Moving to Locals

 Tired of managing multiple spaces. YouTube killed my access (unjustly, I might add) so I created a Rumble. Rumble is tied to locals, so I have a locals page/forum. I plan on posting the scripts and the like there from now on.

https://thevoiceofthevision.locals.com/

[Script] Channel Introduction, Mini-Bio, & Plans (new Rumble channel)

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

Welcome to the latest iteration of “Frater O+X Speaks”. I’d been thinking about starting a Rumble channel, but YouTube forced my hand by spuriously suspending my channel because “Spam, scams or commercially deceptive content are not allowed on YouTube,” despite the fact that I’ve never engaged in any of these practices.

When I pointed out that I did not sell anything, try to sell anything, or respond except to the comment or video in question (& that sparingly), and further, I haven’t been posting much of anything over the past year as I was deployed, courtesy of the US Military, they (to paraphrase a bit) told me, “So What?”

Anyway, enough of the duplicitous inquisition of Silicon Valley.

I am Frater O+X. I have gone by various other names, both online and in Occult circles. Prior names have included Nexist, Nexist Xenda’ths, 31Seel, Gaeryth, Vividus Propter Deperire, IAO SABAO, and Eli Lith.

I have studied a wide variety of Occultic and Religious practice##s. I am demitted from both the Freemasons and the Ordo Templi Orientis. I am a Master Mason, I went through the degrees of the Scottish Rite, but did not work them. In the OTO, I am a Sovereign Prince Rose-Croix, and Knight of the Pelican & Eagle (or V*). I am an ordained priest of the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica. I also spent a few years practicing Alexandrian Wicca prior to joining the OTO. All in all, I have spent 35 years practicing various forms of Occultism, three decades of which were specifically Thelemic. I hold a degree in Asian Studies, with a focus on Japanese Religion and Art.

This is nowhere near complete, but I hate people who tell you how great they are — it should be self-evident. I am currently unaffiliated with any organized group and the thoughts expressed are my own. They are derived from the materials referenced and through a logical extension of those ideas. I start with the radical idea that Crowley might have known what he was talking about when it comes to Thelema.

So, where to from here. My goal is to discuss various topics of interest to the aspiring Thelemite. I will discuss Thelema, Primordial Tradition, various Religions, and Philosophy. I will discuss the occasional book, song, or other media. I plan on trying to put out one video a month to start.

Since I am not pretty, you won’t be looking at me.

Truth is found in the rubble of falsehood.

Love is the law, love under will.

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.

Section I.3: A Brief Description of Lilith.

 

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
– William Shakespeare (1564-1616), Romeo and Juliet Act II, scene ii

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

Leadership and Followership

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

The following derives from some readings on Chinese philosophy (Confucian) and a discussion thread on Facebook with a senior member of the OTO. While these criticisms started as specific to the OTO, they are applicable to any leadership and follower-ship situation. In other words, do not take this as a criticism of the OTO, but of a dynamic at play with multiple organizations operating within the modern world.

Mengzi

I would like to start with a selection from Mengzi, or Mencius, Book 1, Part B, Chapter 6 — or Mengzi 1B6. I apologize in advance for any butchering I do with the pronunciation of transliterated Chinese.

Mengzi spoke to King Xuan of Qi, saying, “If, among Your Majesty’s ministers, there was one who entrusted his wife and children to a friend, and traveled to the state of Chu, and when he returned, he discovered that his friend had let his wife and children become cold and hungry – how should he deal with this?”

The King said, “Abandon him.”

Mengzi said, “If the Sergeant-at-Arms is not able to keep order among the scholars, how should one deal with this?”

The King said, “Discharge him.”

Mengzi said, “If the reign within the four borders is not well ordered, then how should one deal with this?”

The King turned toward his attendants and changed the topic.

Facebook Thread

OTO: Leadership and How the Lack Thereof Impacts the Unfolding of One’s Will (Excerpt from Thelemic Discussion Group)

I apologize in advance for using “They” as a gender neutral singular pronoun. However, I do not have permission to use the other parties name & decided to use it to preserve anonymity

On the Thelemic Discussion Group, as often occurs, a discussion came around to the leadership of the OTO. The usual participants were present and the discussion came down to a comparison of strong leaders or independent sovereign Thelemites. Since “or” is typically interpreted in such cases as being exclusive (XOR), I asked why it needed to be so. [A Senior member of the OTO], whom I have known for many years, clarified that the XOR was inferred by myself. They didn’t quite deny that it was an XOR. They then asked “How does having any leaders of whatever caliber interfere with us doing our work?” Below is my edited and slightly expanded response.

Thank you for answering rather than going straight to asking me for my opinion. It is a refreshing change.

Being in the military, I have been taught leadership principles. I’ve also read up on the subject, both titles recommended by the military and those recommended by friends. The essential point I feel that is relevant is that, no matter what modern ideology claims, we exist in a framework. That framework can be either overtly hierarchical (as in the military) or covertly hierarchical (as in society), or both. As such, any leader is also a follower. A primary principle of good leadership is that one must also be a good follower. This is a classic example of leading by example. If I do not follow the instructions of those above me, how can I logically expect those under me to follow my instruction (this is also explained in “Duty”). It is a basic magickal principle.

As to your question, we joined the OTO. The OTO is an overtly hierarchical organization. The OTO is meant to be a force for manifesting the Law of Thelema within society. It is described as being militant in nature. This means we need a plan of attack, a way of coordinating the battle so that our forces are not dissipated. While I don’t claim that corporations are people, it is logical to extend certain principles to any organization. The OTO has a “Will” (which I described above). If one’s will is not focused, then, as Crowley explains for the individual aspirant, one works at cross-purpose and fails to manifest one’s will. This is the case for organizations as well.

Our magickal work is our own. The exact details of our work as a vehicle for manifesting our will is our own as well. However, by virtue of our being drawn to and having joined the OTO, the “will” of the OTO is necessarily a component of our will. The purpose of initiation into a body is to align ourselves with that body, to incorporate that body’s goals into our own will.

If the leaders fail to unify our strategy (if I may extend the analogy, if they fail to play the part of the HGA for the OTO) then that component of our will is frustrated.

Any argument regarding leadership, organizations, and the individual’s will that fails to take into consideration that we are not isolate individuals is inherently flawed. Other people’s actions do act upon and modify the expression of our will. If the brain ceases to perform its job, the hands and feet will be hampered. The body may not die, autonomous systems will continue to perform, but effective action is stymied. The hand will still be a hand and may still develop in strength and “Hand-ness,” but the body will be ineffective. Likewise, if the leadership of an organization fails to lead, the members of that body will, by extension, be hampered in their will which was to, at least in part, manifest the will of the organization they joined. One could argue that the failure of the leadership to lead is, in fact, a betrayal of the membership.

Truth is found in the rubble of falsehood.
Love is the law, love under will.

Bibliography

Ivanhoe, Philip J. And Bryan W. Van Norden, ed. Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2005.

Video Locations:

• LBRY: https://open.lbry.com/@O+X:5/Leadership-and-Followership:8?r=4qeuPNGvz2DHWJXWrWn8Ev1a3shNU7mo
• Youtube: https://youtu.be/KbDtvaqWU2M
• Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/pyQabNYJYBCE/

The Confession of St. Judas McCabbage

I believe in Charles Darwin Almighty, maker of Evolution; and in Ernst Haeckel, his only son our Lord Who for us men and for our salvation came down from Germany: who was conceived of Weissmann, born of Büchner, suffered under du Bois-Raymond, was printed, bound, and shelved: who was raised again into English (of sorts), ascended into the Pantheon of the Literary Guide and sitteth on the right hand of Edward Clodd: whence he shall come to judge the thick in the head.

I believe in Charles Watts; the Rationalist Press Association; the annual dinner at the Trocadero Restaurant; the regularity of subscriptions, the resurrection in a sixpenny edition, and the Book-stall everlasting.

AMEN.

Originally published in The Equinox Vol. I:1, special supplement “John St. John”

NX: I attempted to link the names mentioned as best I could. The ones with only a last name could be in error. Charles Watts could refer to the linked person, or his father. I chose the one who founded the Rationalist Press Association.

Invocation of (the Spirit of) Coffee

O coffee! By the mighty Name of Power do I invoke thee, consecrating thee to the Service of the Magic of Light. Let the pulsations of my heart be strong and regular and slow! Let my brain be wakeful and active in its supreme task of self-control! That my desired end may be effected through Thy strength, Adonai, unto Whom be the Glory for ever! Amen without lie, and Amen, and Amen of Amen.

From The Equinox supplement “John St. John”, The Third Day 10.40

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)

Mircea Eliade's Journal Entry on Julius Evola's Death

July [1974]

Today I learn of the death of Julius Evola. Our last meeting goes back about ten years, even though I have passed through Rome several times since then. Memories surge up in me, those of my years at university, the books we had discovered together, the letters I received from him in Calcutta in which he instantly begged me not to speak to him of yoga, or of “magical powers,” except to report precise facts to which I had personally been a witness. In India I also received several publications from him, but I only remember a few issues of the journal Krur.

I had met him for the first time in 1937 at Nao Ionescu’s. Besides the three of us, Octave Onicescu and our professor’s current girlfriend were also there. That very morning Evola had had the opportunity to talk with Codreanu, and that meeting had impressed him greatly. Since Evola had asked him about the political tactics he expected to employ and the Legion’s chances during the coming elections, Codreanu had spoken to him about the effects of incarceration on the individual, of the ascesis it provokes, the contemplative virtues that can arise there, in solitude, a silence and a darkness which are just so many means by which an individual is revealed to himself. Evola was still dazzled by him. I vaguely remember the remarks he made then on the disappearance of contemplative disciplines in the political battle of the West.

Then the war came, and I heard nothing more of Evola until the day when I received his letter from Rome at the Hôtel de Suède. He had obtained my address through René Guénon, who must have gotten it himself from Valsan. He let me know that he was henceforth “immobilized for the rest of his days,” but that he would be happy to see me at his home, in the event that I should pass through Rome.

That is what I did in August 1949, after having notified him by phone of my visit. Having arrived at his home, I was taken into the drawing room where his father and a nurse asked me to wait while they helped him get up from his chair. He greeted me standing up and shook my hands for a long time. Then his father and the nurse helped him to sit down again, which he couldn’t have done himself without collapsing. We talked for over an hour. He told me that since from then on he had all the time in the world, he took advantage of it by translating French and German authors. He also spoke about Metaphysics of Sex, a book he was planning to write. We were at that point in our conversation when he took a little key out of his pocket, showed me an ivory elephant, and told me how to open it. The elephant contained a miniature bar, with numerous flasks and little glasses all made of crystal. He asked me what I’d like to drink, but the afternoon was steamy, and I didn’t want any alcohol. He insisted, however, under the pretext that we were carrying out a rite and I had to submit to it. I had to give in, and we both raised our glasses before ceremoniously drinking the contents.

I was to see Evola only once more, in 1952 or 1953, but we corresponded regularly. One day I received a rather bitter letter from him in which he reproached me for never citing him, no more than did Guénon. I answered him as best I could, and I must one day give the reasons and explanations that that response called for. My argument couldn’t have been simpler. The books I write are intended for today’s audience, and not for initiates. Unlike Guénon and his emulators, I believe I have nothing to write that would be intended especially for them.

Title	Eliade/Fagan: Journal III, 1970-1978 (AbeBooks)
Author	Mircea Eliade
Translated by	Teresa Lavender Fagan
Publisher	University of Chicago Press, 1989
ISBN	0226204081, 9780226204086

Partial Text on Google Books

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/

Thelemic Ritual of the Hexagram

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

The hexagram ritual is required for any serious working. The Great Work happens in the space consecrated by the Hexagram. Work done under the auspices of the Pentagram may be supportive, but it is ultimately the realm of man and the material world. The hexagram is the realm of god and the spirit.

To put it another way, The pentagram raises one to the cross of the elements to allow one to exert force over Netzach, Hod, and Yesod. These, in turn, influence Malkuth. The hexagram rite places you in Tiphareth which is a far more stable location, being a sephira, for influencing these sephiroth.
The pentagram ritual is below the Veil of Parkoreth. The hexagram ritual is performed from the place of Knowledge and Conversation with one’s Holy Guardian Angel.

The importance of the hexagram ritual is shown by its inclusion in Liber O[0], the primary introductory text for Thelemic magick. Essentially, the hexagram ritual is in the same tier as learning how to assume a god-form, vibrate a holy name, perform the pentagram ritual, and of learning the basics of Astral Projection.

Crowley’s primary source for Hermetica was the Golden Dawn, and the Golden Dawn does have a hexagram ritual. In my copy of Regardie’s The Golden Dawn, it can be found on page 287–299.[1] As David Cherubim points out in his commentary on his version of the ritual. The original, Golden Dawn, hexagram ritual began and ended with a Qabalistic Cross identical to that of the Pentagram Ritual. Crowley changed this to the “Analysis of the Key Word”. This text is lifted from the Golden Dawn’s Adeptus Minor ritual[2] (i.e., Tiphareth). The text, from Liber O, reads:

I, N, R, I
Yod, Nun, Resh, Yod
Virgo, Isis, Mighty Mother
Scorpio, Apophis, Destroyer
Sol, Osiris, Slain and Risen.
Isis, Apophis, Osiris
IAO
The sign of Osiris Slain
The Sign of the Mourning of Isis
The Sign of Apophis and Typhon
The Sign of Osiris Risen.
LVX Lux Light of the Cross

This formulation is, despite its Egyptian trappings, pure Christian symbolism. The old Aeonic Christ dies, is lamented by Mary, Satan celebrates, and victory is snatched away by Christ’s resurrection. As Liber AL II:5 says, “ Behold! the rituals of the old time are black. Let the evil ones be cast away; let the good ones be purged by the prophet! Then shall this Knowledge go aright.”

To this end, I present a Thelemic Hexagram Ritual. I use a variation of the form published by David Cherubim, and recommended to me by Gerald del Campo, many years ago.

While more substantive in content than the changes made to the Thelemic Pentagram ritual, they are still rather minor.

I, N, R, I
Yod, Nun, Resh, Yod
Virgo, Iacchus, Holy Father
Scorpio, Asi, Holy Mother
Sol, Orus, Holy Child
Iacchus, Asi, Orus
IAO
The Sign of Orus
The Sign of the Dance of Asi
The Sign of the Joy of Iacchus
The Sign of the Blazing Star
LVX Lux Light of the Cross

Note that the sign order is the same: +, L, V, X. However, this formulation of the ritual gives us the IAO/OAI formula (q.v. The Vision & the Voice, 2nd Aethyr, ARN). I am providing a link to the various signs in the description[3]. I recommend the serious student learn all of them.

David Jones[4] explained to me that the Hexagram ritual’s elemental attributions corresponds to the Enochian system, so I use the Elemental colors of Enochian (White=Fire, Black=Earth, Red=Air, and Green=Water).

Since this ritual is mostly in English, little translation is needed. Only INRI and ARARITA need explanation. INRI is a formula that was adapted from Christianity. An Acronym for Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum, or Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews, the Latin alphabet is mapped to the Hebrew (as given on the second line), which corresponds to the Tarot cards of The Hermit, Death, and The Sun. Their study is recommended in understanding this term.

ARARITA is another acronym (or, more accurately, Notariqon). It is a latinization of the Hebrew phrase “Achad Rosh Achdotho Rosh Ichudo Temurato Achad”, or, as commonly translated, “One is His Beginning; One is His Individuality; His Permutation is One.”

I am including a link to the text of this variant in the description[5]. As with the standard Lesser Ritual of the Hexagram, the Greater is crafted by adding the Planetary Hexagram to the Elemental performed after the Analysis of the Key Word.

If you enjoyed this video, please like and subscribe.

Truth is found in the Rubble of Falsehood 

Love is the law, love under will 

---

[0]: Liber O: http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/libero.htm

1. Regardie, Israel. The Golden Dawn. St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn, 1990.  ↩
   
2. The Adeptus Minor Ritual Can be found on page 225.  ↩
   
3. http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Ritual_signs  ↩
   
4. https://hermetic.com/jones/index  ↩
   
5. https://dar205.blogspot.com/2017/03/thelemic-lesser-ritual-of-hexagram.html  ↩
   

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.

Anime As Prophecy, the Case of Armitage III

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

I know many of you will be surprised by this, but someone on the Internet likes anime. Now there are several broad categories of anime. The broadest, of course is (1) “What I  Like”, and (2) Crap. However, that isn’t very useful for most discussions, so I will divide the “What I Like” category up a bit. I like anime that makes you think without being preachy. Anime that makes you think is further divided into two categories, Light and Dark. Light, thoughtful anime would include a large swathe of Studio Ghibli (notable exception is Grave of the Fireflies). The other category includes Akira, Ghost In the Shell, Jin-Roh, and Armitage III.

The thing about thoughtful anime is that it brings up questions that retain their relevance over time. The recurring idea of humanity’s relationship to nature, what does it mean to be human, etc, etc.

Armitage III Intro Clip

Armitage III was an OVA put out in 1995. Thankfully, a movie of hacked together scenes was dubbed and released to Americans. This is when I first saw it. This caused me to pick up The Complete Saga, which contains the Original OVA (far superior), the pieced together Poly-Matrix, and the sequel Dual-Matrix.

There are going to be some spoilers here, however, the anime is over two decades old. While I hope you will still watch it, most people won’t.

So, the set-up involves the Human Ross Syllibus and the Android Naomi Armitage. Whenever I see the name Naomi, I have to do a check to see if it's a reference to Jun'ichirō Tanizaki. In this case, it isn't, or at least I don't believe it is. Ross flees to Mars in hopes of dealing with various issues. His partner was killed by cyborgs (or androids) leaving him with a lingering prejudice against both. This is combined with his increasing reliance on various prosthetics as various body parts have a tendency to get blown up in his line of work. This is one of the questions asked by this movie, where is the line between human and non-human. Naomi is the titular character. She is a secret android of a previously unknown type, the Type III (or Thirds). There existence is revealed rather early in the series.

The type III is an android developed with the mental faculties of a human. Actually, from the examples in the Anime, they are actually better than most humans. Their bodies are (ala terminator) flesh and metal. The primary conflict of the series is that someone is killing off the type III androids. These androids had been embedded within society without anyone being the wiser. Those who knew the deceased were shocked to find out that they were androids.

As the story unfolds, we find that a shadowy cabal is doing the killing, Ross gets over his hangups. Armitage gets over hers (”If humans don’t want me, why did they create me?”). They fall in love and they change their names and go into hiding. This sets up things for the sequel.

The shadowy cabal is where it gets interesting. Mars, being a colony, was settled by (mostly) men. Earth had finally achieved the Feminist dream and Feminists were in control. This led to obvious friction between the two planets. Earth had the upper hand however, as without women, there would be no one to bear the next generation of Martians. Shades of "Mars Needs Women", perhaps. Thus the third was invented. Fully sentient gynoids capable of bearing children. It should be noted that they were not ‘enslaved’ nor ‘coerced’. Many were prominent in various artistic and social circles. It seems that none had found mates or produced children (though one of the murdered thirds was pregnant).

As happens with long term projects, things change before they come to fruition. The Martian government came to an accord with the Terran government. The requirement for this reconciliation was the elimination of the threat to the Terran Feminist, the III. The data dump of this is about midway through the fourth and final episode, in case you missed the foreshadowing in the prior three episodes.

Now, I really enjoy the Armitage III anime. As I said, I bought the DVD set. However, what really got me thinking about it was the various diatribes of Feminist anti-Sex Robot rhetoric. A simple Google search will find various opinions on Sexbots and their impact on feminism. MGTOW types view them as detrimental to (latter-stage) feminism, and, given their opposition, later-stage feminism seems to agree.

Now, it has long been recognized that sex is the primary weapon women have over men. It’s been true for centuries. It forms the premise of the Greek play Lysistrada, circa 411 BC. Frankly, men will put up with a lot if the end result is sex. A lot of selfish, self-destructive behavior has been tolerated purely because women decide who they will or will not have sex with. As is common with most socio-political activity, the extreme tends to mobilize the center. Even women who aren’t radical feminists like the idea of more power and authority, so they act in solidarity with the more extreme elements. This has led to an ever increasing set of laws and regulations designed to give more and more agency to women by regulating the one thing men really care about and which they cannot get from anyone else.

Enter the sexbot. Now I remember seeing Real Dolls in the mid/late-90s. I’ve also kept an eye on android research in East Asia. It is rather fascinating, and it was inevitable that these two things would meet. As long as it could be stigmatized as a pet project by low market males that confirms their undesirability, Sexbots could be ignored. However, dissatisfaction with the subjugation of men by women (often codified into law), certain movements (of varying levels of repute) have arisen that called into question whether the refusal to engage in the modern dating game was actually a signifier of low market value. Either way, it seems that, for many men, the limit of what they will put up with for decreasingly satisfying sexual activity has been reached.

"Sex is Boring" clip from Sid & Nancy

So yeah, I don’t really think that an Armitage III scenario will occur within my lifetime, and I doubt that androids capable of reproduction will occur, but I do think that, should the sexbot gain enough traction before the feminists can squash it, it will lead to a radical re-evaluation of male-female relationships. If all a woman offers is sex, sex which can be satisfactorily filled by sexbots, women will have to come up with something else in order to entice men. This may lead to a world where women revert to more traditional roles, or some new expression may be carved out. We may enter a world where high-value men have multiple high value women, and everyone else has sex robots to reduce tensions. Who knows?

To be fair I should probably mention the doomsday scenario. This is the current trend anyway, with sex often being an inadequate substitute for masturbation and the demands of Modernist society (which rates motherhood and children as undesirable) leading to lowered birth rates. There is a concern that sexbots (both male and female) will lead to a world were reproductive needs are sublimated and a viable population is no longer available, in which case, we would stop breeding and the human race will die out. I suppose the question here is how many people are really necessary for a viable population.

Second part of Armitage III intro clip

I Hope you enjoyed these musings.

If you enjoyed this video, please like and subscribe.

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

Not really a citation, but this site came to my attention before recording this:
https://campaignagainstsexrobots.org/

Armitage III

The Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law

This essay came about from a discussion on another forum. It dates from about a year and a half ago. Some Edits have been made to (hopefully) clarify the text.

All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself. (AL: Comment)

In the Tunis Comment, which is often used by the OTO and other self-identified Thelemites to stifle/avoid open discussion on what it means to be a Thelemite, we are instructed to look to Crowley’s writings. It strikes me as strange that his full commentaries are not in print. We were promised them back in the 1990s, but they have not materialized.

While the commentaries, which I understand to be abridged, are available online, the only published commentaries are out of print. This includes the “new” version of The Law is for All (1996) [Priced 26 May 2018 at $118 used]. The gold standard for commentaries has always been the Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law (1974). This book has been out of print for some time. I almost had a heart attack when I realized that replacing it would cost about a $1000  [Priced 26 May 2018 at $765 used].

This book contains the Old and New Commentaries interspersed with the verses, and the Djeridensis Comment at the end. The old and new comments are differently edited than those of the original Law is for All (1983) [26 May Only $75 used]. Reading them all is probably the best option available to us. I will continue to wish for a complete, faithful edition of Crowley’s commentary, preferably with footnotes explaining any references, people, or places alluded to by the text.

Anyway, the commentary is important. It elaborates on the metaphysics underpinning the new Æon as understood by Crowley--who is enjoined in the text to do this. Accepting the Law means accepting the spiritual authority of Crowley as the prophet of the new Æon, and this text tells you what that means.

The text must be read carefully and repeatedly. There are many things that will upset modern readers, entrenched as they are in the modern worldview. Then again, I am very amused by how long passages of the most objectionable type (e.g. on women) are then followed by a “but we of Thelema reverse all of this”.

While writing this, I noticed that The Hermetic Library has a Magical & Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law section under Liber AL vel Legis. I do not know if this is an actual transcription of the book or merely the old and new comments combined. I also spied the Djeridensis Comment, but the formatting of Chapter I is odd (it is in two columns in the book). (While checking to see if it is a faithful reproduction, I found that it is incomplete) [Note: As of 26 May 2018, it seems to be complete].

Further reading can be found at the bottom of The Hermetic Library’s Liber AL vel Legis page (Additional Reading is at the bottom).

#thelema #liberal #crowley #outofprintbookspissmeoff

Sargon/Spencer/Styx Video and the Liberalist Movement (with unrelated montage of pretty women)

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

This was originally in my Video Blog notes, but since it grew too long, I split it out.

Over on Minds, I’ve been commenting on the Sargon/Spencer/Styx video.

• I knew Sargon was popular, but I never realized how much.
• Let me preface by stating that, while I watched Sargon’s commentary on his performance, and some other related videos, I did not watch the original video which clocks in at about 4 and a half hours..
• I made it to 20 minutes before I had to stop
• I should mention that Sargon was late, so I only really watched about five minutes with him in it.
• Styx, Spencer, and Tara were having a discussion that might have become interesting.
• Now I should point out that Spencer was hostile and rude.
• However, Sargon has made a name for himself by being rude.
• And if he can’t handle people being rude back, he should stop 
• However, Sargon pretty much lost it.
• He descended into emotionalism
• He kept trying to parrot his talking points even though they weren’t relevant
• In short, he acted just like your typical SJW.
• Now, I am subscribed to Sargon and I will watch some of his shorter videos.
• I don’t find his longer videos to be a good return on my investment.
• In the 80s/90s, I spent a fair amount of time in coffee shops in and around various campuses.
• We spent a lot of time high as a kite theorizing about things.
• I often feel like I am at a table next to some people doing this when I listen to Sargon.
• To put it another way, I don’t feel that Sargon has a very deep understanding of the material he espouses.
• He can easily overcome your typical SJW, leftist, or progressive.
• However, anyone who has studied history, philosophy, etc, etc will beat him as handily as he beats the SJWs
• This was demonstrated in the video where he debated Spencer.
• Spencer is by no means the most informed member of the alt-right.
• However, he is rather informed in his area. People who I know, who are rather knowledgeable and who are on the alt-right, criticize Spencer’s capabilities as a debater.
• Now let me preface that I cringed at the usage of the term “Rights “ being used for the state.
• While a state may have certain rights granted to it by other states
• What they were discussing was power, the states power over the individual for the express purpose of maintaining the society.
• While we can quibble over the coercive nature of the “Social Contract” for subsequent generations, the idea is that the state protects its citizens and its citizens give it power over them.
• When Sargon trotted out Locke’s definition of a society, he was quoting an ideal.
• I.e., it doesn’t exist and is (likely) impossible to implement in its pure form.
• We can hold an ideal as a yardstick for evaluating the acceptability of the practice
• However, we should not conflate the two.
• When Spencer, admittedly rudely, pointed out the irrelevance of the quote as an answer to the question
• Sargon lost it
• This, to me, indicates that Sargon has not thought about the issue and its ramifications
• He should have considered how what he desires, the ideal, differs from what is.
• He should have thought about why this discrepancy is and whether it needs to be rectified or not, and how he would go about rectifying it.

What saddens me the most about this is that I really wanted to know what the various people thought on the issue(s).

• What do Spencer, Styx, and Sargon mean when they use the term “Race Realism”.
• I know what I mean, but what do they mean?
• Likewise, the nuances of State, ethnic or otherwise, economics, etc
• The only way to correctly counter an error (if such errors exist) is to accurately define the error
• Otherwise we fall into the fallacy of straw man.

I don’t really want to get to deeply into the whole “Liberalist” thing, but

• I think that Sargon is seriously underestimating the amount of work required to run a group &/or movement.
• As much as you may dislike Spencer or Falarca, you have to admit they spend a lot of time running their groups.
• People who have little organizational experience often underestimate the amount of work required.
• Take it from someone who has started four groups, co-founded another, and been an officer in several others
• Just as a side note, I ended two of the four groups as I was (as I feel Sargon is) unprepared to manage them
• The other two were passed onto others & I believe they are also no more.
• I am no longer affiliated with the group I co-founded.
• Trust me, it will either get taken over by someone who knows what they are doing or collapse.
• If it gets taken over by someone else it will probably go in a direction Sargon does not desire
• I expect even more drama if this even gets off the ground.

I really wish there was a transcript of the debate, so I could read the whole thing rather than suffering through 4 plus hours.

If you enjoyed this video, please like and subscribe.

Truth is found in the Rubble of Falsehood

Love is the law, love under will

Citations and Notes

The Sargon/Spencer/Styx video

Sargon’s response video

Some articles on Counter Currents:

An Identitarian, a Civic Nationalist, & a Classical Liberal Walk into a Stream (the Third One Cucks)

The Skeptic War

Articles on Minds.Com

Sargon and the liberalist movement

The Problem with Sargon of Akkad and the Liberalists

Opening:

Kai Engel

Chant Of Night Blades

Deathless: The Renaissance

Download: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Kai_Engel/Deathless_The_Renaissance

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Ending:

Coil

The Hellbound Heart

Hellraiser Themes

https://www.discogs.com/Coil-Hellraiser-Themes/release/130646

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