Thelemic Jihad
-
Great responses from both Kuniggety and Edward. Sorry about my little belch, but I felt just had to make clear that this is a Thelemic forum, not the f*****g Huffington Post
One thing I'd note though, the Emperor Palpatine approach ("Kill them - kill ALL of them"
), while it doesn't always work, *sometimes *does work: I call to my witness Germany and Japan. (And to forestall the obvious "liberal" remark at this point, I haven't noticed any particularly strong tendency of the generations of Japanese and Germans since WWII to avenge the deaths of their errant forefathers via acts of terrorism, since said forefathers were well and truly stomped into the dust.)It may be somewhat undignified playing whack-a-mole with Islamofascists, but after all, that approach results either in absence-of-moles, or well-behaved moles.
Edward, you are more sanguine about the prospect of taking two steps back or sideways before we move on than I am. Perhaps that's because I'm particularly engaged in the study of the history of the "Great Sorcery" at the moment (aka Christian origins), and weep for lost opportunities.
Or maybe it *is *just fear.
However, in response to that, I'd say that whether one whacks moles fearfully or cheerfully, they still need to be whacked - it is their lot in life to be whacked. Certain ideas just cry out to end up in "history's dustbin of discarded lies" (or whatever the hideous metaphor was), and the notion that humanity should be ruled by a bunch of woman-and-homosexual-hating closet homosexuals waving improvised explosive devices in one hand and a copy of some 1,200 year old book full of mindless (albeit perhaps mysteriously elevating) ranting in the other, is most definitely one of them.
And, *pace *the OP, I'd say the same thing about the concept of randy rock gods waving ray guns in one hand and the spaced-out (albeit perhaps mysteriously elevating) literary remains of an English poet in the other
-
I can’t say that I would call it a juvenile flight of fancy, but I would call the thoughts behind it base, narrow, and unrefined. I would think that there were several meanings to the text, including the spiritual metaphor. I also believe that there are life lessons involved in it, one of which is the willingness to fight for freedom. In my life experience(and I’ve been through many life and death situations), it comes down to a matter of courage, valor, and ideal. You can be boxed in, and forced to fight, but there is also the willingness to step into the box. Belief in the self is a big deal, whether you win or lose. Most people are not willing to step into the box, preferring the safe comfort zone. I see this alot visiting up here in Canada. There is alot of big talk, but when it comes time to walk there is no one, or few, in sight.
For assumptions, you make many of them. You make the assumption that there is no war going on behind the scenes; maybe not a physical one for the most, but a war nonetheless. You make the assumption that there are few Thelemites willing to fight and die. The majority of the Thelemites I personally know have been through hell and back, in the military and prison. Then, in your case, that most Thelemites are hippies, druggies, and other such degenerates; in my case, we might assume that most Thelemites have and/or are capable of killing, have been trained to do so in one way or another, and really aren’t the kind of folks that you want to be on their A-list. You make the assumption that all Thelemic leadership are fat, out of shape, bad-singing DuQuettes(and for the record, he really cannot sing--I would tell him to keep his day job, but am not much impressed with that either), when that is another stereotype, another assumption. You also make the big assumption that you are the only one to have thought this out, and something like a member of the noble class of the Thelemic movement.
Actually, since you like to follow Crowley’s writings so much, I do believe that diversity is the right of every Thelemite, and in their own right are all right. If you have an issue with that, then maybe you should take that up with Crowley.
Your error in the article in narrow-minded, unrefined thought and assumptions.
One of the things that those “new” to the path often do is to fool themselve into thinking they have actually done something. Your words that you’ve read Liber AL with an open heart and mind(aside from the tine, as if you are the only one) ring so loudly of this. I suppose next you’ll tell us that you are the son of To Meta Therion, or Crowley himself reincarnated, or maybe the next prophet?
Out of curiosity, Tarotica, have you actually spoken to anyone in Islam? Spent any time around everyday Muslims, talked to them, learned anything of them? You ought to go to Iraq or Afghanistan. Might be a good learning experience for you.
I am also curious where you get out of Liber AL anything of child sacrifice? Do share.
-
Gurugeorge, 93,
"Edward, you are more sanguine about the prospect of taking two steps back or sideways before we move on than I am. Perhaps that's because I'm particularly engaged in the study of the history of the "Great Sorcery" at the moment (aka Christian origins), and weep for lost opportunities. "
Sure. But I find it hard to see history as progress, in the conventional (19th Century?) sense. On the other hand, I can equate it comfortably to evolution. Sixty million years of dinosaurs, which are then all exterminated over about 30 months? No problem. Mammals can wait, let alone primates, while that's done with.
Which doesn't mean that I like evolution. But it seems to be the way things worked out until now - scattershot, full of diversions into blind alleys. Human evolution seems to be happening on the scale of centuries, and possibly decades, and we are the first species (that we know of) to accelerate its own movement. Despite myself, therefore, I'm an optimist, even if I wince at the thousands of people burned and tortured by Christianity, and the tens of millions oppressed in subtler ways."Certain ideas just cry out to end up in "history's dustbin of discarded lies" (or whatever the hideous metaphor was), and the notion that humanity should be ruled by a bunch of woman-and-homosexual-hating closet homosexuals waving improvised explosive devices in one hand and a copy of some 1,200 year old book full of mindless (albeit perhaps mysteriously elevating) ranting in the other, is most definitely one of them.
"No argument on that score. I keep seeing signs of hope, though, such as the incipient feminist movement in Saudi Arabia, cautious Koranic re-interpretation by women in Egypt and Jordan, the unquenchable push towards wider human rights in Iran, or the fact that, before she was assassinated, Benazir Bhutto had a fighting chance of effecting some change in Pakistan. Which is how I got involved with the woman who coached me through the Koran. She didn't want to forsake her faith, but she didn't fit the mold of 'a good Muslim girl' at all. She was expressing something much more than that, so I pushed to learn more. She pushed back, and I found something of what motivated her faith. She fought, therefore, as a brother, and the way she pushed/fought underlined for me how there's a Thelemic impulse operating in places other than western democracies.
Freedom and self-realization are memes active in all parts of the world. It's just state-dominated media that try to make sure these things are seen only as brief flickerings.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Edward Mason said
"
No argument on that score. I keep seeing signs of hope, though, such as the incipient feminist movement in Saudi Arabia, cautious Koranic re-interpretation by women in Egypt and Jordan, the unquenchable push towards wider human rights in Iran, or the fact that, before she was assassinated, Benazir Bhutto had a fighting chance of effecting some change in Pakistan. Which is how I got involved with the woman who coached me through the Koran. She didn't want to forsake her faith, but she didn't fit the mold of 'a good Muslim girl' at all. She was expressing something much more than that, so I pushed to learn more. She pushed back, and I found something of what motivated her faith. She fought, therefore, as a brother, and the way she pushed/fought underlined for me how there's a Thelemic impulse operating in places other than western democracies."Yupyup, and by now there have been quite a few times where Muslims, sickened by Islamofascist doings, and ashamed to be associated with them, have publicly dissasociated themselves from extremism and marched in protest - that kind of thing. Also, since the West has in fact reacted in a measured way on the whole, but has also done as much mole-whacking as it can meanwhile, Islamofascism has often looked weaker than it would wish to appear, and support for extremism has actually gradually diminished, statistically, amongst Muslims (IIRC - it's a while since I looked into it).
Yes, I'm hopeful on the whole too. And in fact, if the Koran is as you say, that's what we should expect. (And the same thing happened with the Bible of course - Christians seldom took the more barbarous parts of it seriously, and mostly *preferred *to interpret it nicely and in a liberal fashion.)
-
93,
I think the key concept here is "Let my servants be few and secret; they shall rule the many and the known." The actual numbers involved are relatively unimportant once the impulse that forms the concept starts to penetrate mass consciousness. The strongest army gets weary of war at a certain point, the wall of resistance to civil rights changes starts to crumble, or something like decriminalizing gay sex, a ludicrous (and shamefully immoral) notion when I was a kid, has now become law in many countries. These things will come later to Africa and Asia, and not easily, but they will come. The old men who resist all this may fight till they die, but die they will.
I don't place much faith in opinion polls showing, let's say, how many anti-American, pro-Jihad people there are in Jordan or Lebanon. Such things are good general indicators of current conditions, but they can't measure the consciousness shifts that are operating and developing behind outward attitudes and beliefs.
Of course, paranoid rants against rag-heads can slow things down, and they will. But they're against the overall current of the Aeon flowing through. Looked at a generation from now, they will be seen to be the shadows that pass and are done. Which doesn't mean there won't be more shadows, or that some hidebound Islamic nations or communities won't be troublemaking diehards. I can't see Afghanistan outside of Kabul changing much in my lifetime, for example, nor some of the 'Stans that used to be part of the USSR. But my lifetime isn't the correct yardstick anyway.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
**Tarotica:
Liber AL doesn't encourage it. It commands child sacrifice, and Crowley plainly said this was the case.**
The only thing I see plainly is the author of Liber AL has a sense humor and wit, having set up a grammatical trap to see how many fools he could get to cry "Child sacrifice!" The sentence is verse III:12, referenced in your nasty little piece on the subject as a sentence that could have several meanings, and in this thread you plainly state the verse in question commands child sacrifice, even though the rules of grammar strictly limit the possible interpretations. A colon is used to separate two independent clauses, or an independent clause and a fragment where one element elaborates on the other, depending on the arrangement. In the case of this statement: "Sacrifice cattle, little and big: after a child", the only possible function of the incomplete clause is to elaborate on the complete one, and based on its structure is limited to informing when the cattle should be sacrificed, expressing no other idea. To claim that verse III:12 encourages child sacrifice is a certain sign of ignorance of the rules of English Grammar.
What I recall Crowley stating plainly about verse III:12 is that it foretold the death of his first child, which is a correct grammatical interpretation of the sentence.
-
From what I can see the Muslim faithful are in deep denial about the historical facts of Mohammed's life. He was born into a clan of desert caravan raiders. His entire life story is an almost uninterrupted series of aggressive military exploits. None were defensive other than the Battle of the Ditches. The story that Islam was spread peacefully along trade routes is pure fantasy.
The Koran is filled with exhortations to war. The perfunctory response is usually, "have you read the Koran...entirely?". (Just like born-again Christians on the Bible). To those who respond "yes" a common reply is, "oh, so you read classical Arabic?" It continues ad absurdium.
I have seen the quote here, "Ye shall know them by their fruits".
There is only one major culture in the world today that teaches that it is okay to strap bombs around their children and send them onto buses and into restaurants or airplanes to blow up unsuspecting innocents. Even in the USA 24% of the Muslim teenagers openly admitted that they believe suicide bombings can be justified. (!) Those are just the ones who admit it. You can imagine what the numbers are outside the USA. This notion that the problem is a small percentage that has hijacked Islam doesn't hold water. If so why does the vast majority stand idly by and do little or nothing about it. The deafening silence from Islamic leadership after 911 was noteworthy.
As far as I know, Crowley never went to war, never fought a single battle.... The revolution he speaks of appears to be metaphorical.
The similarities between the Islamic apologist's claim to Jihad being an internal individual struggle and the Thelemic struggle may be valid. But the external reality that the world needs to face up to is that roughly 90% of all violent conflicts in the world since WWII have been Muslims against someone else.
-
"Those making progress in The Work learn discrimination and do not cling to bigotry and are not easily duped by the mass-media hype thrown their way, every day."
Some wise words there.
-
Av, that quote was from a completely separate thread. Care to explain your point?
-
That even you know that blaming Islam, or Muslims, for 90% of the violent conflicts after WWII (in addition to being untrue) is a diversion from any real progress in either the realm of managing human conflict or The Work.
-
That even you know...?
?hmmm
Say we adjust to post 1974 conflicts.
Would you admit that the 90% estimate is reasonably close then? I mean, just look at the facts, from Bali to Baghdad, from Kashmir to Kabul, just look at the facts. From Bosnia to Grozny to the Paris suburbs... on and on....Put all the politically correct mass media nonsense aside.
"real progress in either the realm of managing human conflict..." (?!)
what the!?Is there such a realm?
Whoever that manager is must be out to lunch.
(or seriously deluded) -
Nice try. I'm not here to get into a debate with you.
People can google the facts*. I don't have any great revelation, or info that the next person lacks.
*Here's a googled resource for facts: users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatx.htm
I just know a phony 90% when I see one. And I know you know it's phony. But your advice from the other thread was great, and even if you ignore it, I think I'll follow it, and exit this conversation for now.
-
Av, your warstat site lists deaths from past wars which is totally irrelevant. I see this a lot - some completely irrelevant reply based on tangential connection at best. For those who wish to remain in denial it is apparently an effective coping mechanism.
My point stands. It is not bigotry to observe a picnic table with a watermelon on it and say, "there is a watermelon on that picnic table". It is a simple observation of fact. If the object on the table is a religious icon, somehow the term 'bigotry' starts to get thrown around.
I see this a lot. People lose objectivity when religion is involved and especially when a politically incorrect comment is made.
Let's test my observation with some data;
www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htmThis site lists 26 recent violent conflict hotspots of the last few decades. When I add Uighur province it is 27 and only 3 of them are NOT involving Muslims. That is 89.9% (reasonably close to my 90% estimate). And note that the Iran, Kurdistan, Turkey conflicts are all glommed into one event called Iraq which artificially averages down the actual count. Similarly one grouping is simply called "Middle East" which is also multiple conflicts. The persecution of Christians in Lebanon is completely separate from the Jerusalem and Palestinian issue.
So, my comments are well supported by historical fact and present reality. No bigotry there.
I have wondered at how Crowley came to make certain observation concerning Mohammed and I think I recall that his formal education was completed in 1897 when really, very little was known about Islam in general and also his subsequent contact in India may have been with the Sufis and in the Middle East with the Druze. These are both mystical sects that are obviously heavily influenced by early Christian Gnosticism.
-
You keep changing your parameters. You've yet to show any substance for your claim that "roughly 90% of all violent conflicts in the world since WWII have been Muslims against someone else."
I'll repeat: you made it up, and you know it's not true.
You're more like a guy at the picnic who says that 90% of the tables have watermelons on them, and keep changing which tables you're counting.
Separately, even though you have a new list in which nearly 90% of the items involve muslims, counting conflicts as of equal weight is misleading. It's like the guy in the joke who claims his rabbit stew is "50/50 horse and rabbit. 1 horse, 1 rabbit"
For some perspective:
The number of people killed as a direct result of the invasion of Iraq - high estimate - 500,000.
The number of people killed in the Second Congo War, 1998-2002 - 5,400,000. No Muslims involved. -
Who is changing parameters?
Again, how many times need I repeat it? Your reply of numbers killed is totally irrelevant! It has nothing to do with my point. (you could post it or a discussion of how Stalin and Mao were the biggest mass murderers in history as a separate topic or thread but it might possibly be moved to the off-topic list). My point is relevant to the Thelemic 'Jihad' discussion. Your reply about numbers killed in Congo war is totally irrelevant. Can't you see that?
What do you mean I made it up?! what?...? I made a simple observation and supported it with directly relevant data that wholly and directly supports what I said! ?? What are you talking about? Nothing was made up... the data is right there... this is simple. Are you saying the conflicts reported in that link are "made up"? If so you are in deeper denial than I supposed.
I changed no parameters beyond adjusting to your original challenge of my point from WWII to post 1970's... there is nothing wrong about that. It is simply narrowing the boundaries to make a demonstration of verity more doable. My observation and main point stands and it is supported with facts that those who are able to confront reality can recognize.
Now, if you would please reply to the data or logic behind my valid claim.
(oh and your repeated claim, "you know it's not true" is presumptuous, false and a minor violation of Spiritual Law)
-
-
"The texts of holy books are not to be read literally. They're something to reflect on and gain insight from. All of this talk about war and conflict - is it literally about war or is it...possibly...something calling a metaphor! You know, a metaphor about internal struggle."
When they say "Kill the unbeliever", they mean "Kill the unbeliever in your heart".
Funny how some metaphors, when taken literally (nobody ever does that), exhort us to wage war and kill the infidel. Oops!
-
Labyrinthus, while I'm not currently disputing your main idea, there are a couple of blind spots in the way you are quoting statistics.
-
The Religious Tolerance site that you cite specifically classifies the information presented as "Religiously based civil unrest and warfare." While 90% of that may in fact involve Muslims, your original claim was that "roughly 90% *of all violent conflicts *in the world since WWII have been Muslims against someone else." Your source information is limited to religious violence only. This may be your actual point, but the way you have represented the original information removes the same qualification that was the deciding factor in which conflicts were chosen for presentation on the Religious Tolerance website. Note that China isn't listed, in spite the violence of Tiananmen Square, nor is Iran, in spite of the violent put down of protesters there, many of whom were Muslim.
-
Your calculation of roughly 90%, based on the number of conflicts listed on the Religious Tolerance website, doesn't take in to account whether the Muslims are on the offensive or defensive. For instance, in the entry under Uganda: "Christian rebels of the Lord's Resistance Army are conducting a civil war in the north of Uganda. Their goal is a Christian theocracy whose laws are based on the Ten Commandments. They abduct, enslave and/or raped about 2,000 children a year."
-
You calculation of roughly 90% based on the number of conflicts listed on the site counts all conflicts as equal, from Cyprus, which is listed as stable but segregated and partitioned, to *two separate provinces * in the country of Indonesia, to Afghanistan in which there is currently open warfare and thousands have died.
I think the main problem you’re contending with here is the fact that you’re pretty adamant about your statistics when they haven’t been created or communicated according to the standard to which many of us have been strictly trained to hold them. Beyond that, you might have a point, but no one here is going to give your premise any weight until your statistics are less subject to question.
"...roughly 90% *of all violent conflicts *in the world since WWII have been Muslims against someone else."
-
-
Frater LR,
Well done. That is a meaningful and well presented reply.
-
Yes. Though I guestimate that if you add in all significant other military conflicts like the Congo war (which did include some Muslim involvement, though barely even secondary, and I do not want to nit-pik) and even adding Korea and Vietnam, etc. (irrelevant death tolls aside) the percentage does not change significantly to meaningfully change the intent of the original point.
-
Correct. As you acutely observed it does not consider who is the aggressor. Though if you categorize them on that factor and do the math... well...never mind....
This basically was rooted in something more along the lines of bringing up whether Islam is able to play nice and get along with other kids... but that is another matter.
[your "Christian Rebels" comment was completely out of nowhere and is totally irrelevant... what the ...?] -
Right. re: Cyprus - the point did not even come close to saying the conflicts were continuous and ongoing, (though many are) just relatively recent.
-
-
That's a quote from the site.
It is a fascinating discussion - and one I think I would never otherwise have the chance to participate in on this level if it weren't for this forum.
Other than that, I think I'll go back to listening. I'm learning from everyone on this one.
Love under Will.