Lilith: Some Personal Reflections (Script)

Lilith

Personal Reflections

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

This is the base script for the videos which can be found at LBRY, Odysee, BitChute, and YouTube.

A Prayer to Lilith

Lady Lilith,
First Mother, Mother of Night
You who stood for what you thought was right.
You who uttered the words of magick before the races of man.
May I be as strong as you, may you be my aspiration and my root. May I dance with you in the eternal pleasures of Night.
May I have health and wealth and strength and joy and peace, and that fulfillment of Will and Love Under Will that is perpetual happiness.
AUGMN

This is a Prayer to Lilith which I wrote. It undergoes minor revisions periodically as my recitation changes. This was last revised on the 14th of July, 2020. It breaks down as follows.

• Lady Lilith,
• First Mother: Lilith was the first Wife of Adam. After fleeing him, she beget children via other spiritual entities (and through succubus style visits to Adam and his descendants).
• Mother of Night: She is Queen of Succubi/Incubi, Vampires, and other Creatures of the Night.
• You who stood for what you thought was right: She felt no need for subservience to Adam, so she refused. This destroyed her marriage.
• You who uttered the words of magick before the races of man.: She fled Adam by use of the Tetragrammaton (which she Spoke). Later she gave her daughter Qalmana to Cain (Qayin) to be his Wife, thus bringing us civilization.
• May I be as strong as you, may you be my aspiration and my root. May I dance with you in the eternal pleasures of Night.: Identification of the self with the divine, a reference to the Muladhara and Svanisthana chakras, and the reward as promised in Chapter I of AL as well as a rather obvious benefit of involving oneself with “sex demons”.
• May I have health and wealth and strength and joy and peace, and that fulfillment of Will and Love Under Will that is perpetual happiness: Lifted from Liber XV, The Gnostic Mass
• AUGMN: Thelemic Closure. Similar in purpose to Amen, but instead references the great recurrence/birth-death-rebirth cycle. It is built off the Sanskrit “OM” but spelled out so as to equal 93 in gematria.

---

Lilith is the Mother of the Night, Queen of Succubi, Incubi and all other Denizens of the Night. She is wild, passionate and independent. When humanity feared the Night, she was cast in a negative light. Now that we have grown up (or at least reached puberty), we can see that the frightening shadows gather their power from our projected fears.

The Legend of Lilith

Lilith was once the wife of Sammael, who is incorrectly known as Lucifer. This marriage did not last long for She is a wild, passionate, and heroic soul, quite incompatible with the cold demeanor of Sammael. After leaving Sammael, She joined with Adam.

Her time with Adam did not go well. Adam would insist and rail upon Her. "I am your lord and master," claimed Adam. However, Lilith would say, "We are both equal, for we are both issued from the dust, and I will not be your slave." This went on, Adam claiming he was superior and Lilith stating that they were equal. Eventually, Lilith became tired of Adam's self-perceived superiority and flew away.

Adam decided that this was too much and beseeched three angels -- whose names were Senoi, Sansenoi, and Sammengelof, to fetch Lilith back to him. They caught Lilith above what is now known as the Red Sea, and a great battle took place.

During the battle they realized that Lilith's powers were too great for them to force Her into obedience, and they attempted to drown Her. She fought them off but, during the battle, drops of Her blood fell into the sea, thus giving the Red Sea its name.

When the angels returned to report their failure, Adam went to Yahweh and said, "Oh, Almighty Lord, the creature that was my wife has left me, claiming that since we both came from the dust, we were equal and she refused to be my servant."

So the Almighty in his wisdom, caused a sleep to fall upon Adam, and in his slumber removed a rib. This He fashioned into a woman. As She had come from man, She was a part of man and, thus, belonged to man.

This is pretty much a literal retelling of the story found in Angelo S. Rappoport's Ancient Israel - Myths & Legends (3 Volumes in one). I changed the bias to positive and took poetic license with the naming of the Red Sea (though that is where the battle took place).

Originally this was found in Liber Atri Matris, a book I wrote back when I was set on forming my own Magickal Order. It is Amazing what one will do when one doesn't know how much one doesn’t know.

---

On Lilith

The following is also from Liber Atri Matris, circa 1994. It was meant to be a description for use in devotional practices. A kind of “This is what Lilith is and means to the Temple.” Some of it may still feel a bit dated, though I have done some editing to try and correct that.

Lilith has undergone some serious changes: Angel, Consort of the Devil, Consort of the First Man, Defier of Yahweh and Adam, Seducer of Men, Seducer of Women, Queen of Vampires, Queen of Demons, etc.

In recent years, she has been recognized as the first feminist and utilized as a role model for women searching for an archetype to lead them to freedom. Her existence as a pre-Hebraic goddess was thought proven by a translation of the prologue of "Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Underworld" and by an Assyrian or Sumerian relief depicting a taloned women with various symbols of godhood and royalty. The carving however is not labeled and it turns out that Dr. Kramer may have taken some liberties when translating the poem. Synchronicity did not care.

The thought that she might be a deity struck fertile soil. Books of various levels of scholarship and sympathy were penned. The possibility that she was of Sumerian/Hebrew origin[I.e., the Sumarian word for a female spirit is Lili, however the Hebrews recorded this divinity as Lilith.] became plausible as more evidence showed that the Hebrews either had Goddesses and other Gods in the original indigenous religion, or that they adopted foreign gods and goddesses to supplement their War God Yahweh.

Regardless of Her origins in antiquity, today we have a name of power, and that name is Lilith. In 1988 through 1989, I happened through a string of synchronicities that continuously brought the name Lilith to the forefront of my mind. In the Autumn of 1989, I went to the Beth Israel Synagogue in NW Portland at about 2am. There, on the walkway between the great double doors of the synagogue and what I assumed to be administrative buildings, I performed an impromptu Evocation of Lilith. The energy amassed during this rite, of which I planned nothing[Unfortunately, I wrote down nothing at that time either. It occurred to me that the first chronicle was written down 24 January 1999 in the rough draft for this section.], was phenomenal and culminated in Lilith revealing Herself to me as a missing archetype, a forgotten Goddess of a type which so confounded society that She and her kin were denied, obfuscated, or restricted, almost universally.

Lilith was denied Her status as a goddess, demoted to a mere demoness -- which in Hebrew cosmology is less than human. Hecate was obfuscated by dividing Her into three finite parts so as to inhibit Her as a unified whole. The list continues. Nearly all goddesses who represented the Warrior-Lover, the feminine All-Devourer, All-Begetter (Panphage, Pangenitor), the missing Baubolic Archetype were dismissed, as much as possible, in the interests of society, during the Osirian Æon (q.v., II.6). We are now in a new Æon, the pendulum has swung from the Æon of Isis (Hunter-Gatherer, "Matriarchy") through the Æon of Osiris (Hierarchical Structures, "Patriarchy"). Now, in the Æon of Horus, we need to harmonize these two extremes, the Baubolic and the Priapic, by recognizing that each is as important as the other and exalting them both as the divine source of All that Is.

Lilith has stated clearly that she exists for Her Children and that the myths of the previous Æon were attempts to deprive Her of Her beloved Children by those who live in fear of the dark. The chains that used to bind us are cracking.

Lilith is a lithe, beautiful woman with pale skin, black hair and blood-red lips. Her eyes are the black of a starless sky, a black that fills the entirety of the eye. She is the governess of the Moon and Mistress of Death. Her animals are the Cat, the Owl, the Serpent, and the Horse. She is wild, headstrong, and passionate. She feels little sympathy but is nearly consumed with empathy. She doesn't pretend to care, she either shares your pain or she sends you on your way. She is a loving mother, but she is not one to coddle. If you can handle it, don't bother asking for pity or aid. She is quite likely to make things so bad that you can no longer handle it, and then wait until the last minute to lend a helping hand. However, if you really do need Her help, She will assist you without reservation. She desires equals, not servants. She was appalled by Yahweh's treatment of us in the Garden of Eden and worked with Zagreus to free us from our gilded cage.

She loves those whom She respects. She governs all sexual activity and cares not who one sleeps with or how, so long as all consent and all feel pleasure. This is Her preferred sacrament. Any joining together in love or lust are giving worship to Lilith.

---

More Discussion

Let’s wrap up with a few more notes in this brief introduction to Lilith.

When I started to become aware of Lilith, I was also assaulted with various other goddesses and characters of a similar stripe. While skimming through Jung (because every occultist should have at least a passing familiarity with Jung — if for no other reason than to call out others when they misuse him), I came across the concept of the Fourth aspect. We all know of the Maiden-Mother-Crone classification, from Wicca, if no where else. These correspond to the Virgin Youth, the Sexual Initiate Creating the Next Generation, and the Wisdom-bearer. These were tied to the Spring, the Summer, and the Autumn. However, there is a Goddess type that combines the Beauty of the Youth, the Sexual Initiation of the Mother, and the Wisdom (often Transgressive) of the Crone. This is the Fourth Aspect, the Virgin-Whore, the Mistress, and/or the Dark Mother. In Christianity this is represented by the Scarlet Woman/Babylon. This manifested in Thelema as Babalon. Elsewhere, we have various goddesses of magick, war, love, and destruction. Goddesses such as Kali, Astarte, Hecate, Morrigan, etc.

The fourth aspect is a synthesis of the other three. This is not to imply that the others are aspects of the fourth. Neither should any sense of superiority be attributed to this. Each aspect serves an important function in a functional society. Rather, if we made a triangle where each side was a base for another triangle, each triangle would be an aspect and the center of the triangles’ center would be the fourth aspect (qv. Illustration 1). Lilith in particular is a Dark Mother. She has sex with men to give birth to demons (it should be noted that demon is a classification of being, not a denotation of “evil”). She is powerful, seductive, and feminine. She is also outside the standard societal norms and thus represents a Tantric and Iconoclastic current (A male equivalent would be Dionysus or Odin/Loki). Like Babalon, all acts of pleasure are her sacred rites.

In the Thelemic Canon, Crowley makes repeated references to his beloved Laylah, night, who was his lover and Scarlet Woman. The imagery is strongly aligned to Lilith. Further, in The Vision and the Voice, in the third Aethyr (which corresponds to Binah, the great Mother and Initiate) Lilith is directly referenced. Readings of ZON should bear in mind the traditional equation of Lilith with Night Terrors, the Luciferian/Satanic Inversion of the symbolism of Revelations, the Alchemical transformation of Poison to Sustenance, and the traditional unfolding of revelation and understanding transforming that which is feared. The whole vision is filled with Tantric and Luciferian symbolism. It’s study is recommended.

“And Satan is worshipped by men under the name of Jesus; and Lucifer is worshipped by men under the name of Brahma; and Leviathan is worshipped by men under the name of Allah; and Belial is worshipped by men under the name of Buddha.” - ZON

Truth is found in the rubble of falsehood.

Love is the law, love under will.

---

References

Liber XV Ecclesiæ Gnosticæ Catholicæ Canon Missæ

ANCIENT ISREAL : Myths and Legends ; Three Volumes in One. RAPPOPORT, Angelo S.

Book of Lies (LAYLAH)

Vision and the Voice: Third Aethyr: ZON

Most of the links I am finding for Jung’s Fourth Aspect seem to be post-Jungian Feminist exclusionary jargon which is limited in utility for this topic.

Shaving With Two Razors: On Truth and the Apprehension of Truth

Introduction

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Truth is repeatedly referenced in Occult literature. The quest for Truth, the pursuit of Truth, or otherwise understanding Reality (or the Truth about Reality) is a common theme in Occultism. Wisdom is derived from the application of truth. Affecting desired change on a thing necessitates knowing the Truth of a thing. Scientific Illuminism attempts to understand Truth via the scientific method. Thelemites are Scientific Illuminists.

As Liber AL tells us, ”Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown; & all their words are skew-wise.” (AL II:32). In other words, reality is fundamentally irrational, it is important to learn how to identify the Truth, in as much as we can grasp it, so as to avoid Delusion. The current of Mysticism is always present within Magick. A siren’s lure leading us to destruction through self-delusion (q.v. Dangers of Mysticism). The Magician acts, the Mystic receives.

What is Truth?

To begin we must ask, “What is Truth?” This is a rather difficult question. Certainty has oft led mankind astray. History is littered with various mistakes. As Chantel Delsol tells us in Icarus Fallen, modernity is the traumatized remnants of failed certainties of the past. Given that “unknown factor”, it is far easier to highlight the truth by shading out that which is not truth.

Innocence, another unprovable condition, is defined as the absence of guilt. Merriam-Webster tells us that Innocence is defined as (a) “freedom from legal guilt of a particular crime or offense” or (b) “freedom from guilt or sin through being unacquainted with evil : blamelessness”. This is why American courts have to prove guilt, rather than forcing the defendant to prove their innocence. In a sense, one could argue that innocence is the baseline and that guilt is the failure to meet that baseline.

In a similar manner, Truth is the absence of falsehood. This is a scientific way of pursuing Truth. One falsifies premises until one can no longer falsify a premise. That premise is then held as true until it is falsified. Further, one never ceases in their attempts to falsify a premise. As we are told in Terrier-Work, “Doubt all. Doubt even if thou doubtest all.” Only in this way do we persist in truth rather than falling into the pit of dogma as have other attempts at ascertaining the truth, both sacred and secular.

Obviously, one must know and understand the basic principles of logic (& its limitations). One should endeavor to be clear and concise with one’s speech and actions. However, there are some useful tools one can use in the search for truth. Some of the more helpful ones are the Scientific Method, Occam’s Razor, Hanlon’s Razor, and a knowledge of logical fallacies, both their use and misuse.

Tools for Finding the Truth

The Scientific Method is a constantly evolving doctrine. In reading Crowley, I feel that he was thinking of a more Humean version, however the modern version is more than enough to assist one in the pursuit of truth. I’ve linked a beginner’s description below. One thing to point out is the concept of the Null Hypothesis. The null hypothesis proves that your hypothesis is wrong. If I believe that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects, a simple example of a null hypothesis would be that objects fall at the same rate regardless of their mass. The use of a diary and the setting of concrete goals is integral to the Thelemic system so that an analysis of the record would confirm or deny our hypotheses. Another important concept is Falsifiability. There must be a way to say ’This is true’, or ‘this is false’. A statement such as “all is Buddha nature” is not falsifiable. Anything not falsifiable is logically irrelevant. 

It should be mentioned that not everything is testable. Given the factor infinite and unknown, this should not be surprising. However, the scientific method will let us properly identify and account for these. As they are untestable, we can just accept them provisionally until something better comes along. After all, the fact that I cannot prove the efficacy of logic (proving logic would be a self-referential fallacy) does not mean that I am unwilling to utilize logic and accept its validity on a provisional basis. The utility of a provisional axiom lay in whether the conclusions drawn from that axiom match with what is known, observable, and testable.

Now, in day to day life, there are some handy tools for determining the probable validity of any hypothesis or chain of events. The first of these is the more commonly known Occam’s Razor. Officially, it states “entities should not be multiplied without necessity”. More simply, “the simplest solution is most likely the right one”. Ensure that every item is necessary in your hypothesis. While it is possible that the plant was knocked off the shelf by trespassers sneaking into your home, it is more likely that the cat (who is already known to be present) did so.

The second is known as Hanlon’s Razor. For some reason, the occult community is rife with conspiracy theorists and shadowy secret cabals. To counter this, we have Hanlon’s Razor, which states “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”. Large chunks of convoluted arguments can be dismissed by virtue of these two razors. Keep them sharp.

Finally, we get to Logical Fallacies. Knowing logical fallacies is a poor substitute for knowing logic, but it quickly becomes apparent that many people have done just that. Some fallacies to keep in mind are equivocation (especially in its Motte and Bailey form), Appeal to Authority (whether popular or elite), and ad hominem.

Equivocation is the switching of a term’s definition mid argument. An example I recall was on the word “accept”. While it was being used in the sense of “agree with”, someone switched it to mean “received”. They claimed that because Liber AL had been physically handed to them, they had “accepted” the Book of the Law. Another form of the equivocation fallacy is termed Motte and Bailey. This is used quite often in political discussions where people will push for some radical policy but pretend that the opposition is attacking the non-radical core. A current example would be someone questioning the need to stockpile a month of supplies being told that they are dismissing the seriousness of the corona virus.

The Appeal to Authority is where someone perceived as an authority basically says “because I said so”. Now, this appeal should not always be discounted. If a medical doctor gives his assessment on a medical condition within their field of authority, it should be considered seriously. This is actually a common form of its misuse, to discredit the knowledgeable because it does not pander to one’s prejudice. It should be noted that the “Authority” does not have to be a single person or thing. “Everyone agrees” postulates that “everyone” is an authority and that the claim is true for no other reason than that agreement. Likewise, referencing an elite group sets that group as an Authority. These last two variations are commonly misused. Just because “everyone agrees” or “the cool kids like it” does not mean that the claim is automatically false, either. Egalitarians like to dismiss inconvenient claims by pointing out their appeal to the snobs and elites do so by pointing out their appeal to the vulgar masses.

Next is ad hominem. Attacking the person rather than their arguments does nothing to discredit the validity of their arguments. Hakim Bey’s (support for) pedophilia does not discredit his commentary on Cop Culture. Neither does Marx’s inability to handle money discredit Communism. It probably explains their motivations, but the truth or falsity of the arguments stand on its own. Ad hominem is commonly misused by people over-identifying with their argument. This is especially a problem if you analyze their logic. Another misuse is due to insults. If someone says “My god, you are so stupid,” that is not an ad hominem. It is an insult. It is totally separate from the argument. If they provide nothing else, the proper response is “and?” or “that’s nice, can you actually address the argument.”

Conclusion

To lay this out as a train of thought : Innocence is the absence of guilt. Likewise, Truth is the absence of Falsehood. By learning to identify the false, the invalid, the lie, one is able to remove that falsehood. If one were to remove all falsehoods, what remains would be truth. Therefore, what one holds to be true must be tested and tried. Ultimate Reality is likely irrational, or at the very least, vast enough that we will never encompass it all. However, where we live is governed by the Ruach (or if you prefer, the Mind). Thus, Logic, Data, and Facts allow us to strike down the falsehoods. Like a sculptor chipping away at a block of granite, the true shape of reality will eventually be brought forth. Truth is found in the rubble of falsehood.

By ascertaining the Truth, we can then progress along the path of perfection. The path of perfection, or, as I think of it, the accomplishment of one’s will, is an ongoing process. By conceiving of one’s perfected self, one creates a goal. When one achieves this goal, the imperfections in one’s prior conception of the Perfect become readily apparent. Thus, one formulates a new conception of perfection and the process repeats. Perhaps, one will achieve an objective manifestation of perfection. Perhaps, we will become mired in Zeno’s paradox. Though I feel that overcoming this paradox is a suitable target for perfecting the self.

Truth is found in the rubble of falsehood.

Love is the law, love under will.

Citations, References, and For Further Information

AL II:32
M-W “Innocence” (04 APR 2020)
Book of Lies, ΚΕΦΑΛΗ ΝΑ “Terrier-Work” p112
Six Steps of the Scientific Method (04 APR 2020)
Occam’s Razor (04 APR 2020)
Hanlon’s Razor (04 APR 2020)
Common logical fallacies (04 APR 2020)
Motte and Bailey (04 APR 2020)
Zeno’s paradox (04 APR 2020)

Review of '93: An Aleister Crowley Primer' by Jerry and Erica Cornelius

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Jerry Cornelius, IX* and head of the Grady McMurtry A∴A∴, with Erica M. Cornelius, has given us another work sharing their insights into Thelema, titled 93: An Aleister Crowley Primer (2019). Reminiscent of Crowley’s Magick Without Tears, it covers a wide range of material suitable to variable levels of experience and exposure to Thelema.

Generally speaking, I dislike “Beginner Books”. By calling itself a primer, 93 places itself in that category. However, this book is closer to what I want to see.

Let me start with what I dislike about the book. First, its presentation is lacking. The book itself is visually unimpressive. I got it at the same time as another book which was double stitched and had all the other bells and whistles that I have come to expect from a limited edition book. I realize that 93 was priced as a standard book (i.e., $31) so this is a quibble. However, my initial impression was not favorable.

Next is the font. The font on the cover and elsewhere in the book reminds me of the font I used in my Anarcho-punk zines in the 1980s. This also detracts, in my opinion, from the impact of the book. Even though I acknowledge that these are rather piddly concerns, I feel it makes the book look a bit sad and dated.

As always, I find the lack of an index to be disappointing. While it is less of a concern given the question and answer format of this book, an index would still be beneficial.

A final complaint, if you are going to put a word in over-sized font, make sure it is spelled correctly. I have been unable to find a definition for the word “Aherant”. I can only infer that it is a misspelling of the word “Adherent”, which is discussed in some detail earlier in the book. Perhaps I missed this word, “Aherant”, being defined elsewhere in the text, but I do not recall it, nor did I find it anywhere near the text in question. Having complained about this, I will no doubt introduce a glaring typographical error in this essay.

So, what do I like about the book? First off, it isn’t another beginner book where the author just gives us a simplified version of what Crowley wrote. DuQuette’s The Magick of Thelema is useful because it actually puts the god-names for the Hexagram ritual as a footnote to the Hexagram ritual. For some reason, Crowley did not. Useful, yes. Ground breaking, no. Even Shoemaker’s Living Thelema engages in some of this. That is not the case for 93. The book is a discussion of Thelemic thought, not a collection of recipes with the chef’s notes in the margins.

Being more akin to Magick Without Tears than Liber O, we get several questions with their answers. As it explicitly points out, this is from the Grady McMurtry school of the A∴A∴. Jerry has a rather fascinating history of his own in the Thelemic community. I will not claim I agree with him on everything, but I will give him a fair hearing. If I agreed with someone on everything, I would need to assume they were lying to me.

There are 116 questions (assuming I can still count), and six non-questions (including the preface et al). As I have been a Thelemite for three decades or so, I already had answers for some of the more basic questions — “What are the Secret Chiefs?” or “What is a Kaaba?” — though it is important to read these as one needs to know how the author is using the term. Various A∴A∴ lineages can have divergent meanings for the same terms. This doesn’t mean any of them are wrong, per se. It does mean that you can get tripped up when you assume they mean X but they actually mean Y.

I really enjoyed where they start discussing the Tunis commentary and various trends within the present day Thelemic community. They also discussed some of the flaws of the prophet. While I may not agree with all of their assessments, or the ramifications deriving from those assessments, it is refreshing to hear something a bit deeper than “he fails to meet up with the modern western moral values, so he is bad and wrong”. Objectively speaking, Crowley failed some of his charges as the prophet of the new aeon. Denying this will lead one into falsity and error.

So, all in all, this book is worth the money I spent on it. It is also worth the time I spent reading it — this being a more significant evaluation these days. I look forward to re-reading portions of this book and seeing if any other insights arise. I do plan on discussing a couple of portions of the book, so look forward to those videos.

Truth is found in the rubble of falsehood. 

Love is the law, love under will.


https://www.bitchute.com/video/n5k5gxEQ09wT/

Ezra Pound: Religio or, The Child’s Guide to Knowledge (1918)

What is a god?
      A god is an eternal state of mind.
What is a faun?
      A faun is an elemental creature.
What is a nymph?
      A nymph is an elemental creature.
When is a god manifest?
      When the states of mind take form.
When does a man become a god?
      When he enters one of these states of mind.
What is the nature of the forms whereby a god is manifest?
      They are variable but retain certain distinguishing characteristics.
Are all eternal states of mind gods?
      We consider them to be so.
Are all durable states of mind gods?
      They are not.
By what characteristic may we know the divine forms?
      By beauty.
And if the presented forms are unbeautiful?
      They are demons.
If they are grotesque?
      They may be well-minded genii.
What are the kinds of knowledge?
      There are immediate knowledge and hearsay.
Is hearsay of any value?
      Of some.
What is the greatest hearsay?
      The greatest hearsay is the tradition of the gods.
Of what use is this tradition?
      It tells us to be ready to look.
In what manner do gods appear?
      Formed and formlessly.
To what do they appear when formed?
      To the sense of vision.
And when formless?
      To the sense of knowledge.
May they when formed appear to anything save the sense of vision?
      We may gain a sense of their presence as if they were standing behind us.
And in this case they may possess form?
      We may feel that they do possess form.
Are there names for the gods?
      The gods have many names. It is by names that they are handled in the tradition.
Is there harm in using these names?
      There is no harm in thinking of the gods by their names.
How should one perceive a god, by his name?
      It is better to perceive a god by form, or by the sense of knowledge, and after perceiving him thus, to consider his name or to “think what god it may be.”
Do we know the number of the gods?
      It would be rash to say that we do. A man should be content with a reasonable number.
What are the gods of this rite?
      Apollo, and in some sense Helios, Diana in some of her phases, also the Cytherean goddess.
To what other gods is it fitting, in harmony or in adjunction with these rites, to give incense?
      To Kore and to Demeter, also to lares and to oreiads and to certain elemental creatures.
How is it fitting to please these lares and other creatures?
      It is fitting to please and to nourish them with flowers.
Do they have need of such nutriment?
      It would be foolish to believe that they have, nevertheless it bodes well for us that they should be pleased to appear.
Are these things so in the east?
      This rite is made for the West.

Minor editing/formatting by Nexist Xendaths.
Source 1: Pavannes and Divisions (eBook in which it originally appeared)
Source 2: Pagan Reveries (Mainly because I hate typing)

Ezra Pound: Axiomata (1921)

I

1. The intimate essence of the universe is not of the same nature as our own consciousness.
2. Our own consciousness is incapable of having produced the universe.
3. God, therefore, exists. That is to say, there is no reason for not applying the term God, Theos, to the intimate essence.
4. The universe exists. By exists we mean normally: is perceptible to our consciousness or deducible by human reason from data perceptible to our consciousness.
5. Concerning the intimate essence of the universe we are utterly ignorant. We have no proof that this God, Theos, is one, or is many, or is divisible or indivisible, or is an ordered hierarchy culminating, or not culminating, in a unity.
6. Not only is our consciousness, or any concentration or coagulation of such consciousness or consciousnesses, incapable of having produced the universe, it is incapable of accounting for how said universe has been and is.
7. Dogma is bluff based upon ignorance.
8. There is benevolent and malevolent dogma. Benevolent dogma is an attempt to “save the world” by instigating it to accept certain propositions. Malevolent dogma is an attempt to gain control over others by persuading them to accept certain propositions.
   There is also nolent,¹ un-volent² dogma, a sort of automatic reaction in the mind of the dogmatiser, who may have come to disaster by following certain propositions, and who, from this, becomes crampedly convinced that contrary propositions are true.
9. Belief is a cramp, a paralysis, an atrophy of the mind in certain positions.

II

1. It is as foolish to try to contain the Theos in consciousness as to try to manage electricity according to the physics of water. It is as non-workable as to think not only of our consciousness managing electricity according to the physics of water, but as to think of the water understanding the physics of electricity.
2. All systems of philosophy fail when they attempt to set down axioms of the Theos in terms of consciousness and of logic; similiter³ by the same figure that electricity escapes the physics of water.
3. The selection of monotheism, polytheism, pluralism, dual, trinitarian god or gods, or hierarchies, is pure matter of individual temperament (in free minds), and of tradition in environment of discipular,⁴ bound minds.
4. Historically the organisation of religions has usually been for some ulterior purpose, exploitation, control of the masses, etc.

III

1. This is not to deny that the consciousness may be affected by the Theos (remembering that we ascribe to this Theos neither singular nor plural number).
2. The Theos may affect and may have affected the consciousness of individuals, but the consciousness, is incapable of knowing why this occurs, or even in what manner it occurs, or whether it be the Theos; though the consciousness may experience pleasant and possibly unpleasant sensations, or sensations partaking neither of pleasure or its opposite. Hence mysticism. If the consciousness receives or has received such effects from the Theos, or from something not the Theos yet which the consciousness has been incapable of understanding or classifying either as Theos or a-Theos, it is incapable of reducing these sensations to coherent sequence of cause and effect. The effects remain, so far as the consciousness is concerned, in the domain of experience, not differing intellectually from the taste of a lemon or the fragrance of violets or the aroma of dunghills, or the feel of a stone or of tree-bark, or any other direct perception. As the consciousness observes the results of the senses, it observes also the mirage of the senses, or what may be a mirage of the senses, or an affect from the Theos, the non-comprehensible.
3. This is not to deny any of the visions or auditions or sensations of the mystics, Dante’s rose or Theresa’s walnut; but it is to affirm the propositions in Section I.

IV

1. The consciousness may be aware of the effects of the unknown and of the non-knowable on the consciousness, but this does not affect the proposition that our consciousness is utterly ignorant of the nature of the intimate essence. For instance: a man may be hit by a bullet and not know its composition, nor the cause of its having been fired, nor its direction, nor that it is a bullet. He may die almost instantly, knowing only the sensation of shock. Thus consciousness may perfectly well register certain results, as sensation, without comprehending their nature (see I, 1). He may even die of a long-considered disease without comprehending its bacillus.⁵
2. The thought here becomes clouded, and we see the tendency of logic to move in a circle. Confusion between a possibly discoverable bacillus and a non-knowable Theos. Concerning the ultimate nature of the bacillus, however, no knowledge exists; but the consciousness may learn to deal with superficial effects of the bacillus, as with the directing of bullets. confusion enters argument the moment one calls in analogy. We return to clarity of Section I (1-9).
3. The introduction of analogy has not affected our proposition that the “intimate essence” exists. It has muddied our conception of the non-knowability of the intimate essence.
   
   [Speculation.—Religions have introduced analogy? Philosophies have attempted sometimes to do without it. This does not prove that religions have muddied all our concepts. There is no end to the variants one may draw out of the logical trick-hat.]

V

1. It is, however, impossible to prove whether the Theos be one or many.
2. The greatest tyrannies have arisen from the dogma that the Theos is one, or that there is a unity above various strata of Theos which imposes its will upon the sub-strata, and thence upon human individuals.
3. Certain beauties of fancy and of concept have arisen both from the proposition of many gods and from that of one god, or of an orderly arrangement of the Theos.
4. A choice of these fancies of the Theos is a matter of taste; as the preference of Durer or Velasquez, or the Moscophorus, or Amenhotep’s effigy, or the marbles of Phidias.
5. Religion usually holds that the Theos can be, by its patent system, exploited.
6. It is not known whether the Theos may be or may not be exploited.
7. Most religions offer a system or a few tips for exploiting the Theos.
8. Men often enjoy the feeling that they are performing this exploitation, or that they are on good terms with the Theos.
9. There is no harm in this, so long as they do not incommode anyone else.
10. The reason why they should not incommode anyone else is not demonstrable; it belongs to that part of the concepts of consciousness which we call common decency.
11. We do not quite know how we have come by these concepts of common decency, but one supposes it is our heritage from superior individuals of the past; that it is the treasure of tradition. Savages and professed believers in religion do not possess this concept of common decency. They usually wish to interfere with us, and to get us to believe something “for our good”.
12. A belief is, as we have said, a cramp, and thence progressively a paralysis or atrophy of the mind in a given position.

Note

This terse statement of his philosophy was Pound’s farewell to London. Having made it, he went to Paris, and then to Rapallo.

First published in The New Age, Vol. XXVIII, No. 11, 13 January, 1921, pp. 125-6.
Proofread and annotated by Fergus Cullen (2016-7).
Further proofreading and annotation by Nexist Xenda’ths.
Source: https://philosophylibrary.wordpress.com/2017/07/11/axiomata-ezra-pound-1921/ (2018 August 21)

-------

1: Nōlent: third-person plural future active indicative of nolō. Nōlō: I am unwilling, I wish not, I want not, I refuse. 

2: Volent: exercising volition 

3: Similiter: a reply by which the pleader in a common law pleading concurs with the other party in requesting trial by jury. (I think it is saying that both agree they are not bound by the laws which bind the other). 

4: Discipular: of, relating to, or befitting a disciple. 

5: Bacillus: (generally) all cylindrical or rodlike bacteria.

All footnotes are Nexist Xenda'ths. If I had to look it up to make sure I understood the word/context, I added a footnote. Also, Blogger hated the hyperlinked footnotes, so they were removed.

What is Religion? [Video Script]

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

Religion gets a bad rap, perhaps deservedly so. However, I find that most critiques are rather shallow. They focus on one aspect of a religion and act as if that one aspect is representative of the whole. Some of the better ones will focus on two of the aspects and compare them for inconsistencies.

Perhaps I should take a second to define religion as I use the term. Religion used to mean belief in god and the religious body devoted to that god (i.e., church, synagogue, mosque). As we came to understand non-European conceptions of spirituality, the term was broadened to include such things as Buddhism and Taoism.

Religion, as I tend to use it, is the conception of how the *I* perceives its relationship to the *not-I*. Typically, this has a supernatural component, as the not-I tends to take on an eternal quality. To put it another way, it is the conception of what is, what was, and what shall be, combined with the conception of the self’s relationship to what is, what was, and what shall be.

Technically speaking, this means that there are many secular religions. Humanism, Communism, Fascism, Atheism, etc. all posit a worldview (i.e., what was, is, and shall be) and the self’s relationship to that worldview.

So religion, the driving force for civilization (see my video “On Reality”). Religion is, at its core, the embodiment of a societies values, ideals, dreams, and aspirations. It provides guidance for what a given culture finds “good” and what it despises as “evil”. It dictates the roles and bounds of our interactions with other members of our culture and with the outsider.

However, religion, even within a given culture, is far from monolithic. Aside from differences in interpretations of myth and scripture, religion also differs by virtue of its practitioners. The three broad categories I find useful are Scriptural, Elite, and Folk. These three divisions map to the classic castes of Priest, Aristocrat, and Commoner. Note that some societies also have a merchant class, whose members align, religiously, with either the Folk or Elite customs (or are outsiders). Now these aren’t strictly delineated, and there is overlap. They are more akin to what Bourdieu describes as the interaction of habitus, fields, and doxa, which I view as analogous to a template.

When most people talk about a religion, other than their own, they tend to focus on the scriptural. The bible, the Tao Teh King, the Koran, the Torah, etc. They will often supplement this with commentary by the priesthood (or its equivalent), thus we get Augustine, Changtse, the Hadiths, and the Talmud. This is informative. It puts forth the official ideals held by that cultural group.

Pendant to the scriptural form of a religion, we have the elite interpretation. The elites used to be synonymous with the aristocracy, but in today’s modern world, this function is held by the affluent, educated class. Here we tend to find the esoteric, or occult, variations. Philosophy, other religions, and science are brought into, and incorporated into, the elites’ understanding of the scriptural religion. This is where the Hermetic disciplines grew and flourished.

In another branch from the scriptural form, we have the folk traditions. These are typically formed by what is now termed the working class, though of old they were the peasants and slaves. These practices are a combination of older religious traditions and outright superstitions. Sometimes the scriptural form is nothing more than a cloak for the continuation of the aboriginal practices, such as with the start of Santaria, or (more commonly) they are an incorporation of previous traditions that were too strong to be displaced (such as the Catholic Cult of the Saints). This is where your hedge-witch or kitchen-witch mythos arose.

Now a holistic understanding of a peoples’ culture must take into account all three aspects of a cultures’ religion. In the case of the Universalistic religions (e.g., Christianity, Islam, Buddhism) it becomes even more complicated. Christianity shares a common scripture, but the Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, and Calvinist derivatives (which are further subdivided) must take into account the various differentiations within each cultural group. The folk and elite customs of the Anglican Communion in Ethiopia are a far cry from those in the United States. With Buddhism, the differences are even more striking, as the different sects adopted different scriptures so that Nikāya and Mahayana Buddhism are barely related in the scriptural sense.

It should be pointed out that these three aspects are not isolated. They are in constant communion with each other. They inform and modify each other. Also, the priesthood, which is the guardian of the scriptural tradition, is often pulled from the other two groups, the thoughts and ideas of the elites and folk are constant influences on the interpretation of the scriptural tradition. Likewise, as the priesthood are the guides of the spiritual life of both the elites and folk, the scriptural interpretation is constantly being exposed to the other two groups. The village priest is quite likely to leave out a bowl of milk for the hobs, if not from belief then to express solidarity with his rural flock.

Essentially, what I am getting at is that Religion is a complex, multi-faceted phenomena. Most criticism, even when it manages to go beyond “Hur,hur, dey so stupid”, seldom takes in this complexity. In fact, they take this complexity and use it as if it supported their opposition. To say that some folk tradition is in conflict with a scriptural doctrine is about as logical as criticizing Buddhism as being false because Zen is at odds with Tibetian Buddhism.

To recap, Religion is the codification and inspiration for a culture’s values. It translates the metaphysics into a sensible form which instructs and informs the members of its culture. Depending on the circumstances of one’s position within said society, one’s relationship with the religious tradition will vary. The most useful major divisions of a religion are into its Scriptural, Elite, and Folk interpretations. These interpretations form a dynamic relationship constantly influencing and reinforcing each other. To decry the fact that a folk interpretation is at odds with an elite or scriptural one is as pointless as claiming that Priest A thinks X, but Priest B thinks Y, so obviously the whole religion is false. This is as silly as when the creationists argue that evolution is false because of the discrepancy between punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism.

If you enjoyed this video, please like and subscribe.

Truth is found in the Rubble of Falsehood
Love is the law, love under will

Antifa, it's ok to admit you don't know [Video Script]

— Initial Clip [Antifa doesn’t recognize flag]

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

Antifa, I say this in all seriousness. It’s OK to just admit you don’t know something. Also, just because you don’t recognize something does not mean that it is automatically fascist, white supremacist, or nazi. Now, I admit that your perception of everything outside of what your finite mind knows as being white supremacist is indicative. However, I am not a psychotherapist.

When I first watched the news clip, that statement just struck me as wrong. Blue is not a common color for Nazis or White Supremacists. A quick Google search for “White Flag, blue square, red cross” brought up the proper entry.

—Image [Wikipedia]

Now some might claim that a religion founded by a Jew and of which the majority of adherents worldwide are not ethnically European (or Caucasian, or “white”) is inherently white supremacist, but that is just too stupid to be taken seriously.

Now I lived in Portland, Oregon for many years. Hawthorne Bridge is a rather busy thoroughfare and you aren’t supposed to cross it like that. Hell, cars aren’t even supposed to change lanes at that point. So, on the topic of stupidity…

— Second Clip [Hit by truck]

I may have mentioned, but I was a anarcho-punk in the 80s. Many things about antifa confuses me and makes me think that they are candy-assed wusses. We confronted Christians, Hicks, and Republicans all the time. However, we didn’t pretend otherwise. We hated Christians, so we harassed them. Likewise with the other groups. When the police came, we didn’t try to pretend that our virtue made us immune to the consequences. Their opposition merely confirmed our view that the system was corrupt.  They claim the system is corrupt (as it doesn’t conform to their worldview), but they act as if it isn’t. By their actions, they indicate that they know, subconsciously, that their words are a lie. I’ll try and work up a video on the difference between professed and actual values.

If you enjoyed this video, please like and subscribe.

Truth is found in the Rubble of Falsehood
Love is the law, love under will

A seasonal prayer and ancient drama

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

About a decade and a half ago, I got into a spot of trouble for a seasonal prayer. I had posted it to a Thelemic Community Forum under a title like “Sol Invictus Benediction”. This being the solstice, I thought I would share it with you.

First we begin with the 

Dedication
For The Fatherland, cradle of civilization.
For the ancestors and their indomitable spirit
For the elders from whom we can learn much.
For our youth who represent the promise for tomorrow.
For our people, the original people.
For our struggle and in remembrance of those who have struggled on our behalf.
For Gott the principle of unity which should guide us in all that we do.
For the creator who provides all things great and small.

An Aside: “Gott” is German for “God” and has been chosen to symbolize the principle of striving for & maintaining unity in the family, community, nation, and race.

To this we add:

The Seven Principles:

1. Unity - to strive for and maintain unity in the family, community, nation and race.
2. Self-Determination - to define ourselves, name ourselves, create ourselves, and speak for ourselves.
3. Collective Work and Responsibility - to build and maintain our community together and make fellow European-American's problems our problems and to solve them together.
4. Cooperative Economics - to build and maintain European-American stores, shops and other businesses together.
5. Purpose - to make our collective vocation the building of our European-American community to restore our traditional greatness.
6. Creativity - making the world around us clean and beautiful and better than we inherited it.
7. Faith - to believe in ourselves, our family, our communities and our leaders and to believe the righteousness and victory of our struggle.

Now, before telling you the inspiration for this little piece, I will share what I recall of the drama.

I wrote it up and shared it to a Thelemic Community Forum. Initial reaction was slightly positive, with one girl saying how great it was. Then someone questioned some of the word choices. Then it was branded as racist. The girl who had waxed poetic quickly back-pedaled and condemned it.

This condemnation did not change when I revealed that it was the Kwanzaa dedication and their seven principles with only three changes.

1. I changed the word Motherland to Fatherland
2. I replaced the phrase “African-American” with “European-American”, and
3. I changed the African word “Umoja” to “Gott” while defining it in exactly the same way.

In fairness, the version I found at 123holiday.net does not use any racial language. Though the phrases can still be read in such a manner.

To be honest, I knew that I would get this reaction. Racist behavior is only deemed racist if a white person is doing it. Innocuous behavior is viewed as being racist if a white person does it.

When I first started publishing this kind of thing, I would take Christian screeds against pagans and invert the language. Mostly reversing the two phrases. The key was to keep as much intact as possible. The goal was to show hypocrisy. These works were applauded. Showing the “others” hypocrisy is always applauded. However, when I broadened the scope to include other sacred cows, the applause slowed. When I hit their sacred cows, they got out the pitchforks.

As it is said in Ecclesiastes 1:9 “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”

May the Blessings of Gott be upon you this Season.

And remember, if you're at a social function and a benediction is said and the God invoked is not your own, it's a good idea to mutter, roll your eyes, and smirk, so your God will know that you're not taken in by some false God.

Truth is found in the Rubble of Falsehood
Love is the law, love under will

Citations and Notes
Kwanzaa Dedication
Kwanzaa Principles

Ecclesiastes 1:9

Opening:
Kai Engel
Chant Of Night Blades
Deathless: The Renaissance
Download
License

Ending:
Coil
The Hellbound Heart
Hellraiser Themes [CD]

de Naglowska: Open Letter to Pius XI & Initiatic Eroticism

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

This video will include two chapters of Maria de Naglowska’s Initiatic Eroticism.

• This book is a compilation of articles by de Naglowska from her paper “La Fleche” (The Arrow)
• I found her because she is said to be a source for Evola
• She also translated Randolph’s Sexual Magic.
• The only version of this work is from her translation
• According to Donald Traxler, the translator of her works, She added significantly to that work.
• Randolph is said to be one of the sources for Thelemic Sexual Magick.
• I have been reading Eulis! But it is hard going.
• When I read his statements of “I am a doctor” combined with he assertions that abortion is unnecessary because the woman can push out the zygote by biting her thumb and blowing, it causes me to lack confidence…
• Rather than reading it with an eye out for the false, I am now reading in hopes of gleaning something worthwhile.
• The first article  will be from Page 139, titled “Open Letter to Pius XI”
• The second will be from Page 146, titled “Initiatic Eroticism”
• Overall, I found the book interesting and well worth my while, despite its overt religious and mystical slant.

So, a quick Video Log update and then on to the meat of the video.

I Spent some time writing another grab bag, but I just wasn’t feeling it when I was done, so instead, I’ll just mention them here and link them below.

• First, there was the video “Why Do The Cult Of SJWs Hate Anti SJWs More Than Anyone [Super Collaboration Mirror]”
• Answers range, but I think that the primary reasons are ressentiment and the uncanny valley/cognitive dissonance
• The closer things are, the more likely we are to wonder if WE made a wrong turn in judgement
• Second, That Japanese Man Yuta has a channel where he goes out and interviews Japanese people on the street.
• The first video I want to highlight is “What Japanese Think of Feminism”
• Next would be the more recent “Do Japanese Want Multiculturalism in Japan?”
• Both are worthwhile, as are many other videos in his archive.
• Thirdly, I highly recommend Zarathrustra’s Serpent’s recent Video “Zarathrustra’s Whip”
• I think it summarizes quite clearly one of the points of intersection between Nietzsche and Thelema
• There is a reason why Nietzsche is esteemed as a prophet/forerunner of Thelema
• This helps explain why Nietzsche is in the list of Saints
• Fourth are some articles
• From the American Conservative, “Burning Man Staves Off Nihilism, If Only Temporarily”
• And from Medium, “Micro-Religions” which looks at current social movements critically.

And in recent news, yes, it IS OK to be white.
I don’t know why everyone hates albinos so much.

Readings:

• Page 139,  “Open Letter to Pius XI”
• Page 146,  “Initiatic Eroticism”

So, I think it is quite apparent that de Naglowska was tapped into the early stirrings of the 93rd Current, another antecedent of Thelema. From this one work, I see strong correlations between Naglowska and Crowley. This may change as I read the other works, but for now I find it very compelling. I hope you enjoyed these excerpts.

Truth is found in the Rubble of Falsehood
Love is the law, love under will

---
Citations and references.
Why Do The Cult Of SJWs Hate Anti SJWs More Than Anyone [Super Collaboration Mirror]

What Japanese Think of Feminism (Interview)

Do Japanese Want Multiculturalism in Japan? (Interview)

Burning Man Staves Off Nihilism, If Only Temporarily

Micro-Religions

Zarathustra's Whip

Initiatic Eroticism and Other Occult Writings from La Fleche

Theism: A Thelemic Perspective

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
First, a Quick Update

• I apologize for the delay, I had a medical emergency
• Then work got hectic
• And now my parents are getting ready for their migration to Arizona. They are “snowbirds”.

Let’s start with some quick opinions and comments:

• Rest in Peace, Tom Petty.
• Also, Raymond Buckland is dead. The man responsible (imo) for turning Wicca from a Spiritual Tradition & Religion to merely a religion.
• Take a Knee is just like other forms of “Activism” such as Free The Nipple.
  • It doesn’t impact their lives, but allows them to feel morally superior.
  • And like I care what a bunch of guys in tight pants, who roll around on a field with other guys in tight pants, think.
  • Though to be honest, I don’t really care what the Legends Football League thinks either, though I do prefer seeing photos of the LFL over those of the NFL.
• I still think the original slogan was better: “No War, No KKK, No Fascist USA”
• I am amused that the Alternative for Deutschland party has a higher percentage of immigrant MPs than the “pro-immigration” party of Merkel.
  • It kind of shows how they think, unfettered immigration is great for the “lower classes”
  • Reading the article reminded me of how the most diverse presidential cabinet was that of the “Racist” Republican George “W” Bush.

On the reading front, I just finished reading Maria Naglowska’s Initiatic Eroticism.

• She is said to be a primary source for Evola’s works on sexuality and sexual magick.
• I am surprised I hadn’t heard of her before since she ran in Surrealist and Occult circles and I am familiar with several of the people with whom she was in contact.
• As I understand it, Randolph’s better know work Sexual Magic only exists in her “translation”, to which she seems to have added a third or more of the material. 
• The works are translated from the French and published by Inner Traditions.
• So far the works are easy to read and quite interesting.

So on with the video. Wherein I discuss Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism within a Thelemic context. I’ll wrap up with my own personal opinions and experiences.
First some working definitions.
Theism is the belief in God, Gods, or some other type of spiritual beings.
Atheism is the belief that there is nothing more than the material, observable realm.
Agnosticism is the lack of belief in either position. Sadly, it is all too often used by non-committal Atheists to hedge their bets.
Certain spiritual beliefs are not normally considered theistic. Early Buddhism (Nikaya), some forms of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism , and Doctrinal Taoism, rather than folk Taoism, fall into this realm.
However, strictly speaking these are not Atheistic, since they postulate the existence of the non-material. The Western term religion has problems with spiritual traditions that fall outside the Abrahamic religions. Are traditions which tell one to honor the gods as metaphor or for social cohesion theistic? How about those that postulate something other than a King-Serf relationship?
These are some of the reasons why Crowley stated in Magick Without Tears: “Call it a new religion, …; but I confess that I fail to see what you will have gained by so doing, and I feel bound to add that you might easily cause a great deal of misunderstanding, and work a rather stupid kind of mischief”.
Spiritual Tradition is more cumbersome, but far less restrictive.
Thelema contains references to several gods and goddesses. Nuit, Hadit, Heru-Ra-Ha, Pan, Babalon, Therion, etc. are all referenced. The rituals we use refer to YHVH, Adonai, Ehieh (Asher Ehieh), and various angels, such as Aiwass, Gabriel, Raphiel, Michael, and Uriel. We can continue, the list is legion.
However, we must remember Crowley’s words in Liber O, where he states “It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them”.
Back to Magick Without Tears, we are told that Thelema is “an enthusiastic putting-together of a series of doctrines, no one of which must in any way clash with Science or Magick.” Thelema seems to postulate the “Gods” as an operational jargon. When I refer to “Yahweh” it conjures an energy/symbol/archetype/being defined by the Tetragrammaton, whose qualities are known and defined through various techniques — since it is a Hebrew term, these are mostly via Qabalistic methods.
We are skeptical, which means we doubt both the Theist and the Atheist. The proper Thelemic view would be agnosticism, neither denying nor believing in the existence of the Gods. Even the Creed of Liber XV: The Gnostic Catholic Mass can be read in a strictly atheistic manner. I plan on doing a video on the creed at a later date.
Properly speaking, Thelema tells us to find out on our own. Crowley, who had practiced Theravāda Buddhism prior to his revelation, came to feel “My observation of the Universe convinces me that there are beings of intelligence and power of a far higher quality than anything we can conceive of as human; that they are not necessarily based on the cerebral and nervous structures that we know; and that the one and only chance for mankind to advance as a whole is for individuals to make contact with such Beings.” It should be noted that Theravāda is a form of Nikaya Buddhism.
Likewise, I progressed from a virulent anti-Christian atheism (thanks to my parents having been born again while I was a child) to where I am today, which is a theistic leaning agnostic. I have had direct, personal, revelatory experiences with gods, goddesses, and the divine. However, this is subjective. They are my experiences and I cannot prove them to anyone else, nor do I try. Anecdotal experience is not proof. Neither can I prove that my personal subjective experiences were not delusion or misinterpretation. However, I felt pretty silly referring to myself as an atheist after I had met god.
I have found that many atheists are as committed to swaying others to their belief system as fundamentalist Christians are.
The closest I have for “proof” of the divine are the Principle of Grandeur and the fact that the Whole is Greater than Its Parts. These are actually related which may or may not be obvious from their descriptions.
The first is an animistic viewpoint. In fact, it is a principle behind the Japanese Shinto tradition. In the land of infinite gods, anything that imbues a sense of awe or wonder is considered a god. The spirits of place can inhabit a valley, a river, a stone, or a tree. Anything that creates a response in the minds of the viewer is a god. Nor is it restricted to natural items. The beauty of a gothic cathedral, the ubiquitousness of the Compact Disk, these are also gods. Gods also go away when that which created them goes away. The CD god is weakening. When a river is paved over, it’s god is diminished (this was the origin of Haku in the anime Spirited Away). The death or diminishment of a god isn’t always simple. The negative impacts can be seen in Miyazaki’s Princess Mononoke.
The second revolves around the simple fact that, for example, we know the composition of the Human body. However, if we take all of these elements and mix them together, we would not have a human. When we take various colors and apply them to canvas, a thing of beauty emerges. This isn’t a call for intelligent design per se, it in no way attempts to deny the reality of evolution. However, there is, as Liber AL: II:32 puts it, “a factor infinite & unknown”.
So, to put it simply, Thelema is skeptical of the claims put forth by both Atheism and Theism. However, we do hold that there is something “plus” to the material realm. Having said that, there are Thelemites who hold either position, but (for the most part) they seem to be rather conflicted in their opinions and specious in their arguments.
Again, I apologize for the break in schedule.
Truth is found in the Rubble of Falsehood
Love is the law, love under will
Citations & Notes
Germany's far-right AfD has more immigrant MPs than Merkel's conservatives
Legends Football League
Maria de NaglowskaInitiatic Eroticism 
Chapter XXXI: Religion–Is Thelema a "New Religion"?
Liber O vel Manus et Sagittae sub figurâ VI
Liber XV: Ecclesiæ Gnosticæ Catholicæ Canon Missæ
Chapter XXX: Do you believe in God?
Haku
Princess Mononoke
Liber AL vel Legis sub figurâ CCXX as Delivered By XCIII = 418 to DCLXVI

Thelemic Ethics and Rights (Video + Script)

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Update

• I believe I mentioned this last video, but
• I am changing my ending track. I am tired of getting an automated copyright flag, disputing it with the Creative Commons license, and then having them approve some and disapprove others. Annoying.
  • The New Track is “The Charon” by Keosz from the “Entity EP”.
  • My Opening is still “Chant of Night Blades” by Kai Engel form the “Deathless: The Renaissance” album.
  • Links are below.
  • My use should not be taken as endorsement of my content by either artist.
• I went to Enoshima yesterday
  • Honored Benzaiten and The Dragon God. I also stopped by a Shingon Temple, but there was no fire so I didn’t stay long.
  • It was hot and muggy, but the discomfort will fade away and I will treasure the memory.
• My favorite Japanese gods are Inari, Benzaiten, Kannon, Jizo, and Tenjin.

So on with the video

• Thelema is an individualistic philosophy.
• Thelema borrows heavily from Nietzsche.
• Thelema also borrows heavily from various spiritual and religious practices from around the world
• Finally, it also borrows from Science, both Soft and Hard.
  • Please see my video on Thelema and the Scientific Method.
• Thelema positions itself as the inheritor of the past ages of mankind.
  • Rather than being post-modern, it attempts to inject a meaning and purpose back into life.
  • The influence of the Christian/Modern age cannot be undone, nor should it.
  • Those who seek to undo time are delusional
  • Also, those who seek to continue on the path of modernity to post-modernity are lost, directionless, and adrift.
  • This can be seen in the fractious and unrealistic behaviors of the more extreme elements of society
  • The seeds of modernity sown by Christianity have their natural culmination in behaviors of the SJW crowd.
  • Water flows downhill. Going back would merely return us to where we are today. This is the path of least resistance.
  • Thelema is resistance. A fight against the Spirit of Gravity. An upheaval which will divert the river onto a new path.
• Which brings us to the topic of this video.
  • The highest state of Overcoming is knowing one’s will. This typically involves work, discipline, and time.
  • One’s Will is the summation of one’s being. So how should one act until one achieves knowledge of their will?
  • Also, what if it is not one’s will to seek one’s will. Not everyone is meant to be a magician, hermit, or priest.
  • How should the Baker and the Banker act?
• Crowley penned three documents which are helpful in this regard.
  • Liber OZ sub figura LXXVII
  • Liber Libræ sub figura XXX
  • And an essay titled “Duty”
  • These documents form a basis for a Thelemic Society

Liber OZ sub figura LXXVII was written by Crowley to explain the “Rights of Man” in simple words of one syllable.

• It should be born in mind that this was written back when Man was still commonly used to refer to all humans of both sexes
• I’ve actually had some morons try to tell me that they didn’t apply to women (usually feminists)

Liber OZ is divided into 5 sections

1. Moral
2. Bodily
3. Mental
4. Sexual
5. And the right to Resist Tyranny

The title contains the mark of the beast in the seven pointed star (associated with Babalon) & several quotes from Liber AL.

• The symbolism of the graphic is rather obvious and outside the scope of this video. 
• Also, the I will also set aside discussion of the verses. 
  • I’ll include a link to the commentary of Liber AL for those interested.

So let us move on to the enumerated Rights. They are pretty straightforward, so comment will be minimal.

• 1) Man has the right to live by his own law—to live in the way that he wills to do: to work as he will: to play as he will: to rest as he will: to die when and how he will.
• 2) Man has the right to eat what he will: to drink what he will: to dwell where he will: to move as he will on the face of the earth.
• 3) Man has the right to think what he will: to speak what he will: to write what he will: to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will: to dress as he will.
• These first three points pretty much cover all the basics for the life of a true Anarch or Autarch. Note that this is specific to the individual. No one else has to like it. And except for the last two items of section two, no one else is necessarily involved. If I choose to dwell in another persons house, or choose to move through another persons property, this may cause conflict. We will deal with that in section five.
• 4) Man has the right to love as he will:—“take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where, and with whom ye will.” —AL. I. 51
• This often involves another person. As indicated, will tends to have a special meaning in Thelema (which itself is a word indicating Will). 
• I will quote a small portion of Crowley’s commentary on this verse: “But he should not injure himself and his right aforesaid; acts invasive of another individual's equal rights are implicitly self-aggressions. A thief can hardly complain on theoretical grounds if he is himself robbed. Such acts as rape, and the assault or seduction of infants, may therefore be justly regarded as offences against the Law of Liberty, and repressed in the interests of that Law.” (New Comment)
• I recommend reading the whole thing.
• 5) Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.
• This is the most controversial of our rights. This is where the Will is so important. Is what you are trying to do important enough to kill? If I deem it is my will to dwell in your house, and you seek to stop me, then by section five, I have the right to kill you. However, in section one, you have the right to die when and how you will. Thus, you have the right to kill me. It can get complicated. Crowley added some more considerations in “Duty”. 
• However, we can also look at this as a form of the “Mandate of Heaven” (ala Confucius). The fact of there being a conflict is indicative of having lost the “Mandate of Heaven”, or, in Thelema, of one party not being in accord with their Will.
• This can easily go down a Theological rabbit hole, so suffice to say, no one wants to live where we are in constant danger of being killed, so this should probably be viewed as something to be reserved for an extreme case.

Liber Libræ sub figura XXX is an official instruction of the A.’.A.’.

• As such, it has a much more spiritual and occult tone.
• I will skip over much of it and only point out parts that would be of use to the layman
• The full text can be found in the link provided in the comments.

The title gives an indication of the tone of the work.

• Libræ refers to the astrological sign of Libra, the Scales
• XXX is the number for the Hebrew letter Lamed, which refers to an “Ox Goad”
  • The Goad is used to keep the beast moving in the proper direction, that is to guide it in the proper direction
  • Lamed is also attributed, in the Hermetic Qabalah, to Libra
• Thus the book (Liber means “book”) is meant to guide the aspirant in the proper path, that of balance.
• Liber Libræ is also referred to as “The Book of Balance”.

So, some of the relevant portions

• 0. Learn first — Oh thou who aspirest unto our ancient Order! — that Equilibrium is the basis of the Work. If thou thyself hast not a sure foundation, whereon wilt thou stand to direct the forces of Nature?
• 5. Yet, oh aspirant, let thy victories bring thee not Vanity, for with increase of Knowledge should come increase of Wisdom. He who knoweth little, thinketh he knoweth much; but he who knoweth much hath learned his own ignorance. Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope of a fool, than of him.
• 6. Be not hasty to condemn others; how knowest thou that in their place, thou couldest have resisted the temptation? And even were it so, why shouldst thou despise one who is weaker than thyself?
• 9. A man is what he maketh himself within the limits fixed by his inherited destiny; he is a part of mankind; his actions affect not only what he calleth himself, but also the whole universe.
• 10. Worship and neglect not, the physical body which is thy temporary connection with the outer and material world. Therefore let thy mental Equilibrium be above disturbance by material events; strengthen and control the animal passions, discipline the emotions and the reason, nourish the Higher Aspirations.
• 11. Do good unto others for its own sake, not for reward, not for gratitude from them, not for sympathy. If thou art generous, thou wilt not long for thine ears to be tickled by expressions of gratitude.
• 12. Remember that unbalanced force is evil; that unbalanced severity is but cruelty and oppression; but that also unbalanced mercy is but weakness which would allow and abet Evil. Act passionately; think rationally; be Thyself.
• 15. Nevertheless have the greatest self-respect, and to that end sin not against thyself. The sin which is unpardonable is knowingly and wilfully to reject truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices.

So, the target for this is for “newbies” — people who are joining the group. Just in case it isn’t obvious, these are people who are not yet aware (or fully aware) of their Will. This is a general instruction meant to guide people along the path to become Thelemites.

• The general themes are toward restraint, to avoid false vanity, to respect and honor oneself, to do things for their own sake.
• I want to bring special attention to items 12 & 15.
  • We can see these in modern politics. Calls for unbalanced mercy are routinely made in Identity Politics, Migration Policy, etc
  • Failure to practice unbalanced mercy are met with equally unbalanced severity, as can be seen by anti-fa, BAMN, etc
  • As an aside, the terms mercy and severity refer to the right and left pillars of the Hermetic Qabalah (I am unsure if they are also in the original Jewish Qabalah).
  • Thelema, being a Middle Path tradition (as is the original Buddhism), exhorts us to follow the Middle Pillar (aka Aaron’s Rod).
  • 15 makes an allusion to the unpardonable sin of Christianity (there is only one). Which is to sin against the Holy Spirit. As we are all gods, we are holy spirits, thus the only unpardonable sin is to sin against one’s self.
  • Obviously, any harm to ourselves cannot be forgiven, as that harms effects are everlasting, but we can overcome by ceasing to sin against ourselves.
  • The nature of this sin against ourselves? “Knowingly and wilfully to reject truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices”.
  • If only the entire world ran on that principle.
• Again, this work is pretty straightforward, and I think most of my commentary would be redundant repetition of the obvious.

With this we have pretty much covered the individual. We will move into the final work, “Duty”.
The best I can find for dating “Duty” is circa 1921. The manuscript is not dated and it was not printed during his lifetime. However, it does show Crowley’s thoughts on how Thelema would be applied to a broader context.
While several unofficial versions appeared from 1978 through 1994, the OTO published an official version in 1998.

• The linked version below is to the OTO website.
• Duty is divided into four parts.
• Part A covers one’s Duty to oneself. This holds a theme similar to the prior two works.
• Part B covers one’s Duty to other individual men and women. These are:
  • To seek union/interaction with others for mutual development
  • To avoid interfering with another’s will
  • If two wills do come into conflict, to battle as brothers. Conflict of this type is a form of Dialectic.
  • To, if it is one’s Will, instruct others who ask or to instruct those who are about to infringe on one’s will.
  • To recognize the divinity in others, just as one recognizes it in oneself.
• Part C covers one’s Duty to mankind.
  • This is to establish the law of Thelema.
  • This Law being a Law of Liberty, the aim of the legislature must be to secure the amplest freedom for each individual in the state, eschewing the presumptuous assumption that any given positive ideal is worthy to be obtained.
  • Crime is also viewed as interference with the Will of another.
  • And here is my guiding principle: “The rule is quite simple. He who violated any right declares magically that it does not exist; therefore it no longer does so, for him.”
  • Those who kill declare that they have no right to live. Those who steal declare that they have no right to private property. Those who interfere with another’s Freedom of Speech declare that they have no right to speak.
• Part D covers one’s Duty to all other beings and things.
  • This is summed up by applying the Law of Thelema to everything.
  • For those who want something a little more concrete, “It is a violation of the Law of Thelema to abuse the natural qualities of any animal or object by diverting it from its proper function, as determined by consideration of its history and structure.”
  • Essentially, treat yourself and the world with respect.
  • Clear-cutting the forest violates the integrity of the forest and its biodiversity. Logging does not, so long as what is taken is necessary and sustainable. Coercive behavior towards your fellow man is unacceptable. Really, most of the sane aspects of conservative and liberal practical ideology are all predicated on this simple principle.

Duty delineates a Thelemic Society.

• The purpose of a Thelemic Society is to enable its members to accomplish their wills
• The individual is paramount.
• However, the individual does not exist in isolation.
• The individual belongs to a network of relations which, if properly established, serve to enhance and define the individual.
• Since we define our universe via our perceptions, when we deny another some right, we are declaring its invalidity.
• We cannot demand a right that we have declared invalid by virtue of denying it to another.
• If you attempt to deny me a right, e.g. my right to physical integrity, you exclude yourself from my consideration of you on that right.
• E.g. if you try to hit me, I can hit you back.

Alright, so what does all this mean? I’ll attempt to synthesize these works. This is my interpretation. I will undoubtedly integrate knowledge from other works, both Thelemic and non, into this. I will endeavor to attribute them all appropriately.
It is important to remember that Thelema is about the will. Its purpose is to assist you in manifesting your will. However, it may very well be that it is some people’s will to not explicitly know their will — and this is fine. Existence is pure joy, so as long as what you are doing is filling you with joy, we can infer that you are doing your will. Librae and Duty are geared toward people who have not yet attained knowledge of their will.
My key take-away for interpersonal relations is that you deny yourself any right that you deny to another. The murderer has no right to life. The Thief has no right to enjoy the fruits of their labor — especially property. The person who would remove another’s right to speak has no right to free speech. It is actually very simple. I know I have been harping on this theme, but it is something that I believe in passionately.
Now, what about OZ? What about those who have come to understand their own wills. This is a common enough concept, rife throughout religion and philosophy. The Stoic Sage, the Taoist Sage, the Confucian Superior Man, the Christian “Saved” (at least in some conceptions), and (I would argue) Nietzsche’s Ubermensch exist in an exalted state where the common rules do not apply. They are not, however, free from physics or its spiritual equivalent. OZ specifically exists for these people, and it can be summed up as “You have the right to do your will and destroy those who would prevent it”.
Now, it may be your will to travel a path that will result in conflict. That does not mean that it is your will to win that conflict. Your will may be to conflict with another will and from that dialectical conflict, a proper path will emerge. Crowley does advise caution. He tells us that, while it may be our will to descend a cliff, it may not be our will to do so by stepping over the edge and plummeting to our death.
Many of these topics are elaborated in Magick Without Tears, a work Crowley completed just prior to his death.

• It generally represents his final thoughts on a topic
• In some cases, this represents a contradiction of earlier positions
• A classic example argued in Thelemic Circles is whether Thelema is a religion.
  • To sum up, our system is a religion just so far as a religion means an enthusiastic putting-together of a series of doctrines, no one of which must in any way clash with Science or Magick.
  • Call it a new religion, then, if it so please your Gracious Majesty; but I confess that I fail to see what you will have gained by so doing, and I feel bound to add that you might easily cause a great deal of misunderstanding, and work a rather stupid kind of mischief.
  • The word does not occur in The Book of the Law.
  • MWT: XXXI: Religion–Is Thelema a "New Religion"?

So, yeah, I hope this was informativeTruth is found in the rubble of falsehood
Love is the law, love under will.

On Reality (Video, Notes, and Comments)

DWTWSBTWOTL

Update

• In Japan
  • Haven’t had time to do much more than film people on the street from my balcony
  • Samsung S8+
• Trying to figure out how to unobtrusively use my phone to take videos as I walk around. No one seems to have a lanyard for a cell phone…
• These videos are being posted on Vid.Me and YouTube
• Also, anything that could be said on the Google Memo has been stated quite well by the article “The Google Memo: Four Scientists Respond” (link below)
• And, Black Pidgeon Speaks just uploaded a hilarious video regarding the Chinese tourists busted for Sieg Heiling outside the Reichstag.
  • If only they had been raping children instead, they would have gotten a free pass, just as many refugees have. Link Below.
• On with the show

[TKK Excerpt]
I do believe in an actual objective reality.

• However, do to the mediating force of our senses, we cannot actually apprehend this reality
• However, I feel that a strong basis for postulating its existence can be drawn from the various commonalities of experience.
  • We all apprehend the sun, we can experience its light and warmth directly.
  • We can observe its effects on plants, animals, etc.
  • There is some objective truth which we interpret as the sun

Sadly, it is not just the senses interposing themselves between us and objective reality

• Our minds puts forth a filter which sifts through the sensory input
• This filters prioritizes and interprets phenomenon.
• Now I admit that I find Metaphysics confusing
  • Sadly, for me, Metaphysics is very important in this schema.
  • “being as such”, or rather our conception of it colors our understanding of “reality”

Our metaphysics give rise to our values

• Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that our values derive from the metaphysical interpretation of objective reality.
• Sadly, few people examine the values they hold
• Fewer people look at the metaphysical constructs which give form to those values
  • And yes, Heidegger is also confusing.
• I doubt anyone has looked at pure objective reality freed from the forms given it by our values and metaphysics. 

OK, so if people do not look at their values or examine their metaphysics, how are these values made available to them?

• There are two expressions of socio-cultural values
  • Art
  • Religion
• Now I am using some special definitions for these terms, so I will clarify.
• Art covers  all creative endeavors: music, painting, sculpture, poetry, video
  • One could argue that sex and procreation are also art
  • Art is a primal expression of socio-cultural values
    • Even degraded as it often is in the modern age
    • Early medieval art was ugly because it reflected the Early Christian view that the world was corrupt
    • Likewise many modern artworks are ugly to reflect a similar antipathy to the world as it is.
    • Our liking of a piece of art is often dependent on how it reflects the internalized values we hold.
• Religion covers all ideologies that govern the relationship of the self and not-self.
  • Those things which give us a place in the world
  • Those things which define the I’s relationship to the not-I.
  • So, yes, in this sense, Atheism is Religion
  • So is Science

Below Religion is the manifestation of the Political

• Religion tends to focus on the relationship of the self to the eternal
• Politics is focused on the temporal.
  • One’s conception of the eternal will color one’s perceptions of the temporal.
• However, with the death of god, the center which anchored human society was broken.
• This has created some hybrid ideologies, such as Humanism, Communism, or Fascism.
• This also explains the cultish behavior of various SJWs and Groups like BAMN, Anti-fa, or Wobblies.
• As opiates are synthetic endorphins, so are these ideologies a synthetic “religion”.
• And just like heroin destroys the mind and body, so do these ideologies destroy the mind and soul.
  • But I digress

Now we finally get to Morals, which are the practical application of your values, religious beliefs, and political structures.

• For example, the moral belief that murder is bad derives from a value that holds human life as important, a religious injunction (e.g. Do not murder), and political laws (e.g. the criminalization of homicide).

This whole process can be summed by Chapter 38 of the Tao Teh Ching

• The Tao Teh Ching is my second favorite set of Scripture.
• Translation by Derek Lin from Taoism.net
  • Therefore, the Tao is lost, and then virtue
  • Virtue is lost, and then benevolence
  • Benevolence is lost, and then righteousness
  • Righteousness is lost, and then etiquette
  • Those who have etiquette
  • are a thin shell of loyalty and sincerity
  • And the beginning of chaos
• Modern society operates on a level far from “Reality”
• To be fair, this problem has been around for, at least, the 4th century BCE
  • Even I don’t posit that the Modern Age started that far back.

While I have explained these in a linear fashion, it should be noted that they are actually reciprocal. Things lower provide feedback to those higher. Those parallel feed into each other. It is all actually very dynamic. Religion defines the avenues of science and science validates or invalidates religion. God didn’t die of old age, Science killed him, and into the void flew a multitude of similar, but competing, ideologies.
What benefit does this knowledge/structure/System give us.

• Well we can see what trumps what and what influences what.
• It allows us to analyze our own system of beliefs
• To understand where these beliefs came from.

One of the biggest problems I see with modern social movements is their inability to understand what they are promoting.

• They are generally working at the level of morals with occasional bumps into Politics.
• They do not examine (and many do not even acknowledge) what I have termed the Religious elements.
• They conflate their morals with Values
  • This can be seen by the contradictory impulses that both support and oppose any given value.
  • They say they value equality, but posit unequal treatment of various group
  • They say they value women, but support groups who oppress women
  • They say they value pacifism, but continually vote for warmongers
  • They say they value certain ethnic groups, but promote policies that destroy those same groups.
• A simple analysis of their behavior through the system I have outlined, and an understanding of the hierarchical nature of these items would bring a level of sanity and clarity to our social interactions.

So, to sum up.

• Reality exists, but none of us can actually apprehend it objectively.
• Reality is mediated through a series of layers which reciprocally influence each other.
• Our values are expressed in our art and “religion”.
• The lowest of these is morality.
  • I sneer at the good person, those who can, do, those who can’t console themselves with how moral they are.
  • [Crass Clip]
• Only by examining these layers can we come to understand what we are doing
• Only by understanding what we are doing can we eliminate contradictory impulses
• Only by eliminating contradictory impulses can we succeed in implementing the values we actually hold.
• Further, an understanding of all of this is necessary to apply reason and chart a path to maximize our individual freedom and garner success for our beliefs.
• This illustrates some of what Crowley meant by “A Devil With Unity Would Be A God”.

As a side note:

• The occultist works with Art and Religion to manifest their Values.
• Magick is the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will. (AC, MTP)

Truth is found in the Rubble of Falsehood
LITLLUW
Earlier blog post on this topic
Google Memo:Google’s Ideological Echo ChamberThe Google Memo: Four Scientists RespondNo, the Google manifesto isn’t sexist or anti-diversity. It’s science
Black Pigeon Speaks:https://vid.me/88Xq8
Derek Lin’s Tao Teh Ching: http://taoism.net/tao/tao-te-ching-online-translation/ (Note: This moved from it’s prior location)
Samples:My Life With the Thrill Kill Kult - Nervous XiansCrass - Berkertex Bribe
Opening:Kai EngelChant Of Night BladesDeathless: The RenaissanceLicense
Ending:Ami DengA Strange CommunityHukamLicense