Was Aleister Crowley advocating genocide?
-
@Dar es Allrah said
"
"AL III,4: "Choose ye an island!""4-9. This is a practical instruction; and, as a 'military secret', is not in any way soever to be disclosed. I say only that the plans are complete..."
"Is this part of the new comment? When was that written again?"
1920s.
-
Sounds to me like he's speaking metaphorically.
-
" 9. ...this is the Law of the Battle of Conquest..."
Verses 4 through 9 represent a principle that is true in all realms of the "Battle of Conquest." As such, it can be taken literally or metaphorically. Again, it's a principle.
If taken literally, I still don't think it "advocates genocide" (from the original question). In context, it refers to the defense of the island, whatever that island may be. Confining it to its own context, it doesn't mention world domination from that island; it speaks only of defense of the chosen island.
"42. Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not overmuch!* Them that seek to entrap thee, to overthrow thee, them attack without pity or quarter; & destroy them utterly*."
The general question seems to be whether it was the intent of the author for this text to be taken* literally*. While no one can know how future events may play out so as to make the literal interpretation of this text practical, it can be inferred from context that the text is not to be taken literally alone or even primarily.
"63. The fool readeth this Book of the Law, and its comment; & he understandeth it not.
- Let him come through the first ordeal, & it will be to him as silver.
- Through the second, gold.
- Through the third, stones of precious water.
- Through the fourth, ultimate sparks of the intimate fire."
These verses indicate an understanding of the text that evolves through the course of spiritual (or at least psycho-spiritual) experiences. The context suggests that the primary* intent* of the text is metaphorical though the principle still applies in all realms.
If the context is expanded to include Chapter II, then we have further confirmation that the literal interpretation of the text must be considered secondary:
"Chapter II:27. There is great danger in me; for who doth not understand these runes shall make a great miss."
-
@Dar es Allrah said
"
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Sounds to me like he's speaking metaphorically."Speaking metaphorically about a practical instruction that is also a military secret?
Ok... (scuse me while I unbend my head...
)"I meant speaking metaphorically about a 'military secret'--a phrase which happened to be in quotes.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the island of Fernando Poo yet...
-
@Dar es Allrah said
"
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"I'm surprised no one has mentioned the island of Fernando Poo yet..."... ?"
A little joke. "Dung it about with enginery of war!" dung/poo. The island plays a central plot role in The Illuminatus Trilogy...
-
I'm not sure of any of the kabbalistic or hermetic interpretations of the third chapter what sover, but I do relate to your repulsion. It's the combination of the compulsion and repulsion of the book of the law that one can find enlightening - even for peaceful loving thoughtful people like you and I.
How i hated that chapter for a while, and I too thought of leaving my thelemic explorations for good!
So what's up with the third chapter? why all the war, war, war? what does this have to do with love and life and light and liberty? isn't this being the law contrary to blowing our brothers to bits and drinking their blood and eating their flesh in victory? of course it is. So one must either accept that the author of Liber Al was Cthulu, or it means something else entirely.
So I will share with you my own unique understanding of liber Al ch III. It' actually now one of my favorite chapters - I admit I may have a unique twist on it and I can't really explain how I have come to these conclusions exactly, really just from many hours of meditation, vision, intuition, and of course I am sure some delusion thrown in for good measure, but my understanding makes sense to me and there fore I dig it
I also except that the author of liber al is higher intelligence that is guiding humanity which also needs assistance, and the book of the law is the 'gymnasium' for the psyche to understand a few next steps and where the right person can help full fill some of it's prophecy, even just a little bit. Because it is essentially a book of knowledge and power (understanding and wisdom is supplied by the reader and is necessary to unlock it's secrets) it's also dangerous, both to the individual studying it and to the power or knowledge one can use for it for nefarious purposes (L Ron Hubbard comes to mind). So the most shocking components serve a few purposes, both to project the knowledge while also protecting the knowledge. An open secret, so to speak.
I believe the third chapter reveals the 'messiah' emerging, messiah being of course Ra Hoor Khuit, which I understand as the 'collective intelligence' of humanity, operating with a 'collective true will' and that true will collectively can be understood as simply as 'win win' for all. The emergence of this collective intelligence in the 20th and now 21st century is what destroys the old order - and yes, this is indeed a war.
WAR in the third chapter relates to the 'conflict of idea' - the 'wars which are in heaven' - our psyche. No matter how jesus or buddha we are, ideas are always going to be in conflict and every idea thought of has an opposite in contradiction to it. Dont think of this just in terms of our own individual psyche's, think of this in terms of our collective psyche and the conflict of idea. The conflict of idea is eternal and this war is eternal. However, we are not ideas of course and when we confuse ourselves as our ideas, things get bloody, violent, irrational, lose lose, etc etc. This is nothing new, bloody wars have been going on forever as well as dysfunctioning society. For the first time in history, and yes I believe this is predicted in the third chapter, humanity through technology that is indeed allowing a collective intelligence to emerge, is actually in a reasonable position to create a functioning 'win win society'. Through technology, we can actually focus on the conflict of idea as a method of resolution instead of actual war fare.
Social Media is the third chapter incarnate, it's tearing down structures, religions, institutions, governments, industries. And it's not using violence to do it. It's doing it with information, spreading through technology, and increasing the speed of the historical dialectical process that will allow a rational collective intelligence to emerge. The conflict of idea allows us to work together to increase our understanding, wisdom, intelligence, humor so we can problem solve, negotiate, and find resolution.
In this light, War is most certainly love.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"
@Dar es Allrah said
"
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"I'm surprised no one has mentioned the island of Fernando Poo yet..."... ?"
A little joke. "Dung it about with enginery of war!" dung/poo. The island plays a central plot role in The Illuminatus Trilogy..."
haha! thanks for that, it's been years since I read it and never put that together! that guy (RAW) got me started on this whole mess around 30 years ago
-
I worry less about what Crowley/Aiwass meant, and more about how others may (mis)interpret it.
Am I right, did Hitler once read the Book of the Law?Aside from Hitler, there are passages in the Book of the Law I (hope) I don't understand; in that it sounds like it's advocating violence, and I worry that someone will use it to justify their own violent inclinations....
-
@Selene said
"I worry less about what Crowley/Aiwass meant, and more about how others may (mis)interpret it.
Am I right, did Hitler once read the Book of the Law?Aside from Hitler, there are passages in the Book of the Law I (hope) I don't understand; in that it sounds like it's advocating violence, and I worry that someone will use it to justify their own violent inclinations...."
I think anyone who is bent on justifying their violence is going to use whatever they want to use. We can't control others.
Do I get to use this shooting guy here?
-
No sympathy for Nazis!!!!
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
I agree that future wars are not inevitable. However, past wars were inevitable. If that makes any sense.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
At this point in time, past wars ARE inevitable; but I' don't at all agree that they WERE (prior to their inauguration).
Humanity has a choice: Gett he underlying call to transformation, to rewriting the map of consciousness - or see it spilling over into phenomena in a "lowest common denominator sense." In a rough, crude summation: As a species, tear down and remap your inner reality, or a seemingly involuntary wave of blood will wash the world, tearing down and remapping outer reality.
-
As it should just so be, I believe it was an avocation of Genocide, a "Spiritual" genocide, if not only for the individual- To kill off the Ideals of False belief and ignorance of the Old aeon, and usher yourself into the new Aeon of Horus of Scientific and empirical proof, Thus we have "War and Vengeance" against the Old aeon.
Ultimately you can't have Peace without war of some sort; Whether that war is inside of you, or you bring it outside of you, ultimately separates the Kings from the Slaves. Think of it this way, every outward war or oppression begins with an insecurity or unhappiness from within. We must have the strength of will to wage war within ourselves, on ourselves, in order to get rid of these insecurities and control our emotions so that we do not project them on others that turns to physical violence. It's very Buddhist-Taoist kind of thinking. It also reflects Love under Will. Love is the law, which needs to be balanced with Will.
Of course to the blind eye this will look like a provocation of physical violence; But I think the way it is written is twofold in nature, to shock and scare people into further investigation on it, and to associate Crowley more-so as the first beast from revelations.
-
I think he might have been
David Myatt famously praised 9/11. I was thinking about terrorism from a demand-based standpoint.
So we interpellate on the Earth, and peoples' sutures are projecting. So say I'm a martial arts expert. But you lose in some other sutured field of expertise. But that's not why, right?
But, as people know, to people, on the planet, that's why.
So you're still thinking about this guy when you notice there's terrorism on the planet. And hey, I'm pool on the Earth for terrorism. So say I join a terrorist organization to YOU.
And that's where there's terrorism on the planet to people, and say the pool generally doesn't want it on the planet. That's where we're afraid of terrorism. So we can describe/define terrorism as "annoying."
It reminds me of an episode of the Sarah Silverman Show, a show I didn't find that funny. There are two guys in a long-term relationship, and one of them suggests the other should try something new at the diner, say, a Tab soda. This is instead of a Coke, which he usually orders.
So the other guy's like, yeah, why don't I just order a Tab soda? And the other guy has to keep going along with it. Are you going to go back on that?
So we get really into Tab soda. And this goes on and on for the duration of the episode, to the point where they even drive a Tab soda car and visit the Tab soda factory. Cause yeah, why don't I order a Tab soda?
So we all have demand for terrorism, so say I'm a terrorist TO YOU, because I don't want your demand, but I'll pool it on the planet with terrorism.
So what this works out to is you get "that's who I am to people" with "not-pool" as a terrorist and "that's why."
So what I'm wondering is, was David Myatt just a really nice guy who they thought they pooled (but really didn't) and decided to go Tab Soda on the pool's demand with terrorist? Cause that's who I am to you?
I was looking at a picture of him at a monastary, and honestly, he looks maybe a bit awkward, like me in Facebook pictures at high school as an usher at a wedding.
And that's why he's Anton Long?