone: there is no God where I am."
Crowley's main point in commenting on this:

"The Atheism of God."
And what this means, he says, is "the God-idea must go with other relics of the Fear born of Ignorance into the limbo of savagery."

In other words, the looking up to the great power someplace other than where you exist is pointless—precisely that in fact, because the verse is an expression of the divine point, the divine star-core inside you and every point of view, which is the essence of Hadit. And Hadit, via his perfect and "impenetrable aloofness", has "no room for any other conception."

And this suggests that what Thelema is really about is a kind of pure atheism—which squeezes out an external divinity to the point it does not exist (thus the great external GOD does not exist), save that the squeezings have anointed every point in the Cosmos.

It is "pure atheism" because the self—Hadit—excludes all other possibilities in its point of view—it cannot believe in any external divinity—but Thelema is still a Religion because in its shared quality of NUITness, being in the BODY of NUIT, expressing a tiny bit of her nature, it is a worshipful component—raising its apparently unique and individual voice, only vaguely aware sometimes that it does this in a great cosmic chorus of worship of the quality of SELF divinity.

This seems paradoxical, but the point is this—

God, or the general power or WAY, moving, is indistinguishable in any way from itself. Nothing is accomplished if God moves within Himself, or Nuit contemplates her vast emptiness of completion. When components are however distinguished, as Hadit, each star-core is enabled to do the Work of its positional and relational domain (the Hermit gangs), and something then is possible to accomplish, something relatively distinguished from the whole, while necessarily the same in respect to each point of view being the mode of divine self-expression of the Cosmos.

Thus, Hadit is the IDEA of SELF divinity, but this is a collective notion, of trillions upon trillions of points of view or star-cores. It is the active, loving, parallel and negation to the great, unified divine force that is NOTHING, because it is not distinguishably anything except utterly unto itself—save that it sacrifices or experiences the annihilation of its own divinity to power up the infinite expressions of Hadit.

I decided to seek some antecedents to this idea, and found a remarkably similar expression regarding the allegedly true Christian dogma of divinity in the writing of Paul Carus, who notes in a book, Whence and Whither, published only a year prior to Liber AL, that true Christian divinity had been changed by Christ to a form of divine atheism:

"That God reigns no longer above us, looks like outspoken atheism, but it is the atheism of Christ who said, 'I and the Father are one.' It is an expression of that moral endeavor which renders man divine, and gives rise to the ideal of the God-man."

Another writer, Ian E. Black, in restating Carus's idea (in 1941), noted it really meant "the dominating conception of an externally real God, is dead." Black also describes the reality that is left as the "divine atheism of Christ."

Carus noted in his book that the "same spirit" was expressed in poem by Friedrich Schiller, Words of Faith, part of which I provide here and which I think could be well taken to express the fundamental view of the Divine in Thelema:

For LIBERTY man is created; he's free,
Though fetters around him be clinking.
Let the cry of the mob never terrify thee,
Nor the scorn of the dullard unthinking!
Beware of the slave when he breaks from his chain.
But fear not the free who their freedom maintain.

And VIRTUE is more than an empty sound,
In life you render it real.
Man often may stumble before it is found,
Still can he obtain this ideal.
And that which the learn'd in their learning ne'er knew,
Can be done by the mind that is childlike and true.

And a GOD, too, there is, a purpose sublime,
Though frail may be human endeavor.
High over the regions of space and of time
One idea supreme rules forever.
While all things shifting are tempest pressed,
Yet the spirit pervading the change is at rest.

Earlier, Carus had quoted from Schiller's Ideals and Life lines which he said express the same "ethics both of modesty and of moral endeavor", in that the "ideal ceases to appear as an implacable condemnation of our shortcomings as soon as it dominates our entire being, or as he translates Schiller to say: "If the Godhead animates thy willing, It no longer sits upon its throne, Servile minds alone will feel its sway".

Crowley, in his commentary to Liber AL II, 23, says precisely this same thing, albeit in more Thelemic language, in talking of escaping the repressive and defunct image of God: "I speak of the Idea of God as generally understood, God being 'something 'not ourselves' that makes for righteousness,' as Matthew Arnold victorianatically phrased his definition. The whiskered wowser! Why this ingrained conviction that self is unrighteous? It is the heritage of the whip, the brand of the born slave."

Later, in a section entitled "Man as an Incarnation of the Logos", Carus writes: "The highest and most important forms that constitute man's spirituality have been begotten by rational speech, which in the Fourth Gospel is called the Logos,—a term which for good reasons has acquired a religious meaning, as denoting the mould in which man's soul has been cast." Finally, "the ideal man is an incarnation of the Logos."

Kenneth Grant: "A man must think of himself as a Logos, as going, not as a fixed idea. 'Do what thou wilt' is thus neccessarily his formula. He only becomes himself when he attains the loss of Egoity, of the sense of separateness. He becomes All, Pan, when he becomes Zero."

Crowley of course identified himself as the Logos of the current Aeon.

(jk)

Suspending Disbelief in Thelema

2009-12-01T13:42:00.001-08:00

Six years ago, I explained my view of religion, and how that informed my approach to Thelema. I would say that explanation still applies for me, with perhaps the addition of a new insight: it is not always possible or worthwhile I would say to know, deeply and well compartmentalized, that something for which you have cinematic faith is being run by a man behind the curtain. After all, if you did pull back that curtain, put your hands on the man, and turned him about to look him in the face, you would be seeing your own reflection.

Increasingly, I realize that this is not a world that can stand or nurture much bleak truth, and truth for short-lived, fragile mortals is so often very bleak. Yet, to evade it, to flee it, hoping that the Holy Distraction Angel will save you from pain one more day, is an unsatisfying option for many of us. And also, we appreciate and seek the sweetness of irony. By this I mean it is very satisfying to contemplate that what goes up, inevitably comes down. It is also the case, though this part of the Wheel is often ignored, but what is down will in some form inevitably rise. Thus, an appreciation of truth should involve an insight about the complexity, inadequacy and self-negation of every Break—which is every incomplete truth, which is of course ALL of them.

Example, thinking of certain aspects of my personal truth:

I am an atheist, who nevertheless reads and acts in accord with religious principles (not all of them congruent either). Certainly, I am also a reader and contemplator of philosophy, and I reject the necessity of religious experience and explanations, but this mode of exploration has its limitations, which are not less useful or valid because they are sometimes frustrating—or bleak.

And lastly, while I very much appreciate the vision and gifts of science, even more than philosophy it operates within a narrow scope of concerns and knowledge. Within the lifetime of our species, and certainly any of us individually, we may come to know many things from science, but we shall never know any deep and penetrating singular Truth of the cosmos. Human science cannot see that far, and it never shall. In fact, ironically, the longer we go, the less we will likely know, as the Cosmos expands increasingly out of our reach and knowledge.

Anyway, having now written an introduction longer than the explanation, here it is (from a 2003 thread called "Thelema, Religion, and Dishonesty"):

Finding value in religions, in the ideas of them for example, while keeping a distance from faith in their claims about absolute things (such as the nature of God) is not so difficult really. But, at some point, as you would do at a movie, you must suspend your disbelief to get the most out of it.

In other words, accept what people say as if it were true. In that way, for example, you can read Crowley's writings, understand he's playing a complex psychological game by constantly dancing around the Thelemic Maypole of fiction, and yet still appreciate it when he says something interesting. And that doesn't require you to imagine yourself a "philosopher" instead of a believer. It just requires you to be an interested and attentive reader.

On the other hand, it's helpful to recall at some point that it's just an entertainment of the lights, not necessarily the truth. And when the facts don't fit, and the true believers throw one when you ask a simple question, just recall you're not employed by their mania (no matter how many little dolls they poke pins into).

(jk)

Aiwaz—Minister Zero

2009-11-02T13:41:00.001-08:00

Who or what is Aiwass, or as Crowley eventually called him, Aiwaz?

Aiwaz, 93, or Minister Zero—Angel, Augoeides, Author of Liber AL, and Armenian Waiter
What, if any, place does he have in the Thelemic pantheon, or the Thelemic hierarchy of powers?

Is his position actual, or implied? For example, is Aiwaz actually head of the Thelemic Church, such as that exists? There is evidence that Crowley understood Aiwaz to be like a Priest-King figure, whose authority in dictating the Law of the Aeon of Horus was unquestionable, and unbearably true, meaning that one who stood against Aiwaz and his authority, which even Crowley attempted to do, would be broken—Will contra will.

And how can these things be true, if Aiwaz was merely a figment of Aleister Crowley's imagination, or less than this, a literary metaphor used to feign an authority for a piece of occult writing? The latter is certainly an occult tradition, and Crowley was well aware of it, but if that is all it is, then how can we explain Crowley's lifelong devotion to promoting his religion as if it truly were the new Law on the cosmic block?

Could it be that Crowley was such a cynical and hateful prankster, that he would toss away his lifetime, and the fortunes and lifetimes of many followers, on a hideously self-maiming practical joke? And could the joke have extended even unto taking in the perpetrator of it, so that he came to believe in his own bullshit? And could it even extend to the point that, through the telling (i.e., living) of this terrible joke, the Great Work was advanced?

The gods too must laugh after all.

Those are the kinds of questions occultists, even ones who are not Thelemites, ponder respecting the possible identity and significance of Aiwaz, Minister of Hoor-paar-Kraat, or as I shall here propose his title: Minister Zero.

Affirmational Thelematics

My considerations of the position and the title of Aiwaz ("Aiwass"-78 is actually the transliteration of the name in Liber L vel Legis) began because of the several arguments I was having relative to the questions about Thelema as a religion, and Aiwaz's position or authority in the Thelemic chain of command.

I had simply noted that Crowley, in explaining to a student (in Magick Without Tears) why debating the ethics of the Law, particularly Chapter III's focus on the virtues of being a ruthless monster, was ultimately a vain exercise, had said the following:

"You disagree with Aiwass—so do all of us. The trouble is that He can say: 'But I'm not arguing. I'm telling you.'"

I noted that therefore Aiwaz-Aiwass is telling everyone "do what you're told", which in my view is perfectly consistent with "do what thou wilt", but that is a topic for another article. The point is that Aiwaz isn't here to debate whether the Law of the New Aeon is OK with you, or whether or not it is a good idea for humanity, especially as humanity presently understands itself, which is mainly in anachronistic terms. Liber AL is the Law of the New, modern Aeon. And it compels you to obey that Law.

A lot of people, who seem quite confused about Liber AL's commandments, got incensed at the notion that Aiwaz or anybody else could order them around, or that in fact Crowley's words about Aiwaz "telling you" even meant what they said. They felt that Aiwaz was at most a glorified messenger boy, and that he had no power or function beyond getting the words into Crowley's head and onto paper.

The real power, and the real point of Liber AL, so some of these people were having it, was that it affirmed their right to do, think, and act as they saw fit, which some sanctified by writing a big W on the front of Will, when it was used to label their own whims. Therefore, and unlike what Crowley said, if they didn't like something Aiwaz had communicated in Liber AL, they could just dismiss it. After all, Crowley may not have heard everything correctly; in fact he admitted to missing a word or two, didn't he; or Aiwass may have been testing the moral fiber of Crowley and all of us, to see how stupidly obedient the slaves might be, even in the face of obeying morally repugnant commands, or suggestions.

You just can't be sure, can you?

Christian Thelematics

So the safe bet, the one not likely to upset Christians, the main Old Aeon power that still forms the overwhelming majority (in the West anyway) of dark-stars in charge, is to decide that anything in Liber AL that offends your current, conventional, sensibility must be wrong, even if it is explicitly written, which a lot of Liber AL is, and even if Crowley affirms the verses are to be read and obeyed explicitly. People act like they are in—oh—a cafeteria. Take the bit you like, and leave the rest.

That cafeteria or fast-food approach to religion has helped to destroy the power of Old Aeon mysteries, by making them more accessible and inoffensive to christo-democratic-consumer morality. You want to be a Christian? Just wear a little cross. Or maybe a fish or something. It isn't enough to be saved. You have to advertise it to everybody else. In fact, Christianity pioneered the Temple-is-open-to-just-anybody approach (and "Come on down!"), which is one reason it was able to destroy the ancient Mysteries.

One thing we ought to realize is just how many people, who really are Christians, are nevertheless claiming to be Thelemites. I actually had one person, hiding under the name "Rahoor Khuit", ask me "Do you really believe the Master Therion hated Christians the way you seem to?"

I had simply pointed out about Christians that they seemed weak-willed regarding following the commandments of their Lord and Savior, because, for example, they didn't seem to practice loving their enemies nearly so much as killing them.

The notion that a Thelemite would find reasonable criticism of the hypocrisy of Christians to be somehow unThelemic or out of accord with what Master Therion, or Aiwaz, would have thought appropriate, is just one of many indications that the chief problem with Thelema today is how horribly Christian it is. And how people with dominantly Christian sensibilities are being welcomed and made comfy in the Thelemic fold—and why the hell is there a "fold" in Thelema anyway?!

The thing is, you can certainly proclaim Thelema to be mainly and merely a christo-democratic-consumer philosophy arguing for the freedom of all, and mainly and merely therefore a set of tools and enablers of the freedom of each and every shopper, which could and even should be modified to suit the nebulous fashions of the marketplace.

And what's wrong with that?

You can choose your own pleasing color of iPod, or which apps to have on your iPhone. Shouldn't religion, or philosophy if you prefer, mainly function to satisfy the consumer? To affirm his prejudices? To tell him his meandering sloth is true will?

Back to the Book and its Author

The above describes what has been the larval context, a foul writhing and sighing with much Christian angst from the Law-haters, on various forums, which sent me on my search for Aiwaz. As you see above, one result of this was that on a particular afternoon a few days ago, Hadit, who happens to live only a short distance from me and visits often, told me to interpret the image of Aiwaz as he truly looked (thus his eyes are not veiled) when he appeared to Crowley in 1904. And so I did.

Crowley said that whatever Aiwaz was, his experience of the entity in 1904 was of a manifested HUMAN presence, not just a disincarnate voice:

"He seemed to be a tall, dark man in his thirties, well-knit, active and strong, with the face of a savage king, and eyes veiled lest their gaze should destroy what they saw." (Equinox of the Gods)

And Crowley concludes:

"I now incline to believe that Aiwass is not only the God or Demon or Devil once held holy in Sumer, and mine own Guardian Angel, but also a man as I am, insofar as He uses a human body to make His magickal link with Mankind, whom He loves, and that He is thus an Ipsissimus, the Head of the A.A." (Equinox of the Gods)

So, we see that Crowley confirms Aiwaz is in fact a deific or demonic force manifested as a human being, and who was even able (and interested in) holding positions of supreme authority in secret organizations such as the A.A.

As for the nature of the commands Aiwaz authored, Crowley was clear that in fact these were orders, and not guidelines or helpful hints open to a lot of sidestepping and comforting interpretations of one's duties in regard to them.

In Confessions, Crowley, referring to Rose's and his "sporadic efforts" to obey the newly-received Law, said they were attempting to follow "the injunction of Aiwass". "Injunction" of course means "authoritative warning or order".

So, not just Crowley, but Rose also, had been ordered by Aiwaz to do certain things. This contradicts the notion that the injunctive quality of the Law, or Aiwaz's authority, only applied to Crowley. Of course neither of them took the orders or the Law all that seriously at first, Crowley even for a while lost the Law altogether so unimportant was it to him, and poor Rose was crushed completely by her failure to adhere to what she may have thought was merely a honeymoon fantasy.

There is no question that the "calling" of the Law, just as with any Aeonic injunction, is more particular and compelling to certain people than to others. And certain stars will shine brightly under the new rules, whereas others will wither and die as they are unfortunately born out of their time, but most it must be said will live as most always do, ignorantly and to no particular but only a mass end (i.e. one shaped by the impersonal particularity of the Aeonic impulse).

Rose's Armenian Waiter?

Of course, there are many ways to interpret events, especially in light of whatever facts we can discern. Some new information, at least to me, came to light during my investigations, and this I will now share with you.

I have for some time been fascinated with the name "Aiwass", again the first version of the name, which Crowley understood as being the true author of Liber L vel Legis (AKA Liber AL).

Where did this name come from? And what if anything does it mean or can it tell us about the origin of the author?

One thing not generally known is that "Aiwass" was in fact a common term, an English transliteration of an apparently Turkish word, though ultimately of Armenian origin, which described a certain kind of servant in the employ of wealthy and noble Turkish families. The "Aiwass" had a number of different duties, one of which, interestingly was as a messenger.

We read for example the following description of Turkish women and their escorts, published 1877 in London Society:

"At that time, cloaked and 'yashmaked' groups, preceded by an 'aiwass' (messenger) carrying a paper lantern, flit about the usually silent streets and lanes of the Mussulman city".

And then we have this more specific explanation of the word in an 1886 book, Eastern Life and Scenery":

"The aïwass is the general useful servant of the whole [Turkish] house; several are employed in large families: they carry the dinners, execute commissions, and do most of the hard work. Aïwass are frequently called upon to accompany parties of the women and children who are not entitled to expect the escort of a lalla. These aïwass are mostly Armenians, free servants receiving wages..."

Thus, we see that that prior to 1904, the word Aiwass (transliterated also ayvaz) was already associated with the idea of being a messenger, or providing a specific service.

Another, even more interesting, meaning for the word is one associated again particularly with Armenians, and this is the idea of a servant who brings the food to the table from the kitchen. In other words, it means "waiter".

We read, in 1854, in Chamber's journal of popular literature of an ayvaz "or servant attending on the guests", and in 1858, a commercial dictionary explains that an ayvaz is "a scullion who attends at meals in Turkey, usually an Armenian." From The Sultan and His People published in 1857, we read that at a Turkish table "different preparations of food are successively placed by the ayvaz or scullion."

Also, a number of mid-20th-century books on Turkish theater point out that stock characters include an Armenian waiter or butler called an ayvaz.

Now, let us recall something from the origin myth of Thelema. Crowley tells us that it was Rose in fact who initially came into contact with the spirit entities that would eventually manifest as the author of Liber AL. It was Rose who said, mysteriously, and irritatingly (to Crowley), "they are waiting for you". A couple of days later, Crowley recorded in his diary that Rose had revealed to him "the waiter was Horus." He notes that the use of that word, "waiter", may have been "another sneer", presumably on his own part in doubting Rose, but it seems he could have and probably did convey this doubt to Rose, and maybe even used that sneer "waiter" to refer to her informant. Of course it is possible that Rose herself used the word "waiter".

A few days later, Crowley is not precise about the date, Rose corrected his understanding regarding the name of her informant. Yes, it was Horus who was the relevant deity, but he had sent an Earthly messenger to actually talk to Rose, and eventually Crowley. And that messenger's name was Aiwass.

Crowley, in Equinox of the Gods, indicates that name was unfamiliar to him, and that he imagined Rose might have made it up because it sounded something like "Aiwa", the Arabic for "yes". But it also sounded exactly like aiwass, the Turkish or Armenian word for a "messenger" or "waiter".

Now, you might object, what would an Armenian waiter be doing in Egypt? As it turns out, Crowley in Confessions describes an encounter he had with an aiwass, an Armenian waiter, during an earlier trip to Egypt:

"I reached Aden on the ninth. It must be a perfectly ghastly place to live in. As I was to land in Egypt, I had to be quarantined for a day at Moses' Wells, regulation being that one must be eleven days out from Bombay, in case of plague. Moses' Wells is the most hateful place I have ever been in, with the possible exception of Gibraltar. I note in my diary that the food was "beastly, and abominable, and absurdly dear". If I remember correctly, it was cooked by a Greek and served by an Armenian."

And as Crowley tells us, in 1904 he and his wife had an entourage of servants in Egypt, and so many were they that he himself did not keep track of them and their names and duties. They had a head servant for that, whose name he can only vaguely recall, and anyway, in a Victorian household, even in Egypt, his wife would have been more likely to have had some knowledge of the servants and their responsibilities.

It may have even been the case that Crowley employed an Armenian waiter, without his being aware of it. And Rose, perhaps miffed that Crowley had made fun of her by calling her informant a "waiter", decided a few days later to call him exactly that. Of course Crowley may have been made aware of the joke, or made up the name himself as part of a joke to convey in the myth.

What we do know is that the word aiwass, or as it was also transliterated, aiwaz or even ayvaz, was not a new or unknown word, even in English, especially in the part of the world in which Crowley encountered Aiwaz.

Additionally, the link of the word to Armenians specifically may have something to do with the fact that Aiwass or Ayvaz is an Armenian name, allegedly of some long standing, though it was claimed the family originally had come from Gallicia, north of the Carpathians.

This is the Armenian script for Ayvaz: Այվազ

Minister Zero

Finally, a few words on Aiwaz's title, Minister Zero.

This comes from contemplation of Crowley's comments on Liber AL I, 45:

"The Perfect and the Perfect are one Perfect and not two; nay, are none!"

Crowley tells us that the characteristically difficult passage, one of several in Liber AL, is used in part by Aiwaz to "identify Himself".

Why identify Himself in difficult passages, if Aiwaz's only function, which has already been announced, is a messenger boy?

In fact, what this verse tells us is the product of the combination of the two kinds of Perfect, Nuit and Hadit, is only apparently two, and effectively one, again Perfect, and in reality however NONE. The equation is Life via Annihilation, or 0=2. What this tells us is that the deepest, trans-Aeonic, message of Liber AL is that the point of the cosmos itself is NOTHING, or Zero. And the very god to whom Aiwaz is said to be Minister, Hoor-paar-Kraat, is the God of Silence, or NO sound, thus nothing. Hoor-paar-Kraat's nothingness is nevertheless a complex as well, the annhilation of a positive, male expression, because he corresponds to Aleph or One, and the negative, female expression, being the Tarotic Fool, or Zero, to which of course Aleph is corresponded. One problem with this notion is that Zero, at least in the Fool, is still a positive expression, and is not in fact negative, but it suggests or points to the Veil of the Triple Negative which precedes and gives rise to the positive expression.

Crowley says, at the moment Aiwaz reveals his message of Silence, and Nothingness, these are activated into the martial expression of the marriage of Nuit and Hadit, which is the god Ra-Hoor-Khuit, the star of Chapter III of Liber AL. While Ra-Hoor_Khuit is certainly not a silent or invisible god, his twin still follows him, like a shadow, and together they are parts of the unified form of their expression, Heru-ra-ha, the "'true Name' of the Unity". This Heru-ra-ha is "the one Perfect and not two", which is to say "two" amounting to "not" or Nothing, and so the equation is balanced, as it always must be, 0=2.

Lastly, Aiwaz is of course the Revealer, and chief Earthly representative of the the tripartite Nothing below, mirroring the tripartite Nothing above (Triple Veils), which is to say:

3 x 31 (LA, "not", also AL, "god") = 93-Aiwaz, or Minister Zero.

(jk)

Between a Rock and a Soft Spot

2009-10-24T05:57:00.001-07:00

I am having a multi-venue discussion now about these questions of Thelema as religion, and how it might relate or not to other religions, especially Christianity. By the way, Keith418, if you have something to offer on these points, pro or con, offer it here as well, so I can reply. The following is something I posted to my Facebook wall. The reference below to Jesus' lesson is in reply to someone who made this claim—that it could be summed up in part as an encouragement to be more than we let ourselves be.:

In Christianity and Thelema, which we should recall are respective heresies of an older tradition, there is an idea that is central, and which is generally ignored by alleged adherents. This is the idea of surrender, and of diminishment and indeed destruction of self to serve the Great Work.

I think if Jesus' lesson was that we can be more than we let ourselves be, it would not be much different than the US Army's "Be All You Can Be". Yet I think their encouragements would have very different aims. So maybe their messages are also not very alike.

Jesus was mainly concerned that the spirit of the Law had been lost, because worship of the Laws had replaced concern for the Will of God, particularly as that might work through any human being. As for forgiveness, that was offered simply enough, but not without qualification. For example, a person, whose behavior clearly demonstrated he had not been salvaged, even after he affirmed faith by the magic words, was not saved. Nevertheless, no human was to judge this shortcoming in any cosmic respect in another, since who can know the ultimate plan, which may incorporate evil people and their ways (as Gandalf pointed out as well).

As for Thelemites, they are caught between the occult rock, upon which Thelema is built and which they generally do not understand, and the soft place of their cultural sensibilities, towards which they will escape and from which they will interpret Thelema, to conform it to their respective, respectable, zones of comfort. A pointless exercise. If there is an Aeonic change coming, it will be unbelievably destructive, not comforting or sustaining.

(jk)

On and Over

2009-10-23T09:57:00.001-07:00

Christ says love your enemy. Christians instead kill them.

Crowley says "Do what thou wilt." Thelemites can't find the "thou" to do that.

The Way speaks once, and then moves on and over.

(jk)

Thelema-Religion or Philosophy?

2009-10-20T03:16:00.001-07:00

No, I don't intend to give you a deep scourging in answering this perennial question. In fact, the question was once again asked a few weeks ago on a Facebook group, and I answered it concisely, and in a manner I thought might be helpful to people wanting to cut to some kind of chase.

So, I will repost it here:

This question gets asked a lot, and the same answers given:

1. Religion.
2. Philosophy.
3. Both.
4. Neither.
5. Something else (additionally or instead)).

So, what gets learned or settled?

What makes something a religion?
What makes something a philosophy?

Greek philosophers were rejecting or avoiding a religious worldview and adopting another brand, which invited skeptical inquiry and disputation.

I think most philosophers would be bothered and find dubious a commandment such as "Do what thou wilt", especially given its alleged origin, a praeternatural entity. They would not only want to know why such a commandment is correct for humans to follow, but they would question its authority per se.

Crowley of course answered that objection. He said if Aiwass said do something, it doesn't matter what you think about it. It's the Law.

And that isn't a philosophical attitude. It's religious.

Thelema is fundamentally a religion. It does incorporate a lot of aspects of Nietzschean philosophy (as Crowley understood that), but the only reason these have any authority in Thelema is because they align with something Aiwass said about the nature of the Law.

Someone asked in reply what I could cite in support of Aiwass saying do what you're told.

And I replied:

"Magick Without Tears", in a letter entitled "Morals of Liber AL" (Crowley is answering regarding moral "difficulties" of Liber AL):

"You disagree with Aiwass—so do all of us. The trouble is that He can say: 'But I'm not arguing. I'm telling you.'"

(jk)

The Pinheaded Inquisition

2009-07-03T05:13:00.001-07:00

I saw today where somebody was arguing against the Thelemic legitimacy of Kenneth Grant. As you may know, Grant's ideas are a little (or a lot) heretical to some Thelemites, and also Grant for many years stood in opposition to the authority of the organization anointed by a couple of Old Aeon magistrates as the OTO.

No matter how you may view Grant or his ideas, I thought this rebuke of him was particularly silly, and I will include as well my reply I posted here.

"Occultism which wallows in and derives itself from fiction can have no possible relevance to any but the mentally ill."

To which I replied:

Occultism is fiction.

Fiction is not only relevant to the mentally ill.

If Kenneth Grant wants to call himself a Thelemite, that is no more or less fictional, or insane, than Aleister Crowley claiming there is such a thing as a Thelemite to be in the first place.

Occultists are already dancing together on the head of a pin. When they start inquisitions about who is the real one, or the insane one, they do not advance any arguments for their righteousness or enlightenment.

(jk)

Thelemic Gardening

2009-04-08T06:23:00.001-07:00

When I see spring springing,
I do not see sweetness and lite,
and certainly nothing peaceful.

There are the conquering hordes,
pushing up through great cracks,
driving ruthlessly to the light,
pillaging every resource in reach.

These green mongols, who are
as much jihadists of the LIGHT,
make the human ants who mimic them
seem like rank diffident amateurs.

And yet against these thick armies
the wind breaks their supple ranks,
the waters drown them in rapid nourishment,
the sun which they seek burns them.

This is nothing if not all-out absolute WAR!

Mars is the symbol of spring, the breaker of
deadly winter; for it takes war and the ethics
of warriors to stir peaceful Nature back to life.

Open your legs harlot goddess, and be raped
by your children! And little flowers and bees
will mask your writhing incests with lying
costumes of peace, love and harmony.

(jk)

Announcing Tarotica.com

2008-12-12T16:37:00.001-08:00

Tarotica.com

Replaces the now dead jktarot.com

(jk)

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

2008-11-14T13:28:00.001-08:00

AL III, 18: "Mercy let be off: damn them who pity! Kill and torture; spare not; be upon them!"

Vlad the Impaler (AKA Dracula), Monster or model for the AL III, 18 ethic? Both?

A commentary on AL III, 18

There are many verses in Liber AL (AKA The Book of the Law), especially in Chapter III of the book, which disturb a lot of people, which even disturbed Aleister Crowley initially. As he writes in Confessions:

The fact of the matter was that I resented The Book of the Law with my whole soul...I was bitterly opposed to the principles of the Book on almost every point of morality. The third chapter seemed to me gratuitously atrocious...the Magical Formula denounced pity as damnable, acclaimed war as admirable and in almost every other way was utterly repugnant to my ideas.

As Crowley notes, maybe the most disturbing verse, for it argues for the elimination of mercy and the damnation of the compassionate (those who pity)—thus the elimination or marginalization of two pillars from the Tree of Life—is AL III, 18. John Symonds described this verse as an expression of "childish rage". There is more than one way to appreciate the brevity and insight of that critique, as of course Horus is in a primary aspect the avenging and warmaking child, certainly full of rage against his enemies.

Despite the fact that Crowley clearly pointed to this verse as an example of "plain speaking", it is so troubling that many Thelemites reject it outright, or attempt to defang it with anemic esoteria. More than anything though, the verse, and indeed much of the Chapter III ethical doctrine, is simply ignored.

If you Google "Mercy let be off", a peculiar locution, the number one match you will get is not for a Thelemic analysis of AL III, 18, but for a song by the "blackened death metal" group Vesania, who liberally mix the lyrics of AL III, 18 with lines such as "anti-creation caress my unconcern", accompanied by a thoroughly deadening (of course) display of black-metal monotony.

And monotony is often what you get when you go looking, beyond Crowley anyway, for any reasonable discussion of the meaning of Liber AL. It seems people are naturally drawn to these analyses by the presumption that Crowley didn't understand the book (thus his endless and unsuccessful attempts to clarify it), and that, amongst all the people in the world, they on the other hand do understand it, and in incredibly dense and dull detail. Their resulting dissections could only interest the most demented occultists who are inspired by picking nits off fleas, or counting demons on pinheads. Of course, who else is really going to be an audience for the analysis of an obscure, often incoherent, and to many minds hateful bit of occult doggerel?

This is not to say that Liber AL should be taken merely superficially, as the expression of a cartoonishly merciless ethic; but I do think it should be read fundamentally, withholding reveries of personal inspiration until that fundamental understanding is obtained. Will that result in a fundamentalist interpretation? I would argue that this is not presently a concern for Thelema, since no fundamental or consensus interpretation of the meaning of Liber AL, and particularly of Chapter III, has yet developed. Even in Crowley's mind, his understanding was always evolving and though he claimed sole authority for the interpretation of the book for himself, clearly his role as prophet was not exclusive, as he depended constantly on others, from a chain of Scarlet Women to Frater Achad to deliver Thelemic dogma and exegesis. So his authority to interpret his own works, which is unquestionable, did not exclude the possibility of others clarifying or even bettering his analysis. He admitted his own vision of the New Aeon was limited by the fact he himself was a product of the dying Old Aeon.

With that said, and duly respecting the dangers of monotonously caressing our unconcern, let us move to a study of this most challenging verse.

Note that there are a number of commandments (five actually) in verse III, 18; the first sentence is a double-edged rejection or rectification of the righteous (as in right pillars—white-right and middle-gray) ethical standard for evaluating and rewarding insufficiencies. This is a commandment regarding both an internal and external adjustment, that is attitude and action:

1. Let mercy be off—strip oneself of mercy, presumably for oneself as well. The opposite of Mercy is Severity or Justice. So, this might say as well “Let justice be on” for that is what is left, a ruthless devotion to Justice, or Adjustment (connecting Tiphareth to Geburah), "assessing the virtue of every act".

What does this mean?

That Crowley views this no longer as a time of mercy, or for compassion—suffering with—but rather this is a time for individuals to suffer, and better enjoy, their own being as a complete universe with its own laws and justice. So, this is yet a deeper implication of “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.” How could any Law apply to an environment in which individuals are doing their will—as they will? Only insofar as individual will and purpose defines the scope and content of the Law for each person, and by this in a universal sense the “whole” of the Law being the collective doctrine governing and encouraging this process. It is necessarily a perfection of Justice, and Severity, because it invites the utter domination of the individual will over and against all other considerations. And thus the goddess of Adjustment (the partner of the Fool) achieves "her secret intimate satisfaction in her domination of every element of dis-equilibrium in the Universe".

In this way, it is completely subversive to any Old Aeon understanding of community standards, which are the dictation of Law from above and from without, instead of from one's center of being. The true Thelemic community, observant of Adjustment as its fundamental matrix of morality, is the collective understanding and appreciation of the lack of oppressive or dictatorial authority from above or without. Only the secret center, the emperor within, of each person is that terribly just authority. As we are told: "Let Thy Mercy be lost in the great Deep!"

Nevertheless, this occurs within the matrix of a greater, guiding, force; and this force impels, but does not compel obedience to its Way. And this is why part of the challenge for a Thelemite is to discover his True Will, for it will not be forced upon him to find it and manifest it. In a deeper understanding, it is well to understand one's will in the larger cosmic scheme, as an agent of the Greater Will, and its Work.

Simplifying for a moment, a question, does all this mean that to feel mercy or pity is unThelemic or in any way forbidden?

In the Vision and the Voice, XIIth Aethyr-TAN, we are told "And the feather of Maat is blue because the truth of justice is mercy."

Crowley further explains this: "...to aim at Mercy, which is an idea without measure, and therefore incommensurable with Truth, is to invoke Justice. The injunction is: Be strictly just, and you will find that you have accomplished the true Work of Love."

This is a Qabalistic principle, that opposites depend upon and invigorate or even copulate with each other. Since Mercy, the absolute remission of sin, can only be granted by God, who would be the only one to know the myriad ways and means of one's sins, to "aim at Mercy" necessarily implies invoking its opposite (Justice) because our aim can never be true or realized. Crowley thus advises that to be true necessitates the invocation of Justice (i.e., the spirit of the Law), and the only way to accomplish a "true Work of Love" is to strictly obey the ways of this spirit of Adjustment.

This starts to sound like what, in spirit, Thelema seeks to replace, purely legalistic and thus corrupted human finagling with natural conditions and contexts. However, because again it encourages a devotion to the spirit and not merely the letter of the Law of Thelema, it simply reduces to the "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"—i.e., doing one's True Will is being strictly just.

2. Damn the merciful—that is condemn them, and consign them to whatever punishment befits them. A distinction is made here. Whereas the first rectification or rejection is of mercy, the second is of compassion, that is the nature and condition of the Middle pillar. This is why this this sentence is in two distinct parts. Also, note that while mercy, the sentiment and the condition of the White Pillar, is rejected in the first part of the commandment, the second rejection is of “them”, the ones who pity, or who have compassion. This is because the Middle or Gray Pillar, that is the Pillar of real, intermixed, and balanced Light, is the Pillar of Compassion. Those who pity do not act in accord with some divine and inhumane Mercy—where for example those who have been treated unjustly have no recourse against their injurers. The pitiers, devotees of the Middle Pillar, aim at Mercy only insofar as it serves the interest of Justice. Thus, they come close to the idea indicated above, where Justice is invoked to obtain "the true Work of Love", and to "aim at Mercy".

The difference however is that the pitiers are guided by a desire to relieve the suffering of others. They act in other words as mediators between the absolute applications of Mercy (which rejects Justice and pardons everyone), and Justice (which rejects Mercy and condemns everyone).

So, why would Thelema tell us to ignore this seemingly balanced approach of the Middle Pillar, which hopes to relieve suffering and at the same time act justly? In part, this is because earlier we have been told, in Liber AL I, 31: "For these fools of men and their woes care not thou at all!"

Crowley explains in the commentary: "This thesis concerning compassion is of the most palmary importance in the ethics of Thelema. It is necessary that we stop, once for all, this ignorant meddling with other people's business."

So, the way Crowley understood Thelema, was that Justice was mainly to be achieved by leaving "other people severely alone"—chief word then is "severely", as in the Pillar of Justice, or Severity.

The Justice we would pursue would mainly be in accord with observing the demands of the Law of the New Aeon, which is aimed at the liberation and perfection of individual Will. Again, there is no room in that view for being disturbed in one's orbit about the Will or destiny by the defects, as we may seem them, in somebody else's "business" or destiny.

Only when someone else's orbit or destiny conflicts directly with our own are we called upon to act in some manner to defend a virtue or establish Thelemic Justice. Then Crowley says killing is a correct remedy, to defend our rights.

3. Kill and torture—so, the commandment is not to kill period, but to also torture. Why? This makes sense if part of the idea or goal is to redeem whatever portion of ourselves or others is worth keeping and saving. So, kill those and those parts which are beyond hope of redemption, and save the rest through the process of alchemical torture, which in fact depends on the killing process. This of course can be seen as purely mystical and internal, but it is also a social exercise, although to what extent “killing” and “torture” are meant literally is not made clear. Crowley often states his approval of the most heartless (and ignorant) applications of Darwinian principles of a brutal struggle for survival. For example, he advocated not employing vaccines as they, in his view, tended to weaken the species by “artificially” protecting it. The human race which employed these principles actively and without restraint would likely be a much smaller one. Many people would count that as an improvement and a clearly beneficial feature of this dogma.

As noted above, Crowley plainly said killing was a correct response to someone attempting to infringe one's Thelemic rights. Before you dismiss that idea as barbaric or demonic, I would simply point out that most societies, and particularly Western ones, are prepared to go to war to defend what they identify as their rights, or their essential virtues (freedoms and faiths, etc.).

The question is whether in Thelema each individual is empowered to go to war to defend his rights and virtues. Crowley seems to say yes, but to the extent this implies anarchy, he was resistant to publicly affirm as a virtue the absence of a repressive authority, especially over the masses whom he clearly distrusted. In fact, Thelema is not in any way intended to empower all individuals, but only those ready to act in accord with their Thelemic True Wills.

4. spare not—so, explicitly, all those who need to be killed and tortured, should be, with none spared. Following the discussion above about killing and torturing, this is consistent with complete eradication of the irredeemable parts of our natures and our world. The question is then how do we determine what is redeemable? It should be apparent, if Justice and Adjustment should be justly applied to everyone, that consistent with the Bible's recognition of the problem with Mosaic Law—that none could escape condemnation under its broad and detailed scope of assessing sin—nobody is going to escape deserving to be killed under Thelemic Justice either. And worse, Thelema has no Mercy to intervene and unjustly save us, and no Compassion to balance the judgment against us.

But then, in the same way that we are empowered to kill those who infringe our rights, this idea applies as well to ourselves; i.e., we are bound to kill and torture those parts of ourselves, without Mercy or Compassion, without sparing anything or anyone, which are false and injurious to the liberation and perfection of our True Selves.

This does not mean nothing will survive, but it does mean that only the deserving, i.e. the true, should survive.

Again, the danger here of interpreting these ideas literally is not only that we may take it upon ourselves to judge others in an unauthorized fashion—we are supposed to severely stay out of the business of others—but as noted above it may only be in the rarest situations, to protect life itself from unjust terminations, that literal interventions of a terminating quality should be pursued. Otherwise, "killing and torturing" are intended as metaphorical descriptions of initiatory processes of discovering and perfecting the the True Self and the True Will.

One of the main objections to this view, is that Crowley, sometimes in the most hatefully stupid terms too, claimed these commandments had an explicit and particular point—to eradicate "tainted stock"—meaning in some cases, such as Jews and Protestant Christians, whole races or groups which a Thelemite has determined are "infecting" humanity.

Crowley in the New Commentary to AL III, 18 says: "Should we not rather breed humanity for quality by killing off any tainted stock, as we do with other cattle? And exterminating the vermin which infect it, especially Jews and Protestant Christians?"

Crowley later amended the above to include Catholics in the vermin list, and to say that maybe Jews outside of America might be spared (thus calling into question, his commitment to "spare not").

The obvious and stark similarity between Crowley's imbecilic commentary here, and the anti-Semitic propaganda of Nazis, which also called Jews infectious "vermin", and also called for and attempted their extermination (killing six million of them in the Holocaust), is one of the main reasons Thelema is and will likely be for some time to come a marginalized belief system.

It is not even the case that Crowley was much bothered by these similarities, and indeed they helped convince him that Adolph Hitler had probably read and absorbed Liber AL, to the point of widespread copying of its ideas into Nazi ideology.

The question we face in light of this is whether there is any point to a further discussion? Hasn't Crowley explicitly stated that Liber AL III, 18 authorizes and encourages crimes against humanity such as genocide?

It seems so.

However, it seems also fair to point out that after WWII, Crowley called concentration camps "crimes" and "horrors" which were "inconceivable by the most diseased and inflamed Sadistic imagination forty years ago". Of course he does this in the context of pointing out how that imagination was no longer abnormal, but was instead an expression of the "primitive savagery" which is consistent with the advent of the New Aeon of Horus the Avenger. In other words, he sees the crime and the horror as evidence of the obsolescence of those ideas respecting a "virtuous" (if failed) attempt by the Nazis to better humanity.

One could waste a lot of time and words attempting to defend Crowley's opinions about this. I do not think Crowley's comments need any defense as his points are clearly made and are clearly beyond hope of any redemption and deserve only condemnation as blatantly stupid and racist. Some Thelemites may view such a condemnation as a sign of a weary Old Aeon sentiment. I rather view it as a vigorous and righteous sentiment in any age humanity still exists in a recognizable form, and a necessary observation if one would hope to approach and understand Crowley and Thelema in any honest fashion whatsoever.

5. "be upon them!"—In numerous prohibitions detailed in the Jewish Torah, the violations of which were punishable by death, the Bible uses the phrase (in English): "their blood shall be upon them" to denote the capital nature of the crimes, and that the victims of Justice are deserving of death.

Crowley twice uses the phrase "be upon them" in Liber AL:

AL III, 11: "Trample down the Heathen; be upon them, o warrior, I will give you of their flesh to eat!"

AL III, 18: "Mercy let be off: damn them who pity! Kill and torture; spare not; be upon them!"

In the first instance, the phrase is a military order, one might say a tactic, to swiftly confront and carve to the bone the Heathen—the enemies of Thelema, chiefly Christians, but Crowley includes also "the parasites of man, the Jews". In one version of Liber AL's commentaries, Bill Heidrick called this anti-Semitic remark a "crack about Jews", and attempted to defend Crowley's bigotry as "one of [his] best features", which Heidrick claimed operated as a veil to prevent "any intelligent person" from accepting his opinions without "repeated trial". The question might then be why an intelligent person would bother with any repetitions, and also does this not suggest that unintelligent people might more easily be attracted to Crowley's ideas by his easily accessible racism?

In the second usage, in the verse which concerns us here, the phrase is elevated from a tactic to a tenet, that the purely and severely just person exists upon the corpses of those he has unsparingly tortured and killed. Of course this is true in the personal, alchemical sense that one exists upon the ashes of his slain and burned false selves; but to the extent the tenet is an ideology of an external way of life, it repeats the Warrior's Code in the words of a Priestly commandment, to bring to pure Justice all sinners, all violators of the Law of Thelema.

One could, if Crowley had not done such a thorough job of undercutting this avenue of argument, suggest that AC intended here only the idea that one should bring the miscreants to the Black Pillar where they could undergo the alchemical operation of killing and torturing their false selves. But, again, Crowley explicitly rejected this view, at least as any primary or exclusive exegesis, and unequivocally supported the literal killing and torturing of Thelemic sinners.

If, after this point is understood and appreciated, and as Heidrick suggests, intelligent people might find some reason to seek a second or third trial of Crowley's ideas, we may reasonably ask what would be the nature of the Grail they seek in such lurid, violent and hateful rhetoric?

Of course, lurid, violent and hateful rhetoric is not a rare thing in religious writing. Generally however it is balanced a bit more than it is in Liber AL by ideas of another order. Necessarily, because of the unbalanced nature of the Thelemic Adjustment, much of what we have become accustomed to appreciating in religious writing in centuries past—the wisdom, the beauty, the kindness and gentleness of spirit (which we find even in war-affirming writings like the Bhagavad Gita)—is missing in Liber AL.

As Crowley said, Aiwass does not ask, he does not suggest, he does not explain or debate—he commands, and our obedience is either given or we are destroyed as enemies of the Thelemic Way.

The ethics of Thelema are thus as hard-chiseled and unrelentingly demanding as anything in the Torah. Death is the penalty for sin in Thelema as well, and though the Bible has plenty of instances where human beings are chosen to be agents of God's will, in Thelema individuals are the primary agents for dispensing judgment and Justice, and in accord with a general ethic that is expressed individually and in enormous diversity.

The potential for considerable and enduring chaos in such an arrangement is apparent, and is a good reason to strongly urge anyone interested in pursuing a Thelemic path that he assume, until it is demonstrated beyond all reasonable (and maybe unreasonable) doubt this is not the case, that he is a manifestation of a false self. Thus, he is not in any position to start active practice of the commandments of Liber AL III, 18—except perhaps in the metaphorical, alchemical sense to work towards the discovery and perfection of his own True Self.

To the extent that Thelema still incorporates what we might call timeless elements of occult wisdom, I would say anyone who is actively practicing these tenets, and who finds himself agreeing with Crowley that whole peoples should be eradicated as "vermin", should severely consider that he is on the threshold of strangling himself on one of the most virulent veils ever planted by a heartless magus.

In closing, I would hope that if nothing else is made clear by this examination, we should appreciate how very complicated and dangerous these ideas can be. The opportunity for abuse in most religions is always there of course, because people tend to project their needs and sometimes their worst inclinations on the scriptures of their faith.

In Thelema however, because some of the most important and fundamental verses seem to explicitly encourage these inclinations without need of any projection, a responsible person has to urge great patience and caution in coming to determine what light these verses were intended to convey.

It is always possible of course that they were intended to say exactly what they seem to. And that seems to be what Crowley thought as well. In that case, at least until some very different and horrific sort of ethics is established in the world, only monsters will be Thelemites.

(jk)

Different Brands of Good News (or Nooses)

2008-11-08T05:45:00.001-08:00

The Good News Of Christianity: You will be saved from death, but to do so you must die as an individual and be reborn as a uniform part of the collective Body of Christ.

The Good News Of Thelema: You will be saved (that is chosen) for life, but to do so you must die as a representation of a false collective and be reborn as an individual star whose mission is to contribute to the collective light of the cosmos.

What’s the difference?

Christians live in fear of death, and wanting desperately, more than anything else, to escape it. They will give up everything, including ironically their lives, to achieve this. Their morality is decidedly Old Aeon, since it is communitarian, self-sacrificing, and quite literally inhuman—it demands the rejection of basic human drives (for love and power) and the surrender of the will to a greater one whose only purpose is the assimilation of zombie souls unto its Body.

Thelemites live in fear of failure—that they will fail to live according to their true will, that they will fail to live as fully and completely as their composition of star-stuff enables them. That failure is a living death, and far worse than the natural kind, which should come as a kind and loving reward for a job well done. Of course that is the ideal. Thelemites do not wish for death, nor worship death, but neither are they afraid of it, because they understand it to be merely the corporeal manifestation of the basic process of change in the Universe. Through this same Death comes also the ability to change towards a desired object, or to turn oneself to Love, or to raise oneself up from the ashes of a defeat to seek again the victory of one’s life.

So, there are these two fears, the Christian fear tends to diminish the will for life, in hopes of some eternal living which is actually an eternal death. Thelemic fear often tends to open one’s living up in a kind of experimental fashion, mainly because the determination of one’s true will (and how to do it) is not so obvious to most people. Thus, they are led to try a lot of ideas and methods; even Thelema itself might be seen as one of these, which interestingly believers may abandon in the course of living Thelemically.

Once a Thelemite has determined his true will, and forged himself or burnt himself into the appropriate Wand for the mission he has determined (which he has perceived is appropriate for his space and time and body-weapon), his experimenting towards a true will diminishes, but another kind may develop as he determines then the best way to achieve the mission or destiny of his life.

Note that much of the living then of a Thelemite is a search for a purpose and a way of realizing himself. In a sense, he loses himself in this search to find himself. And once found, this true self becomes a director and guide to map out the way to a successful life. At death, there is a release back to the Cosmos—thus the Christian form of salvation is going to be achieved anyway, so no need to abandon one’s life during the living of it in hopes of getting a reward already naturally due to you.

Of course a Christian may object this is not how it is, and that he expects to walk in a glorious city of gold, and play harps all day long in brilliant and ecstatic choruses blathering about the greatness of God. I would just say a Thelemite would rather shoot himself, or be damned to an eternity in Hell (amongst the sinful individuals), than to achieve such a horribly tortuous punishment as the Christian heaven.

A question then, what is the Thelemic ethic? If it extols the individual, and the individual path of seeking Light and purpose, then what communitarian standards does it care about? Any? Is basic human decency, which seems as natural as basic human greed and hostility, allowed in Thelema? Or encouraged? Can you feel a good and loving thought about another person in Thelema without being thought a weak and deluded creature, or worse some version of a Christian?

Well, who are individual Thelemites after all to claim to know the vectors of destiny for all other stars? Maybe a Thelemite is properly placed even living or dying as a Christian. All the rules for life have to be examined and evaluated and appreciated in their contexts. This is the way of magic.

So, you do not have to toss out “thou shalt not kill”, because generally that rule is a pretty good one to follow, no matter whether you are religious or not. Of course, to a Thelemite “kill” has many meanings including “transmute”, which can simply mean to change an enemy’s course a bit so he is no threat. The skill of a magician is always measured according to the elegance of his spells, which is to say according to the amount of achievement he obtains for the least effort and expenditure of cosmic treasure.

The actual taking of a life, while common to many self-professed Christians, is a barbarism that denotes a low order of culture and intelligence. One should be able to adaptively glide through the environment, harming as little as possible. Of course “as possible” can include cataclysmic interventions, when required to move mountains and herds of people. Even there though, it may just be an idea which does the moving. The Sword does not need to draw blood, but merely effectively symbolize the power to do so.

More soon on the violent ethics of Thelema.

(jk)

Introduction to Laughing and Weeping

2008-09-15T11:35:00.001-07:00

Greetings, and welcome to Onion-Peelings. The premise of this blog is that all questions of an occult nature and particularly ones of a religious nature, and certainly ones involving Thelema, Aleister Crowley's religion, are aptly described and discussed according to Crowley's "Onion-Peelings", Chapter 14 from his Book of Lies.

This is not to say there are not definite or likely answers to occult or Thelemic questions. But it is to say that often the easiest and even truest answers are the least satisfying, while the most compelling and satisfying (particularly the most flattering and gratifying) are often the least truthful. Now, you should really think about that, because in a way I am saying maybe truth isn't all that is valuable. In another way, I am saying that after much struggling, you may come to realize that a lot of what is worthwhile in the occult doesn't require any struggle at all. It merely requires a willingness to tell yourself to shut up and listen. And a willingness to take that advice.

Good luck.

(jk)