Thelemic Jihad
-
@nashimiron said
"I wonder if Mr/Ms tarotica posted this link on any Muslim discussion forums?"
I do not see why Muslims would have much interest in it, but anyone who thinks otherwise can certainly post a link to those forums and find out.
-
93,
Tarotica wrote:
"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.
"I don't see a reasoned statement here, just an ignorant, Palin-esque, diatribe. Was that really how the Prophet of Islam won over so many converts - join us or die? Have you ever read a history of early Islam? It was all very different to what you suggest. "Generally Muslim faithful prefer to blow motherfuckers...?" Really? Yes, we know there are millions who do, or who might. That's a tiny percentage of the whole. The rest don't like us much (why should they?) but they just want a better world, and to make their own determination about how that world should be for them. The problem we are running into is a Thelemic explosion happening within the Islamic world, that is parallel to own but coming through a very different paradigm, and we don't want to understand what it's about. Or you don't, anyway, if what you write is typical of your understanding.
Some of the rest of the piece is internally coherent, if you're into loathing and disgust as a general attitude. Though I personally do NOT want ANY state religion, Thelemic or otherwise, thank you.
I suggest an exercise that Crowley might have prescribed, but which I doubt you have the courage to attempt. That is, read the Koran in its entirety, but with a prayerful attitude. Yes, prayerful, because its inner message cannot be accessed by rational analysis, and certainly not by prejudiced attitudes of the type you presented in your post. It requires the quietness of prayer to access the text.
That reading took me five weeks, because I got very fed up with it in parts. But in the end, I no longer doubted that the faith of Islam is one of spiritual (not necessarily temporal) peace. It expanded my understanding of where the rage and the violence come from, and also gave me that valuable Thelemic advantage: having some actual knowledge of what the topic was about, as opposed to cynical, folk folly-based "We all know that X is bad..." nonsense.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Tarotica said
"You mean pointing out what Crowley actually said? Well, that might be true, but your problem then would be with Crowley, not myself."
Nice try. There's a difference between a quote and what one think the quote means. Especially with anyone like Crowley, or Aiwass.
@Tarotica said
"Like what for example? And how have I assumed something incorrectly?"
Like, for example, that the jihad of the Book of the Law is literal. Why not also assume that verses away from commands to "torture" and "kill" that the mention of "blood of a child" is really encouraging child sacrifice?
Or take your first sentence:
"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."I have no expectation of being called to go to a holy war. I'm a Thelemite (maybe not one of your "real" Thelemites). I'd be surprised if you found many on this forum that really expect something like this. Maybe a misguided OTO minerval reading the BOTL for the first time thinks that, I suppose.
@Tarotica said
"So? The diversity of views does not means all views are correct, which I think is the point you are suggesting, correct?"
Not my point. (If it were, it would be pretty silly to tell you that you were wrong, wouldn't it?)
@Tarotica said
"So, then how do we determine what is correct or likely about Liber AL? Wouldn't application to what it says and what Crowley also says be a good start?
And that is what I have done. So, again, what error have I made in what I wrote in that article?"
I think Edward's post does a better job of answering these questions than I could.
-
"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."
In your very first paragraph, you define the "enemy" as "anyone who is not a Thelemite" and "anyone . . . defending the faith, powers, and practices of the Old Aeon."
Any war that ever takes place using Liber Oz as a unifying battle cry, will necessarily be a war against mass oppression and its oppressors. Now, while the phrases "anyone who is not a Thelemite," "defending the faiths, powers, and practices of the Old Aeon," and "oppression" may be synonymous in your own mind, there's an important clarification there that you never really make for your readers.
From my reading of it, you focus too much on labeling what people believe, defend, and practice on their own - outside your own Will - as worthy of destruction. You never clarify what about those faiths, powers, and practices will be against the right of men to follow their Wills, thus uniting and inspiring the mass vengeance of true men. You say only that these faiths, powers, and practices are "Old Aeon."
As I read it, in your essay there's a pervasive tone of disgust toward others who are quite happily following their own Will (e.g. Duquette), and the only reason for it seems to be because it doesn't match your own militant longings. But what do another person's beliefs or practices have to do with your own Will? With mine? What do I care what another man calls God - with how another man restricts himself and for what purposes? If you want to inspire me instead of merely insulting me, give me something to fight for. But mere labels aren't going to do that. I had enough of that in my fundamentalist days, and you currently sound no different from them - all piss, vinegar, and a label gun. That's backward on my path anyway.
You can't inspire men who are committed to liberty to become oppressors. So, until your vision extends far enough into the future to tell us the exact nature of some future great oppression that will unite us and lead us to war, you tend to just sound like another Thelemic stereotype - the one you didn't list.
-
Although personally i have nothing against militancy, this seems more like fantasy, denial and/or escapism. An Imaginary platform whereby you channel frustration and anger against the present status quo( which I don't blame you for having). however there are fundamental flaws with this approach firstly the enemy is not readily identifiable; we must distinguish between the reality of things from the names of things. How does one determine who is actually a Thelemite as opposed to in name only? People label themselves different things for different reasons. What is the litmus test? would it be to memorize and regurgitate "do what thou wilt..."? How does one defend the practices of the old Aeon? If it is simply by participating then we are all guilty. Identity is a mental construct, arguably one may consider himself a Christian but yet in action conform to "Do what thou wilt.."and vice versa, one maybe label himself a Thelemite but in essence be no more than a misguided social misfit who is searching for a sense of belonging. Furthermore like you rightly point out, our consumer culture does not produce that many militants, so there is little hope of ever gathering this army barring a major cataclysm, so maybe you could conceive of how to create one!
. However if one could demystify Thelema, so as to be presented not as a matter of Religion and Faith but as an Individual and social science through which one can build a model for society based on the practical applications of the essence of Thelema, and demonstrating how it would be superior to the present redundant order of things one would most likely get more converts or at least sympathizers IMHO. 
-
@Tarotica said
"
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"It just makes lots of assumptions."Like what for example? And how have I assumed something incorrectly?"
For example: "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." You are wrong. All Thelemites do not know this. Or, at least, if I'm a Thelemite (that's for others to judge, not me), I actively refute this.
"So, then how do we determine what is correct or likely about Liber AL? Wouldn't application to what it says and what Crowley also says be a good start?"
A good start, yes. Not necessarily a good end, but certainly a good start.
"And that is what I have done."
It doesn't read that way. It looks like you took that as the only valid data. Personally (and, to be clear, I am only speaking personally on this), I think it's not only probably wrong, but actively destructive. This sort of position is an example of what makes Thelemites look threatening to the rest of the world, which likely reduces or retards the chance of real acceptance and incorporation of Thelemic principles into society - because there is nothing that reduces or retards the chance of acceptance per se more than fear. IMHO, in these times when government has accelerated the use of fear as a manipulation tactic, one of our foremost goals should be to reduce fear itself in mass mind. This essay, if broadly read and believed, would have exactly the opposite effect and pretty much require our eradication.
-
@Edward Mason said
"I suggest an exercise that Crowley might have prescribed, but which I doubt you have the courage to attempt. That is, read the Koran in its entirety, but with a prayerful attitude. Yes, prayerful, because its inner message cannot be accessed by rational analysis, and certainly not by prejudiced attitudes of the type you presented in your post. It requires the quietness of prayer to access the text."
An exceptional recommendation!
-
@Edward Mason said
"I don't see a reasoned statement here, just an ignorant, Palin-esque, diatribe. Was that really how the Prophet of Islam won over so many converts - join us or die?
This is not a story of gentle persuasion, but of war and conquest, "join us or die." We should not be surprised, since that was generally the means of spreading hegemony in that time and in this one as well.
Have you ever read a history of early Islam? It was all very different to what you suggest."
Or, it was pretty much what I suggest. So, how shall we know?
In a book the New York Times described as "a brisk account of Islam's momentous first century", The Great Arab CONQUESTS-How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live in, the chapter list is instructive:
The CONQUEST of Syria and Palestine
The CONQUEST of Iraq
The CONQUEST of Egypt
The CONQUEST of Iran
The War at Sea
Voices of the CONQUEREDAnd I'm pretty sure those conquests were not at academic debates.
But, the author is specific:
"The Arabic sources use the term conquest (fath) to describe the taking over of the lands of the Byzantine and Persian empires. The fth root in Arabic implies 'opening', but in the conquest literature it clearly implies THE USE OF FORCE. At one extreme it meant the BRUTAL AND VIOLENT sack of a city, the PILLAGING of its wealth and the EXECUTION of MANY or ALL of its defenders."
While acknowledging that the conquests were often more peaceful affairs, the author makes clear the conquered peoples "would agree to the imposition of terms...because of the use, or threat of the use, of FORCE."
Obviously, after establishing a reputation for "brutal and violent" conquests, the Muslim forces sometimes had to do little more than show up and demand surrender.
But, the sword spread Islam, not intellectual arguments.
@Edward Mason said
"Really? Yes, we know there are millions who do, or who might. That's a tiny percentage of the whole."
Depending on the polls and the wholes, majorities of Muslims have enthusiastically supported the slaughtering of infidels, and especially American ones occupying lands of the Islamic faithful, by the means mentioned.
Not tiny percentages. Healthy ones.
@Edward Mason said
"The problem we are running into is a Thelemic explosion happening within the Islamic world, that is parallel to own but coming through a very different paradigm"
And what precisely do you mean by that?
Are you saying Muslims are converting to Thelema in "explosive" numbers?
Or what exactly?
@Edward Mason said
"Some of the rest of the piece is internally coherent, if you're into loathing and disgust as a general attitude. Though I personally do NOT want ANY state religion, Thelemic or otherwise, thank you."
Then you do not want the Thelema of Aleister Crowley.
@Edward Mason said
"I suggest an exercise that Crowley might have prescribed, but which I doubt you have the courage to attempt. That is, read the Koran in its entirety, but with a prayerful attitude."
Well, good luck with that. I have another suggestion, which I know for a fact Crowley would have prescribed. And that is read Liber AL with an open mind and heart. And that I have had the courage to do.
For what it matters, I have done the same with the Koran as well.
@Edward Mason said
"Yes, prayerful, because its inner message cannot be accessed by rational analysis."
And so no reasoned statements required from it. Very generous of you.
@Edward Mason said
"That reading took me five weeks"
And at that point you were a master of Islam?
Or maybe just somebody who poked his nose into the Koran once upon a time.
@Edward Mason said
"But in the end, I no longer doubted that the faith of Islam is one of spiritual (not necessarily temporal) peace."
So, what difference does it make if the Koran preaches peace of the spirit, while cutting off people's temporal heads?
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"Like, for example, that the jihad of the Book of the Law is literal. Why not also assume that verses away from commands to "torture" and "kill" that the mention of "blood of a child" is really encouraging child sacrifice?"
Liber AL doesn't encourage it. It commands child sacrifice, and Crowley plainly said this was the case.
Refer to the discussion about this here.
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"I have no expectation of being called to go to a holy war."
No, you wouldn't.
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"I'm a Thelemite"
What makes you that? Your affirmation?
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"I'd be surprised if you found many on this forum that really expect something like this."
I would agree with that.
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"Maybe a misguided OTO minerval reading the BOTL for the first time thinks that, I suppose."
My experience is that such people do not know what to think—and are not much helped by enquiring in forums where they are told not to worry their little heads about all those violent "metaphors".
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"I think Edward's post does a better job of answering these questions than I could."
OK. Well, I answered his posting also, as you may see.
-
@Agent Smith said
"Although personally i have nothing against militancy, this seems more like fantasy, denial and/or escapism. An Imaginary platform whereby you channel frustration and anger against the present status quo( which I don't blame you for having)."
Maybe you are projecting, more than reflecting about what I wrote, and more pertinently about what Crowley wrote.
I am not angry and frustrated about some status quo. I am trying to understand and to explain what Crowley (and Aiwass) actually said. I am thus interested in the way the status is actually very much in flux.
@Agent Smith said
"however there are fundamental flaws with this approach firstly the enemy is not readily identifiable;"
Liber AL says otherwise. It specifies the enemies. It specifies the remedies.
It doesn't matter whether you like that or not.
@Agent Smith said
"How does one determine who is actually a Thelemite"
Well, if that isn't already obvious, it should be the ONLY thing under discussion on a forum such as this.
It's pretty basic, especially for people alleging to be Thelemites.
@Agent Smith said
"Identity is a mental construct, arguably one may consider himself a Christian but yet in action conform to "Do what thou wilt.."
Then he would be confused. And in need of assistance to correct his understanding. In any case, if he stands by the cross, he would be in danger when it is destroyed.
@Agent Smith said
"Furthermore like you rightly point out, our consumer culture does not produce that many militants, so there is little hope of ever gathering this army barring a major cataclysm, so maybe you could conceive of how to create one!"
Whether or not it is created or supplied, if that is the method of the current, so be it.
I did not in my article dictate or prophesy anything specific on that count.
Nor did I declare any particular government or state an enemy—because I do not know which ones may actually be allies of Thelema, when the time comes, or which may be sufficiently infiltrated to be instruments of Thelema, no matter what their public postures may be.
Also, and I think this is one of the more interesting aspects, which I intend to write more about shortly, but of course there is always the possibility that Crowley was writing ironically in all respects, but I find that a questionable argument.
-
@Tarotica said
"
@Edward Mason said
"Some of the rest of the piece is internally coherent, if you're into loathing and disgust as a general attitude. Though I personally do NOT want ANY state religion, Thelemic or otherwise, thank you."Then you do not want the Thelema of Aleister Crowley."
Non sequitur.
"
@Edward Mason said
"Yes, prayerful, because its inner message cannot be accessed by rational analysis."And so no reasoned statements required from it. Very generous of you."
One mustn't confuse faith with reason. Or, to state this another way, if one reads words meant to speak primarily to Neshamah, one should not be surprised at being confused or misled in Ruach.
Just as Christian scriptures usually (always?) are not actual history, genuine Holy Books in general (such as The Koran and Liber Legis) should not be read reasonably. They mostly aren't speaking to or of reason, except when attempting to dismantle it.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Personally (and, to be clear, I am only speaking personally on this), I think it's not only probably wrong, but actively destructive. This sort of position is an example of what makes Thelemites look threatening to the rest of the world."
Well, Jim, shouldn't Thelemites be seen as threatening to the rest of the world?
Of course, strategically, if you mean it is easier to infiltrate and subvert the governments of the world, if Thelemites falsely appear kindly and beneficent (or merely metaphorical), there is that point and consideration.
But, I think Crowley spoke to this, pointing out that expressing the truth to the world is not going to clue it into anything that shall obstruct the current. And that is true, because the world will not believe there is a current to fear, until it is too late.
-
Some personal thoughts on this issue, from an unpublished writing of mine:
Truly our entire world is weary from the war and suffering that has been wrought in the decades since, in the birth-throes of the New Æon. It is our belief that the apocalyptic tones of Chapter 3 of The Book of the Law refer primarily to a transformation of consciousness, such as began to touch the world in the 1960s, not an Armageddon between nations. Such radical reformation of consciousness is depicted in the Tarot Trump called The Tower. Nonetheless, we are all too aware that, if the impulse growing in humanity is denied for renewed freedom, dignity, and self-fulfillment on all planes, and if the necessary and predicted transformation of consciousness does not occur on a world-wide scale, it will indeed erupt in bloodshed and destruction that could annihilate the physical planet on which we live. Any strong desire that is suppressed becomes pathological, whether at the level of the individual or of a culture, and erupts in physical trauma in our lives if it is denied resolution within the soul.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Tarotica said
"
@Edward Mason said
"Some of the rest of the piece is internally coherent, if you're into loathing and disgust as a general attitude. Though I personally do NOT want ANY state religion, Thelemic or otherwise, thank you."Then you do not want the Thelema of Aleister Crowley."
Non sequitur."
How so?
@Jim Eshelman said
"One mustn't confuse faith with reason."
Then why care about the method of science?
@Jim Eshelman said
"Just as Christian scriptures usually (always?) are not actual history, genuine Holy Books in general (such as The Koran and Liber Legis) should not be read reasonably."
And again, then why be concerned with demonstrations of "proofs" concerning their verses?
You may have faith that Liber AL commands you to eat enough cheddar cheese to turn yourself into a giant rat, and that this is your true cosmic will.
And after devouring mounds of the cheese, perhaps you would imagine you were a rat, and your faith would say it is so.
But there would be no demonstration this is the case, nor any evidence indicating how the verses of Liber AL should reasonably be read to guide a person to the determination to which faith brought you.
And a reasonable interpretation, even a literal interpretation, of the verses is both acceptable and recommended by Crowley as valid.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"It is our belief that the apocalyptic tones of Chapter 3 of The Book of the Law refer primarily to a transformation of consciousness"
When you say "our", who are you talking about? The plural you? Or some group?
Anyway, your position is simply not the one Crowley professed.
So, why should we reject his view and accept yours instead?
-
@Tarotica said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Personally (and, to be clear, I am only speaking personally on this), I think it's not only probably wrong, but actively destructive. This sort of position is an example of what makes Thelemites look threatening to the rest of the world."Well, Jim, shouldn't Thelemites be seen as threatening to the rest of the world?"
No. That's so last aeon.
A world founded on the mandate Do what thou wilt is not based on threat. It's based on infinite space and the infinite stars therein. "Threat" (of one person or people to another) is a condition at odds with the core principles of Thelema actually prevailing. (PS - I don't dispute that it might be part of the road there. I do dispute that it's the goal or the ideal, or that it's the right tool to use at the moment, when freedom can best be brought about by a widescale reduction of fear.)
"Of course, strategically, if you mean it is easier to infiltrate and subvert the governments of the world, if Thelemites falsely appear kindly and beneficent (or merely metaphorical), there is that point and consideration."
No, not my meaning at all. I mean that a real Thelemite is instinctively repulsed at the idea of infringing on the Will of another. I mean that real Thelemites are, by nature, kindly and beneficent - a deep generosity and liberality that comes as a consequence of the overflowing bounty of living one's life in conformity with True Will.
There isn't any need for us to infiltrate. Thelema itself is infiltrating increasing areas of human experience and direction, even (especially)? among those who have never heard about it.
-
@Tarotica said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"One mustn't confuse faith with reason."Then why care about the method of science?"
That's a method. (And, as I've often remarked, he probably should have said "empiricism" instead of "science," though it wouldn't have made so great a slogan.) Don't confuse the method (or means) with the aim (or end). Usually they are incommensurable - apples and oranges.
Faith and reason are the separate languages of different aspects of consciousness. Not just different strata of consciousness, but (to use a physical analogue) discrete organs of consciousness that function differently. Language meant to communicate to one organ of consciousness doesn't necessarily communicate accurately to another.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Just as Christian scriptures usually (always?) are not actual history, genuine Holy Books in general (such as The Koran and Liber Legis) should not be read reasonably."And again, then why be concerned with demonstrations of "proofs" concerning their verses?"
I'm long on record that so-called "prophecies" in the Book are leaks - inner forces denied expression that "splash over the edges" into the World of Action. I'm not interested in event proofs.
"You may have faith that Liber AL commands you to eat enough cheddar cheese to turn yourself into a giant rat, and that this is your true cosmic will."
Possibly you don't know my definition of faith, which is: "Direct perception by Neshamah." You are using the word (in the above sentence) in the Ruach sense of (something like) "conviction."
"And a reasonable interpretation, even a literal interpretation, of the verses is both acceptable and recommended by Crowley as valid."
Crowley recommended (in his list of how to approach a commentary) that this is where one should start. He didn't say that this is where one should finish.
-
@Tarotica said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"It is our belief that the apocalyptic tones of Chapter 3 of The Book of the Law refer primarily to a transformation of consciousness"When you say "our", who are you talking about? The plural you? Or some group?"
I said it was from an unpublished writing of mine. Take that as you will.
"Anyway, your position is simply not the one Crowley professed.
So, why should we reject his view and accept yours instead?"
You have to figure that out for yourself.
BTW: You continue to speak of Crowley's positions, views, etc. You are quoting him in specific instances. His opinions evolved and changed across time, with particular audiences, and with particular purposes. You are using it dogmatically as if (1) these were his only views on a particular subject and (2) his personality opinions matter in some dogmatic way. And this has been pointed out to you (admittedly more briefly) above.
-
@Tarotica said
"Liber AL doesn't encourage it. It commands child sacrifice, and Crowley plainly said this was the case."
So, then the 'blood of the moon' is something we've only had access to since the Apollo missions, right?
Besides, there is no law beyond Do what thou wilt, and sorry, but mine doesn't include human sacrifice. If it did, I would have chosen to incarnate myself into a time and place where it was acceptable.
But, I had best not continue this discussion. You are welcome to your literal interpretation. I have to go ask the wise serpent coiled about my spine for advice about putting out the fire burning in my chest cavity before it spreads to my wife's hair. I also have to freshen up the bathroom a bit with the perfume of my orison.
Good luck! and remember:
II:27. There is great danger in me; for who doth not understand these runes shall make a great miss. He shall fall down into the pit called Because, and there he shall perish with the dogs of Reason.
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"So, then the 'blood of the moon' is something we've only had access to since the Apollo missions, right?"
Hahaha! That got me.
