Race & Thelema
-
@_aLL_seEIng_eYe_ said
"The are no question differences between races or ethnic groups if you prefer. how do these differences affect or not affect the relationship between student and mentor in a Golden Dawn type initiatory system? How do these differences affect choice of approach toward the great work in general."
Yes, there are broad racial or regional karmas. OTOH, there are significant difference between individuals already, and I suspect these often are more extreme than cultural or racial baseline differences.
The single biggest hurdle in this was overcome in the forging of the A.'.A.'. system by intentionally comingling the core elements of Eastern and Western systems. This was a good practical move just because of the content of the teachings; but also representative of a bridging of vast cultural gaps in a practical way. (As it is, just depending on differences between two different people, one may have a natural draw to magick that needs balanced by attention to yoga; the other may have just the opposite.)
"Are the True Will of different ethnic groups in conflict with one another? either genetically or otherwise? "
By definition of the economy of the universe, there can be no conflict between different instances of True Will.
"does the T.o.T. or A.:A.: have any policy directly pertaining to racial tolerance issues and/or discrimination?"
The lack of a policy by A.'.A.'. reflects its complete indifference to the matter. Temple of Thelema, on the other hand, has an explicit policy precluding racial discrimination. We are also keenly aware that, should the Order establish itself in another nation that has a dramatically different culture, we would need to follow the Rosicrucian maxim: The Order itself must "wear the garb of the land wherein it dwells."
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"By definition of the economy of the universe, there can be no conflict between different instances of True Will."
Can you further explain the above statement? Also how do you reconcile it with the warrior energies of RHK?
-
@he atlas itch said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"By definition of the economy of the universe, there can be no conflict between different instances of True Will."Can you further explain the above statement?"
You're asking for essays
... maybe entire textbooks! 
Let's try a short response (with all the weaknesses - inadequate prerequisites etc.).
I'll assume you're already past the introductory level of assuming that True Will is directly related in any fashion to personal (personality) choice (in the common meaning of that phrase). True Will, in its grandest sense, is the inmost nature of a being expressed through its most fundamental course or movement through time, space, and experience; i.e., the essential vector of an infinite being.
Nuit is the whole. Even what that whole is infinite, it is self-contained. Push in one direction, and something else pushes back in another direction. All of the pieces fit together, have intrinsic motion consequent to their inherent natures. Of necessity, the whole of the universe has to have all of its parts and no more (even when the number of those parts is infinite). These basics lead to mathematical developments that boil down to: It all has to fit together. There is no True Will for any being that is out of context of what is "true" for the whole. Therefore, there is no separating your True Will from anyone else's. All the pieces fit perfectly together as in an infinite-piece jigsaw puzzle.
"Also how do you reconcile it with the warrior energies of RHK?"
Many longish essays could be written about this. To hit the part relevant to your present question: Most of the warring is within ourselves - the battle for wholeness. What outwardly appears as conflict between two people is superficial to the point of being inherently inconsequential, and is a result of our failure to actualize our True Will.
To put it another way: One certainly can fight for something without having to fight against something else.
As mentioned at the beginning, this was a quick approach to a couple of questions that should have whole textbooks to answer them, so please excuse the lack of development and presentation of the ideas - but I think my answers to your questions are clear enough anyway.
-
The colors are many but the light is one
-
Liber B Vel Magi touches on the matter of Race, but does not fully reveal it.
"And according to His Original Nature will that law be shapen, so that one may declare gentleness and quietness, being an Hindu; and another fierceness and servility, being a Jew; and yet another ardour and manliness, being an Arab. Yet this matter toucheth the mystery of Incarnation, and is not here to be declared."
The following Essay sums up Crowley's views on "The Jewish Problem" which indicates his Racialist views as well as his views on Jews in particular, as to the fundamental defect it the Jewish race than causes the "Jewish problem" and what is necessary to Redeem the race, so that it can co-exist in the global stage, with a racial niche and destiny of their own.
-
I think a good test of discernment, in students of magick, is their reaction to Crowley's racism.
The main categories of reactions I've observed are:
the reader rejects his writings in disgust, and avoids the path Crowley points to
the reader ignores or rejects Crowley's racism, but continues to try to follow the path Crowley points to
the reader takes the racism seriously, and subscribes to it
the reader tries to justify Crowley's racism as ironic or humorousObviously, Crowley had a crass sense of humor, and enjoyed shock value, both for humor's sake, and to keep his writings from being co-opted by the bubblegum bourgeois of his day. But I have no need to make a saint out of the man before I can follow the path.
-
Also, I'm curious to other people's experience of reincarnation and race/ethnicity.
I recently acquired some past life memories (whether they are "true" or not, I remain, as always, agnostic). But the point is that in the previous life, I was of a different race than I am now, and in the one prior to that, I was a third ethnicity. At the very least, the memories did seem to explain a lot of my attitudes about race, and cultural affinities in this incarnation.
Does anyone else have similar experiences?
-
Av said "I think a good test of discernment, in students of magick, is their reaction to Crowley's racism."
Good point,Av. My take is as good as a pomegranate is, there are bits to be thrown out. It has taken me a number of years to get past that and arrive at a different perspective while remaining true to my own view on the matter. There is some common sense to be leveraged here.
-
It is quite incorrect to assign normative aspects of innate racial inferiority or superiority to the mere existence of Racialism.
The fact that a dog is not a cat, does not mean that dogs and better than cats or vice versa, it only indicates than Dogs have a unique function in the cosmos from cats, and to apply the standards of cats to dogs, would be a violation of the law of Thelema. As aspects of the universe the cat is as necessary as the dog, and to treat them as if there were no difference between the types and classes of creatures, would be a disservice to all.
The fact is than the cosmos developed different and unique races, each biologically and traditionally suited to the climate of it's origin, and each with a unique purpose and spiritual destiny of it's own.
If we deny Race, we deny Thelema, for racialism is merely the application of Thelema to genealogical ethnic groups. If we can not admit that races differ and are unique aggregates of stars, then how can we accept that the individual is a unique star with it's own particular WILL. If we take racial equality and apply the same principle on the smaller unit, it implies that all men are equal and should be treated not on a person to person basis, rather a broad brush can paint over all humanity, as all individuals are identical.
As every individual is unique and has a unique WILL which must be recognised, so do to all races, states, companies, etc have a unique collective WILL.
The essay on the Jewish problem, only claims that the Jewish people need to find a place in the world for their unique racial talents, and Crowley suggests that they messiah they await might be just the Magus to help them divine than purpose. Thus he suggests that if they accept the LAW of Thelema, and reform Judaism accordingly, The Jewish race as a whole might a place in the New Aeon, without conflict with the other races of the world.
-
I get your point, but at the same time there are some issues with your analogy. Dogs and cats are different species. There is no genetic continuum between a dog and a cat.
Homo Sapiens is a single species, with a genetic continuum between fuzzy racial/ethnic groups. There are also the factors of your individual genetics, your gender, your genetic family, the people you grow up with, the region you grew up in, the species of which you are a part, the primate order, the mammalian class of life from which that species evolved, the broad phylum of vertebrates, the animal kingdom, or all life forms in general.
We don't really need to create a false dichotomy and say that one either denies race entirely or embraces it as very important.
As far as your statements about Crowley and the Jews, whether the underlying point is yours or his, it's all pretty convoluted. And why can't Gentiles, especially ones who read Evola, ever talk about anyone other than the Jews?
I'm tempted to write an essay called "the Goy Problem" wherein I talk about the WASP "race" and the redemption thereof Jewishness, as an ethnic identity is hardly a discrete genetic group. I mean, I'm ethnically Jewish (on my mom's side), but my family is Sephardic, from Spain, and went through a couple thousand years of mixing with Europeans and Arabs, etc. My wife's Jewish too, but her family is Ashkenazy, and spend a couple thousand years mixing with Slavic people in Russian and Georgia. Any genetic similarities between the two of us are probably due to general shared human traits, and non-Semitic DNA that's surely present. Culturally, our biggest factor in shared heritage is being raised in the United States.
Just because race "exists" and is a factor in who we are, doesn't mean it's a very big or important factor.
-
@Frater Aster Lux said
"I certainly don't reject the idea of reincarnation, it just seems pointless to think about besides hypothetically. "
The only worthwhile point would be to help in your understanding of your true will in this incarnation (and, on a related note, how that fits in with your overarching true will across multiple incarnations). It is part of the curriculum that Crowley taught, for this reason.
-
why must you define Race genetically, and not fundamentally a spiritual matter, meaning that a Race is a group of people, who share a tradition. The tradition like an Internet protocol, includes many layers. The cultural, the religious, the historical, the agricultural, the ethical, the genetic, the physiological. etc.
What defines a Race is than a group of people share that tradition, what the Shinto call the ancestors, or Jung calls the racial unconscious archetypes, evola calls tradition, Plato called the world of forms, Hegel called it Geist, Hitler called it Das Blut. and many have called by many terms.
In his book, "the manhood of humanity" Count Korzybski refers to the quality of "Time-binding" by which he means humans are able to record and learn from our history. We bind time not only in history books, but in our artefacts, our customs, our religious rituals, and to some extent it our genes, when we actively arrange marriages and such.
What I mean by this is that a Race is a combination of a tradition or a closed bound time-space related to the history of a people, that is reflected in their rituals, conditioned behaviours, family traditions, art styles, and genetics is only one small part of that tradition, that Time that is bound to a specific space and the people who dwell in that space-time.
Each tradition not only binds the past in the form of history, but it binds the future in that it is not a static, buy a dynamic system, it progresses, the Race then is an Aggregate of experiences the same as any star and it has a WILL and orbit just as the stars of it's smaller units the individual.
As for the reason judaism is a problem, it is because judaism was a culture that developed under oppression, and devised a very clever culture to survive and keep their dignity in that situation. While in captivity, the Jews devised a morality that humility and suffering are signs of righteousness. "God chose us and so he cause us to suffer, it is to test our faith". This mentality comforts the slave and all who are weak or oppressed, who suffer. They then teach this mentality to the ruling class, and this makes the ruling class feel guilty. Because I am rich and happy, then God does not choose me, I am not tested, I may have power in this word, but I am lowly in spirit. This eventually weakens the host nation, Babylon and them Rome. The ruling class feels guilty and ideas like what we today call progressive or socialist arise. The higher are made lower to be equal with the inferior, everyone get's a participation trophy, and the strongest warriors are not admired they are called murderers and spit upon.
Basically, Judaism in sets up a power dynamic in which the feelings of power and self worth are attained by poisoning the well of the host nation. They have a parasitic relationship to nations that invite them in. But, the Jewish people are clever and strong, if they accepted the law of Thelema, rather than defining themselves by fear, guilt and resentment of the world, they could rise up, take a sword and learn to see themselves as self governed by Love under WILL, to achieve power and a place for themselves on their own merits. Not hide their merits behind guilty false modesty, like a modest woman hides behind a veil. Has not that black veil been ripped away?
So that the teachings of modesty and humility are at an end, that one is to be brazen and unashamed, not taking the slave route of power through looking small and winning the most pity.
-
@Froclown said
"why must you define Race genetically"
Well, perhaps because that's the meaning of the word. (It does help communication if we use words accordiong to their actual meanings.) Just to grab the closest dictionary at hand (dictionary.com, not necessarily my favorite but convenient):
Primary definition is, "a group of persons related by common descent or heredity." [That's genetic, you'll notice.]
Next, it cites the following definitions as used in anthropology:
"a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use." [That's genetic, too.]
"b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups." [These are genetic-linked markers.]
"c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans." [Genetic]Other definitions following are:
"a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock" [Genetic]
"any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc." [Not necessarily genetic, but usuallywould have strong genetic commonalities]
"the human race or family; humankind" [Genetic]And so forth.
"What defines a Race is than a group of people share that tradition, what the Shinto call the ancestors, or Jung calls the racial unconscious archetypes, evola calls tradition, Plato called the world of forms, Hegel called it Geist, Hitler called it Das Blut. and many have called by many terms."
You should use a different word that means this, such as, oh, culture.
"What I mean by this is that a Race is a combination of a tradition or a closed bound time-space related to the history of a people, that is reflected in their rituals, conditioned behaviours, family traditions, art styles, and genetics is only one small part of that tradition, that Time that is bound to a specific space and the people who dwell in that space-time. "
Yeah, culture is the word you're looking for: " the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another," etc.
-
Froclown, the OP is clearly talking about "race" in the genetic sense. So, if you're talking about "race" as a "culture", then I'd have to say it's a different topic.
"Jung calls the racial unconscious archetypes, evola calls tradition, Plato called the world of forms, Hegel called it Geist, Hitler called it Das Blut. "
And, I've never read about the "racial unconscious archetypes" in Jung. Nonetheless, the Jung's archetypes are nothing like Hitler's concept of Das Blut. Jung's archetypes, even if flavored by each culture, are universally human, in the same way that the Tree of Life provides a universal system for classifying consciousness, even if different tables have a cultural flavor.
-
"Basically, Judaism in sets up a power dynamic in which the feelings of power and self worth are attained by poisoning the well of the host nation."
I really can't leave this one alone.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_poisoning
"the term "well-poisoning" remains a loaded one that continues to crop up even today among anti-Semites around the world."
I'll try to transcend the offensive sentiment underlying this, and actually follow it a little deeper. The Jews were used as a scapegoat for the bubonic plague, and accused of poisoning the wells of the city, in order to justify a pogrom to murder Jews.
Now, as we really know, the bubonic plague was spread by rats and fleas. So,in this case, the Jewish problem is really a flea and rat-infested Caucasian problem.
Metaphorically, then, I would say that the problem is not so much Judaism setting up a power dynamic in which the feelings of power and self worth are attained by poisoning the well of the host nation. Rather, the host nation is diseased and is looking for a scapegoat. The host nation being you.
-
not at all.
Actually I used the term Well poisoning, to refer to the bible verse "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
here the word used mean sorcerer or one who poisons the well, or a source, which can mean poisons the divine source, ie corrupts the divine influence, a renegade rabbai or some one who misuses the name of YHVH, commits the sin of Onan etc. But I digress.I chose the term to mean that the Jewish power dynamic is to teach life denying slave morality to the nation which has allowed them to stay, and generally not assimilate fully.
See "On genealogy of Morals" By Saint Nietzsche.
-
Well, if you were unfamiliar with the accusation of well-poisoning against the Jews, then you clearly know very little about Jewish history, and are hard to take seriously.
@Nietzsche said
"These accursed anti-Semite deformities shall not sully my ideal!"
-
"However, that’s what took place: out of the trunk of that tree of vengeance and hatred, Jewish hatred—the deepest and most sublime hatred, that is, a hatred which creates ideals and transforms values, something whose like has never existed on earth—from that grew something just as incomparable, a new love, the deepest and most sublime of all the forms of love: —from what other trunk could it have grown? . . . However, one should not assume that this love arose essentially as the denial of that thirst for vengeance, as the opposite of Jewish hatred! No. The reverse is the truth! This love grew out of that hatred, as its crown, as the victorious crown unfolding itself wider and wider in the purest brightness and sunshine, which, so to speak, was seeking for the kingdom of light and height, the goal of that hate, aiming for victory, trophies, seduction, with the same urgency with which the roots of that hatred were sinking down ever deeper and more greedily into everything that was evil and possessed depth. This Jesus of Nazareth, the living evangelist of love, the “Saviour” bringing holiness and victory to the poor, to the sick, to the sinners—was he not that very seduction in its most terrible and most irresistible form, the seduction and detour to exactly those Judaic values and innovations in ideals? Didn’t Israel attain, precisely with the detour of this “Saviour,” of this apparent enemy to and dissolver of Israel, the final goal of its sublime thirst for vengeance? Isn’t it part of the secret black art of a truly great politics of vengeance, a farsighted, underground, slowly expropriating, and premeditated revenge, that Israel itself had to disown and nail to the cross, like some mortal enemy, the tool essential to its revenge before all the world, so that “all the world,” that is, all Israel’s enemies, could then swallow this particular bait without a second thought? On the other hand, could anyone, using the full subtlety of his mind, even imagine in general a more dangerous bait? Something to match the enticing, intoxicating, narcotizing, corrupting power of that symbol of the “holy cross,” that ghastly paradox of a “god on the cross,” that mystery of an unimaginable and ultimate final cruelty and self-crucifixion of god for the salvation of mankind? . . . At least it is certain that sub hoc signo Israel, with its vengeance and revaluation of the worth of all other previous values, has triumphed again and again over all other ideals, over all nobler ideals." (Nietzsche, on genealogy of morals)
-
@Nietsche said
""However, that’s what took place: out of the trunk of that tree of vengeance and hatred, Jewish hatred—the deepest and most sublime hatred, that is, a hatred which creates ideals and transforms values, something whose like has never existed on earth"
Here, Nietsche demonstrates a preposterous lack of knowledge about Judaism, their Scriptures, and the various competing and conflicting voices found in their holy books. Instead of speaking from knowledge, he speaks from a twisted historical perspective that conflates genetics with culture, and views the culture through the eyes of the cognitively distorted agony of his own psychological battle for liberation. Indeed, rarely are so many examples of cognitive distortion apparent at once.
"1.All-or-nothing thinking (splitting) – Thinking of things in absolute terms, like "always", "every", "never", and "there is no alternative". Few aspects of human behavior are so absolute. (See false dilemma.) All-or-nothing-thinking can contribute to depression. (See depression). Also called dichotomous thinking.
**2.Overgeneralization – **Taking isolated cases and using them to make wide generalizations. (See hasty generalization.)
3.Mental filter – Focusing almost exclusively on certain, usually negative or upsetting, aspects of an event while ignoring other positive aspects. For example, focusing on a tiny imperfection in a piece of otherwise useful clothing. (See misleading vividness.)
4.Disqualifying the positive – Continually reemphasizing or "shooting down" positive experiences for arbitrary, ad hoc reasons. (See special pleading.)
5.Jumping to conclusions – Drawing conclusions (usually negative) from little (if any) evidence. Two specific subtypes are also identified:
Mind reading – Assuming special knowledge of the intentions or thoughts of others.
Fortune telling – Exaggerating how things will turn out before they happen. (See slippery slope.)
6.Magnification and minimization – Distorting aspects of a memory or situation through magnifying or minimizing them such that they no longer correspond to objective reality. This is common enough in the normal population to popularize idioms such as "make a mountain out of a molehill." In depressed clients, often the positive characteristics of other people are exaggerated and negative characteristics are understated. There is one subtype of magnification:
Catastrophizing – Focusing on the worst possible outcome, however unlikely, or thinking that a situation is unbearable or impossible when it is really just uncomfortable.
7.Emotional reasoning – Making decisions and arguments based on intuitions or personal feeling rather than an objective rationale and evidence. (See appeal to consequences.)
8.Should statements – Patterns of thought which imply the way things "should" or "ought to be" rather than the actual situation the patient is faced with, or having rigid rules which the patient believes will "always apply" no matter what the circumstances are. Albert Ellis termed this "Musturbation". (See wishful thinking.)
9.Labeling and mislabeling – Explaining behaviors or events, merely by naming them; related to overgeneralization. Rather than describing the specific behavior, a patient assigns a label to someone of him- or herself that implies absolute and unalterable terms. Mislabeling involves describing an event with language that is highly colored and emotionally loaded.
**10.Personalization – **Attribution of personal responsibility (or causal role) for events over which the patient has no control. This pattern is also applied to others in the attribution of blame."The first section above from Nietsche commits all but #5, Jumping to Conclusions; and #8, Should Statements.
@Nietsche said
"—from that grew something just as incomparable, a new love, the deepest and most sublime of all the forms of love: —from what other trunk could it have grown? . . . However, one should not assume that this love arose essentially as the denial of that thirst for vengeance, as the opposite of Jewish hatred! No. The reverse is the truth! This love grew out of that hatred, as its crown, as the victorious crown unfolding itself wider and wider in the purest brightness and sunshine, which, so to speak, was seeking for the kingdom of light and height, the goal of that hate, aiming for victory, trophies, seduction, with the same urgency with which the roots of that hatred were sinking down ever deeper and more greedily into everything that was evil and possessed depth. This Jesus of Nazareth, the living evangelist of love, the “Saviour” bringing holiness and victory to the poor, to the sick, to the sinners—was he not that very seduction in its most terrible and most irresistible form, the seduction and detour to exactly those Judaic values and innovations in ideals? "
Again, the entire construction here commits all errors of logic and subjective emotional thinking except for #8, Should Statements.
@Nietsche said
"Didn’t Israel attain, precisely with the detour of this “Saviour,” of this apparent enemy to and dissolver of Israel, the final goal of its sublime thirst for vengeance? Isn’t it part of the secret black art of a truly great politics of vengeance, a farsighted, underground, slowly expropriating, and premeditated revenge, that Israel itself had to disown and nail to the cross, like some mortal enemy, the tool essential to its revenge before all the world, so that “all the world,” that is, all Israel’s enemies, could then swallow this particular bait without a second thought? "
#5, Jumping to Conclusions: subtype Mindreading; and #10, Personalization, are key in this passage though all are still present except #8, Should Statements.
@Nietsche said
"On the other hand, could anyone, using the full subtlety of his mind, even imagine in general a more dangerous bait? Something to match the enticing, intoxicating, narcotizing, corrupting power of that symbol of the “holy cross,” that ghastly paradox of a “god on the cross,” that mystery of an unimaginable and ultimate final cruelty and self-crucifixion of god for the salvation of mankind? . . . At least it is certain that sub hoc signo Israel, with its vengeance and revaluation of the worth of all other previous values, has triumphed again and again over all other ideals, over all nobler ideals." (Nietzsche, on genealogy of morals)"
I just think it's a shame he was never able to express himself without resorting to such obviously distorted and imbalanced revisions of history. This isn't history. This is a projected story that came from a disturbed and distorted psyche - disconnected from a holistic historical perspective and fallen captive to the "splitting" that is found in narcissistic and borderline personality disorders.
It's simply poor and muddled thinking.
It makes me pity him, tortured soul that he was.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
I say the most important point one could raise in Crowley's defense on this matter would be that he was in his mid-20's at the turn of the 20th century; during this time, these sort of sentiments were far from uncommon. Certainly, many of his contemporaries would not support such a disposition and many may have gone as far as to shun such convictions. However, of the aforementioned, few and far between are those responsible for a body of work equal to Crowley's in terms of scholastic depth, artistic prowess, and cultural impact.
Love is the law, love under will.