THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org
From: nagasiva@luckymojo.com (nigris (333))
Subject: Re: Babalonian Vampirism and Black Brothers
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 06:59:18 -0800 (PST)

50000121 IVom

333:
> > >> promoted by devious and deluded humans, the project is the
> > >> inversion of the Great Work and carried out by thousands of
> > >> unsuspecting dupes of the Black Brothers, leading countless
> > >> hundreds to their doom.

333:
> > by co-opting the valuable ideas about self-liberation into
> > schemes which lead to self-enslavement. metaphors, applied
> > to mystical processes, constitute tools of individuation and
> > liberty. applied to religious processes (the method of
> > religion), it becomes a yoke supporting the ecclesiastical
> > authorities and the Agents of the Slave Gods.
 
"Joseph Thiebes" :
> ...What slave gods? Do you have criteria for determining 
> which get this esteemed title? ....

I've been looking for this in Crowley and asked Bill Heidrick
if he might do a key word search on the phrase 'slave god'
with little result as yet. I was SURE there were instances of 
Crowley's usage I'd remembered, but it isn't that important. 
I can provide a reflection on it based on my general 
understanding.

the Slave Gods aren't any specific deities except to the
assessment of the individual raver. it seems that one
identifies them by their requirement of their worshippers
bowing down, submitting to the whims and rules created by 
the god, and staying disempowered with respect to the god. 
if you get into this relationship with a god, then you know 
you have hit upon a Slave God. now it is possible that the
Slave God is actually an Agent in disguise (there being
no firm belief behind the ecclesiastical authority, who
merely wants to exploit you). it is also possible that
one takes up the worship of an object or collection of
objects to which one becomes subject. these would also
qualify as Slave Gods by my reckoning. I like:

	Thou shalt have no gods before Me.

I love the questions you ask, they are very incisive and
pinpoint the weaknesses in my dogmatic exhortations. at
times you are causing me to clarify and this is good. :>

> > >> our effort contributes toward our liberation. insufficiency
> > >> in the former results in failure of the latter.

> > it is a metaphorical "project", not some 'conspiracy' piloted
> > by some individual or group. the memes useful for the promul-
> > gation of the Law of Thelema are hijacked and misunderstood so
> > as to inspire conformity, the desecration of genius, and the
> > support of those who do the hijacking. it has ever been thus:
> > a struggle between mysticism and religion, mages and the
> > cultists who play at being mages.
> 
> If this "project" is metaphorical then why do you use terms 
> which suggest intentional behavior?

because it does seem intentional on the part of the individuals
who take it up as their activity.
 
> > >>> Are we not solely responsible for our actions?
> > >>
> > >> overly-estimated, I'd say. a combination contributes. the
> > >> timing is important. there are supporting characters also.
> > >> our choices are important elements in the pudding.
> 
> So why do you choose to emphasize the "project" rather than 
> the choices individuals may make? Certainly you don't think 
> the project is capable of undermining the will of Thelemites?

I use the term 'project' to emphasize that more often than not
the choice to accept cosmological and ecclesiastical structures
proceeds from the benefit which it affords those in power that
select it, and it occurs within a corporate enterprise. the
benefit of mythological and theological systems encouraging
submission to authority and dispersion of the individual's 
energies to support these authorities to a social authority 
which promotes it is quite obvious, as is the detriment it
represents to the individual who may be swayed into neglecting
their true interests.

and yes I do think that the project is capable of distracting
Thelemites from perceiving their true will and becoming a
sink of vampiric power within the Herd. this is why I have
attempted to identify it as having this potential.
 
> > next week I may defend the religious on some grounds, for
> > example.
> 
> I'd like to see that.

you can probably see it in the archives. occasionally someone
more fervent than I posts rude criticism of the religious and
there are no strident administrators to take up the defense.
in these cases I have come to their rescue. :> when I used to
watch football on tv, I would usually root for whoever was
losing the game at the time. more on this as a PS. 
 
> > identifying themselves as "Thelemic", organizations promote
> > the idea that to serve them is to serve Babalon in a kind of
> > disguised Herd-mongering. this identification and promotion
> > of joining the Herd as a 'good Thelemic activity' is very
> > clear evidence of this masquerade.
> 
> Hm. Well, my experience with Thelemic organizations is pretty 
> limited, but I don't see that happening. 

I'm very glad that this is the case. perhaps it was limited to
a particular set of interactions or individuals. I know I'm not
the only one with this experience, however.

> Since you have now implied that specific organizations and 
> therefore individuals are participating in this "masquerade" 
> or conspiracy of "vampirism," perhaps you would be willing to
> tell us all which ones....

I've seen it in the COTO, though in a limited sphere, and more
extremely I've seen it from members of small groups led by
prophets like the Thelema Ka'aba or led by Rosicrucianae like
the Thelemic Golden Dawn (the last has been variable). the
more fervent rivals for the Crown of "OTO" sometimes evince
this kind of submission to the Orderly Way as 'proper
Thelemic protocol'. it is often quite confusing. I presume
that mostly small groups can sustain it in any duration
before any hypocrisy becomes too obvious.

> > > And what is it specifically that you are referring to?
> > > Can you name names, or is this merely a meme that you
> > > are promulgating?
> >
> > any organization which claims to be "Thelemic" is corrupt
> 
> Give me a break. Let's hear some examples and evidence that 
> this is *ever* the case. If you manage to prove that, 
> perhaps you can devise a way to prove that it is *always* 
> the case, as you have stated.

there are many examples of orgs claiming to be Thelemic that
may be found in the archives of this email list. the very
fact that they claim it indicates their corruption, due to
indulgence in Herd-engendering and term-dispersement that
they are undertaking in separating 'thelema' as a distinct
and individual component and the promotion of it as something
which a group may integrate and support without ensuring the
brevity of its lifespan (something which organizations, like
individuals interestingly enough, do not like and sometimes
fear quite strongly).
  
> > and should be watched carefully for symptoms of this
> > corruption.
> 
> So you judge and *then* watch for evidence? How unscientific.

no, I think it is valuable that organizations make this
claim and attempt to achieve it. my observation of orgs
is that they naturally tend to feed on individual power
in order to sustain their continuation, and so any org
which is ostensibly aimed at supporting individual power
would be working against itself. to sustain this kind of
inner antithesis might be the perfect recipe for such
important goals as global peace, univeral anarchism,
and the liberation of the human (and other!) species.

however, I think we have a duty as individuals to beware 
of orgs, since by identifying AS organizations
(rather than functioning as an arm of the Great White
Brotherhood, disembodied, without strict coherence)
they clearly state their corruption with respect to
the individual. part of that wariness ought be to
watch it for the signs of corruption and put these
down in order to keep 'Thelemic' orgs to their stated
principles and aims.

this is one of the reasons that I think 'Thelemic orgs'
(so called) are valuably joined and supported. of the
orgs available (perhaps other than organized anarchism,
which is not, despite popular hype, a contradiction in
terms), these are surely the most profitable for the
individual to join and support in the long-term.
 
> > the Law of Thelema is an individual principle
> > of action, not something which can be applied to groups of
> > people. such groups as wish to associate do so because they
> > cannot find the Law within themselves or have misidenti-
> > fied it for Herd-think. the COTO is one of the organizations
> > which claims to be 'Thelemic', so it is an example.
> 
> Ridiculous. You think that the OTO is corrupt? Let's see 
> evidence. 

by 'corrupt' I mean that there is a breakage in the social
contract of 'Thelemicness' that occurs within it at points
of authoritative dispute. its top-down authority structure
and methods of 'resolving' these disputes is clearly at
odds with its ostensive support of individual sovereignty.

my original point was that by claiming to be 'Thelemic'
it EVIDENCES this corruption, but there are many other
aspects of the organization which may be evidence. note
that there are also good REASONS that this corruption
should be tolerated (thus I remain a member, natch).

one of these is that it is sometimes spoken of, and I
feel it functions well as, a TRANSITIONAL organization
as we pass between Aeons. inasmuch as I concur with the
notion that we are doing so, I think it is valuable to
have a spearhead organization promulgating the ideals
to which ALL organizations ought aspire (Thelemic). 

this does not mean that I would ignore the corruption
in any organization if I saw it or forget that orgs are
by their nature antagonistic to the individual (this is
a principle I have derived from my observation of them
in my life and in historical review).

> How much experience have you had with their system? 
> What is this judgement based on?

I've been a member for many years, had dealings with the
officers of the organization off and on during this time,
occasionally had a brush with 'breaking the rules' and
saw how this was handled in my case and in the case of
others, had acquaintances become upset at the way in
which their cases were handled and choose a number of
different responses inclusive of abandoning the org.

> Or is it simply that you think there is a contradiction 
> in terms within the phrase "Thelemic Organization?" 

mostly it was this that led me to my commentary about COTO
corruption, but there is a case to be made (probably moreso
for other orgs) about all organizations as far as I am
concerned.

> I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. If they are, 
> then simply being on this elist is corrupt. 

this elist is a forum, not an organization. there is a small
organization formed amongst the elist owner, mail-list
owner, and mod squad members. we do not claim, if memory
serves, to be "a Thelemic organization". :> I have had to
occasionally remind participants that this email list does
not bill itself as a 'Thelemic elist' but instead an 'elist
for discussion of Thelema'. some might consider that it
qualifies for both, but there are no claims made.

> Aren't you subjecting yourself to the vampirism of the 
> slave gods by reading these posts, and in fact engaging 
> in vampirism yourself by expressing ideas in a forum 
> where someone might put value in your ideas?

interaction with any fervent religious provides potential
exposure to such a vampirism, yes. merely expressing ideas
does not to me convey this vampirism, however. I think it
must include some kind of other-centered pursuit of
belonging and duty in order to qualify. I don't think
that I am encouraging such a pursuit. if you think that I
am doing so, I'd enjoy hearing about that in private.

> > ...who made them "saints"? by whose criterion
> > did they get named as such? who named them? why?
> 
> Crowley, as far as I know. I don't know why he 
> classified them as such, except that I agree with 
> the idea that they be categorized as saints, from
> what I know about them as historical figures.

what qualities do they share that you would so agree?
 
> > characters of heroes and weaklings alike are smeared so as to
> > promote the ideals valuable to the ecclesiastical hierarchs.
> 
> I haven't seen any smearing of the biographies of the Thelemic Saints.

that is a good sign. mostly I was referring to older and
more bureaucratic structures such as the Roman Catholic Church.
 
> > >> again I don't know much about them but I think the stories about
> > >> Babalon (aside from those found in "Revelation" of course) are
> > >> rather modern, so this is somewhat tangental.
> > >
> > > I don't think it is tangential. Saints of the EGC predate
> > > Crowley's references to Babalon.
> >
> > the "saints" to which I referred are the ones which Crowley
> > depicted as having 'given every last drop of their blood'
> > into Babalon's Cup (there are quite a few references to this
> > in his text).
> 
> Which persons did he name as saints, aside from the ones listed 
> in Liber XV?

those are all of which I am presently aware that are NAMED.
remember, there are a host of those (like women) who remain
unnamed (for whatever reason). they are described as regards
qualification (at least metaphorically, as I have mentioned).
 
> > >> knowing self-sacrifice to honorable ideals can yield liberation
> > >> in life or death. such a sacrifice under the Wheels of the
> > >> Social Machine only results in LUBRICation (of said wheels).
> > >> following orders is what the henchmen of dictators do best.
> > >
> > > I don't disagree with you here. How does this fit in with
> > > your idea of Babalonian Vampirism? How does Babalon call
> > > for submission to her will?  Specifically?
> >
> > Babalon merely revels in the excitement which is indulgence.
> > I don't see or hear Babalon calling for submission. those who
> > would identify Her AS a vampire, drinking the blood of presumed
> > saints who must sacrifice their all to Her, misunderstand Her,
> > I think, and try to use Her to inspire martyrs to their cause.
> 
> The saints are not all martyrs. In fact, I think only a small 
> minority died because of their beliefs. 

the martyrs are the epitome of devotion. one can provide of
one's time, energy, dedication, and therein exhibit a 
comparable end.

> I think perhaps you misunderstand the metaphor. Try looking at 
> the list that Crowley came up with and *then* see if you can
> figure out what he meant by draining one's blood into the cup 
> of Babalon.

Crowley meant some very valuable things in his usage. I would
be happy to hear what you thought he meant in reflection of
his actual text (quoted). my commentary on the vampirism is
that these are (perhaps even by him I cannot remember now)
twisted to have Her serve as vampire rather than a worthy 
goddess to whom devotion is well-deserved. these will tell
us to join the Herd and follow orders so that 'Babalon be
served' even though as I know Her She is not so supportive
of bureaucratic and ecclesiastical enterprises. She isn't
franchizing temples as far as I know.
 
> > > Isn't any myth dangerous?
> >
> > where the myth includes the worshipper destroying any part
> > of hirself that can be interpreted as one's whole for the
> > benefit of some god, then this is more dangerous than a
> > myth which features a god who values self-preservation
> > above service to any being (e.g. Satan).
> 
> I don't think either is more dangerous than the other. Ego 
> aggrandizement is just as risky as herd-mindedness is.

with ego aggrandizement one is putting oneself up on stilts
and must learn to walk or grow down to the ground once more.
combine this with the natural repulsion which tends to be
dealt as reaction to such aggrandizement in others and you
have an ordeal. with Herd-mindedness one is working against 
an edifice to STOP it, and so the latter is a kind of 
'slippery slope' and more dangerous to the individual.

> > > Just because it's dangerous, does that make it
> > > a conspiracy?
> >
> > of course not. but promoted by organized groups or cultists,
> > it becomes a tool of the wicked.
> 
> And those organizations or cultists are then by definition 
> wicked. Do you really suppose that such malicious intent 
> exists at all? ....

yes, I think charlatanry and an intent to deceive and shaft
others for one's own benefit and that of one's organization
are a firm part of Hermetic culture. there are countless
instances brought to light by academics of this. it isn't
peculiar amongst 'occult' or 'mystical' cultures in
general either. religion is dangerous to engage as an
individual. sometimes it is worth the effort and time.

> > > Success is thy proof:
> >
> > good motto. which corporate enterprises have been successful
> > at maintaining anarchistic ideals?
> 
> None that I know of. But then, I don't know of any which 
> subscribe to anarchistic ideals in the first place. What 
> does anarchy have to do with Thelema? ....

anarchY is of late a problem to be solved with administration.
anarchISM is an ideal social interplay wherein domination
or rule is not accepted as a part of the dynamics. its history
is focussed in political (cf. Bakunin, Proudhon, Krapotkin,
Goldman, Warren, others) and later ecological (cf. Abbey, 
Bookchin, me, hopefully more) issues.

I think that Thelema is CENTERED in anarchistic ideals due
to the fact that Thelema is individual-oriented, being an
individual phenomenon (will) only abstracted into groups.
the only means of human liberation as a total social event
must be anarchistic lest some fraction be left behind in
the revolution.
 
> ...sometimes I just think you're off the deep end. No offense.

sometimes I am. none taken. :>

blessed beast!
______________________________________________________________________
(333) nagasiva@luckymojo.com; http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html
I don't read everything here; cc me if you absolutely want a response.

PS 
you're better seeing me as an agent for the support of one of
the poles of an interaction. thinking of yins and yangs while
observing my argumentation style may provide a context within
which apparent dogmatism and shifting position yield a quite
comprehensible whole. forum sometimes skews my position. 

with this in mind my defense of the religious (and possible
lack thereof lately) may seem more feasible. as this is a
forum ostensibly oriented toward THELEMA, and as I see
religion as antagonistic to Thelema (in part on account of
its corporate quality, but also due to its tendency to
conscript to cultism), naturally my role here will tend to
be in opposition to it. in another forum (e.g. #atheism in 
IRC, or alt.atheism in usenet, or some atheist elist) my 
role might shift to the defense of religion (and especially
individual spirituality and mysticism) as an important
reservoir of culture, psychotechnology, and its perpetual
continuation regardless of contextual climate.

additional discussion of me or my styles would probably
best be taken private, however, so as not to distract
from the forum's focus. thanks.
333