The Yezidis and the...
 
Notifications
Clear all

The Yezidis and the Peacock Angel

Page 2 / 3

 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Is Crowley to be taken particularly seriously here? Almost nothing particularly reliable was known in English about the Yezidi when he wrote, from what I gather.

Why should we imagine he had the faintest idea what he was talking about, beyond Orientalist poetic romance typical of his lyrically-gifted but factually impoverished generation ?

Is there an actual historical connection between the "god of the Yezidi" he refers to and what is known of the beliefs of ancient Sumer ? (Genuine question, I don't know).

I mean, sure, we can find "currents" all we like, but it's probably a good idea to realise the modern exponents of Yazd tradition couldn't care less and would probably be appalled at our conjectures. Are they qualified to have an opinion about themselves ?

My take on it is, Crowley's fundamentally "satanic" posturing (in the sense of adopting the god-form of the "opposer", as the Beast 666 of Revelation, "Satan, be thou my god!", his equation of Satan with Aiwaz in Liber Samekh, and all these ultimately with Set as Saturn or "Shaitan" as the Hidden God, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ) was the main font of his statement. To his knowledge, the Yezidi were "satanic" for Muslims; Crowley was a "satanist" to the Plymouth Brethren and their ilk, and carefully and purposefully crafted an identity to be as "satanic" by their definition as he could. They are analogous in category, so bang, there's the "identification": based on the semantics of categorical rejection by an exoteric orthodoxy.

Is there really a great deal more to Crowley's fleeting textual romance with the Yezidi than this? If so, what is it and on what grounds is it based?

I am genuinely curious.

I'm not wishing to denigrate anyone, by the way. Crowley's Intent (and that of Grant) in appropriating (their understanding of) Yezidi symbols is, I feel, a separate issue from identifying the possibly incongruent reality of that Tradition from the English Orientalist poetic fantasy or mythopeia into which they have been woven, artfully or otherwise, much in the way that I honestly don't think many ancient Egyptian initiates would have recognised modern neopagan or Thelemic ideas about their religions or gods. Then again, I could be wrong.

The esoteric objective - akin to constructing a Grammar - behind penetrating symbology and syncretically synthesizing new products in the light of one's private insights is a worthwhile endeavour in itself but shouldn't be confused with (or demoted to the level of!) academic research. Crowley was no academic, that's for sure (and that's a compliment where I come from!).

Best regards
N.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Noctifer" wrote:
Is there really a great deal more to Crowley's fleeting textual romance with the Yezidi than this? If so, what is it and on what grounds is it based?

It's based on magical grounds not rational grounds.


ReplyQuote
einDoppelganger
(@eindoppelganger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 915
 
"zardoz" wrote:
It's based on magical grounds not rational grounds.

Is there any other textual reference to this other than the aforementioned quote? It would be interesting to get some further context even for the mystical conclusion if it were more than an intuitive leap.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

It's mentioned in Grant's writings, and alluded to in Gurdjieff's writings.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

What "magical grounds"?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

and it's in the course of following up those loose ends that a body of work is continued and developed.

I agree.

I would say the information provided at the latter site is essentially correct, although sugar-coated and with a bit of creative syncretic license taken by the author of the pages.

The site totally deny the identification between Melek-Taus and Shaitan and Azazel. Something which is false. Some of the confusion about this is that the Angel sometimes in different versions of Mashaf Resh are refered to as Azrael, the Angel of death. A mixture of identity which academics by some reason has neglected to delve deeper in to.

A logical way to look at this is to make a comparision with Judaism where Samael is sometimes both viewed as Angel of Death and as Satan. That being that the Satanic principle is also the principle that introduces the principle of death.

The site also claims that the yezidis claim that Melek-Taus is a god for all people on the earth. Wrong aswell. Then the identification with gestalts from other mythologys have nothing to do with the yezidi religion.
I would probably find more things wrong if I took the time to reread the site again.

Is there an actual historical connection between the "god of the Yezidi" he refers to and what is known of the beliefs of ancient Sumer ? (Genuine question, I don't know).

This is one of the hypothesises that has been brought forward by writers on yezidism. The history of the group before the arrival of Sheik Adi is uncertain. Kreyenbroek suggests that there is a zoroastrian influence.

but it's probably a good idea to realise the modern exponents of Yazd tradition couldn't care less and would probably be appalled at our conjectures. Are they qualified to have an opinion about themselves ?

Of course they are. Though I don´t think that the yezidis have exclusive right of how to understand and interpret Melek-Taus. For example both Mandeans and Ahl-e Haqq also have beliefs about Melek-Taus.


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 538
Topic starter  
"2109" wrote:
The site totally deny the identification between Melek-Taus and Shaitan and Azazel. Something which is false.

It would be conducive to the discussion if you could cite evidence that backs up your contention.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 856
 
"2109" wrote:
'
"Please don't tell me that the Yezidi are "more tolerant" than Muslims.
Here's an excellent Islam 101 article on "Gender Equality in Islam."
http://www.islam101.com/women/equity.htm l"

What is relevant is not doxa but praxis. So you have a problem with people being killed? A decent act of you would then be to condemn the genocide of thousands of yezidis by muslims in their area during the last hundred of years. Only killed because of their religion. You consider that "tolerance"? eh?

To not wanting to see or understand the context that something is happening in is aching to think that the simplest explanation always is the best. Everything happens in a context and to avoid looking at it makes one self know less of what is going on.

Please don't try to explain "the context" of a woman being stoned to death. She died a grisly and painful death at the hands of a rampaging mob. There is no "context" to defend such barbarism. "Man has the right to worship as he Will." Woman, too. That's the Thelemic perception. Don't quote me "Liber Aleph" where Crowley says that women don't have souls.

And don't try to justify their acts because of "the genocide of thousands of Yezidis by Muslims in their area during the last hundred years." Because they've been oppressed and murdered, they have the *right* to oppress and murder those weaker than themselves? To subjugate their women? That's certainly what you seem to be implying, and as we say in Texas, "that dog don't hunt." This is the same argument that the State of Isreal uses when killing innocent women and children in Gaza and Palestine. And it stinks like a Tennessee Shit-house.

Don't presume to know *my* Will, and take your suggestions about "a decent act" and go do them yourself, quietly, without breast-beating and self-martyrdom, if that's what you *really* believe. I have already carefully chosen the battles that *I* wish to fight, and the causes that *I* already support and defend. M'kay?


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 856
 

oops..


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6837
 
"Crowley" wrote:
"Aiwaz is not as I had supposed a mere formula, like many angelic names, but is the true most ancient name of the God of the Yezidi, and thus returns to the highest Antiquity. Our work is therefore historically authentic, the rediscovery of the Sumerian Tradition."

It seems to me that Crowley has made a reference to "the most ancient
name of the God of the Yezidi' and then he suggests (reveals?) that "our
work" involves a "rediscovery of the Sumerian Tradition."

This thread got longer and longer really fast, filled with what the
contemporary Yezidi do, including keeping their women in line with
exuberant atrocities, and how we might declare war on them
(at some level or another).

We don't know if the ancient Sumerians beat their wives,
or if they allowed them to get stoned, but I fail to see how
analyzing these modern folks in terms of their sexual-dominance rituals
gets us around to looking at the ancient stuff, which is where
Crowley pointed his finger, so to speak.

Then Noctifer comes along and asks ...

"Noctifer" wrote:
Is Crowley to be taken particularly seriously here?

Of course he is! Maybe? Well, look here:
Crowley distinctly described Aiwass [Egyptian spelling]
or Aiwaz [Satanic spelling] as:
(1) A man - sort of like you and me and AC and
Victor Neuberg and all the Lastalians.
(2) His Holy Guardian Angel.
(3) The minister of Hoor-paar-kraat [Aiwass' self-description].
(4) "I transliterated AIWASS into Greek off-hand. Its value is 418!
and this is the number of the Magical Formula of the Aeon.
It represents the practice of the Book as 93 does the theory."
(5) The true, most ancient name of the god of the Yezidi.
(6) As others arise, please add them.

Take all of the above; stir gently then shake well;
drink this without fear and then simply say that Aiwaz is
Crowley's link to higher consciousness,
where all signs and symbols are universal and true.

I don't see how ANY of his descriptions can be taken seriously
unless overshadowed by my quaint definition [above].

The problem with "rediscovering" this Sumerian tradition is that
it's pretty well hidden on clay tablets that are stacked somewhere
and that have not been translated. Tons of them. Some of these,
that HAVE been recently translated, get into the reptilian-overlord
type of thinking and even suggests flying ships from other dimensions.
This is easily researchable on the internet.
Various translations and accouts;
much controversy, I think.
I am without references, your honour!

Just as there is a veil or two (plus many more subtle "curtains")
between a man or a woman and their "higher self," so there are
similar veils or curtains beneath our feet and behind us in time.

The Egyptian zone of history is well known to us. Its monuments
and stelae can be climbed and held, or at least beheld -
[as of this week; next week is uncertain]
- even if we don't completely understand it. We may argue about
spellings and attributes, but the basic Egyptian concepts
are at least familiar.
The archetypes of Khem appear to be strongly embeded in the
genetic coding of western folks, so it's likely that we will encouter
this symbolism when we venture onto the astral plane.

The Sumerian tradition is not well known to us. Its monuments
are reduced to mere foundations and piles of clay tablets
(some of which are very old).

There seems to be an historical veil between Egypt and Sumer, even if
it can become obvious (after much research) that Khem's magickal
concepts came out of Sumer. Most of the Sumarian relics date from
before 4000 BC, which the Bible tells us was the date of creation
and modern scholars say was the beginning of "recorded history"
- More or less. Even the Mayan Calendar buys into this general dating.

The vast Sumerian era supposedly allowed manifestation of anything
by magickal means. The people and the spirits/gods/angels/reptiles
cooperated. Sort of a Garden of Eden, conveniently situated in
fertile Mesopotamia, the "Cradle of Civilization." As the "vibrations"
of the planet became more dense, they found it harder to
"materialize" things, and they had to do more physical labor.
Then that civilization degenerated and the spiritual tradition was
transferred to Egypt, where it underwent some changes.
That's the generalized tradition as I understand it.

Theosophy come to our rescue, but only in a minor way,
by describing the historical veil as a separation between two
sub-races of the fifth root race: The Sumerian and the Egyptian.

The basic Sumerian concepts are not familiar territory for
most of us, and their archetypes are not frequently encoutered
when we venture onto the astral plane. Although they are there
and I have encountered them, as have many of you.

In summary, I feel that study (both scholarly and magickally) of
the really oldest available Sumerian tradition is a worthy
objective, but that study of the contemporary Yedizi and their
quaint customs is just playing around on this side of the veil.

"Grasper" wrote:
And shiva, with your "Thou shalt not should on thyself or others." quote... Are you saying that if I go through all your past posts, you've never once yourself said "We should..." ? Hmm?

Oh heavens! That was a misprint - a typo - how embarassing.

It should have said, "Thou should not should on thyself ..." that's what it
should have said.
Anyway, "We have all shoulded and fallen short of the glory of God."

I agree. You compile all my posts and websites.
Then "search" for should.
How many shoulds are followed by "declare war" or some similar,
separative, aggressive call to mental turmoil and more fighting? -
as if we don't have enough of that.

You are not taking any flak from anyone because of your use of
any specific words. Your words are being anal-ized because of
your attitude. Ra-hoor-khuit hath called us to war; but true Lashtalians
are agents of peace and harmony.


A general notice of the third kind to all interested parties:
Be sure to metally review the criteria of the reincarnated troll -
Join date vs First Post date with sudden appearance on the scene,
loaded with knowledge, followed by continual posting on various
threads that seem to degenerate. Sometimes this high level of
knowledge plus a subtle but penetrating argumentative nature
seems so familiar. And the initiation (beginning) of activity
always follows "hard on the heels" of a persona getting their
account closed for similar activities.

This has been a generalized statement.
The criteria are circumstantial and do not positively apply
in any given, individual case.
No accusations or finger-pointing is implied.
Ask your doctor or pharmacist if identifying the same force
in different clothing, but not in style, is right for you.


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 686
 

Excellent, nay superb post.

While I may raise an eyebrow (or three) at some specific details I can only whole-heartedly endorse your general thrust.

Thanks, needed that.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

The Sumerian tradition is not well known to us. Its monuments
are reduced to mere foundations and piles of clay tablets
(some of which are very old).

What does the age of the clay tablets have to do with anything? Is a culture somehow more obscure because its writings are old?
We have these "mere" as you call them foundations, a fairly large body of writing, thousands of artefacts... I wouldn't say the Sumerians are
"not well known".

By the way I hope you were joking about the "Some of these,
that HAVE been recently translated, get into the reptilian-overlord
type of thinking and even suggests flying ships from other dimensions."

This is a reference I assume, to Zecharia Sitchin, the UFO madman who claimed
to have translated various Sumerian and Akkadian tablets but in fact did nothing
of the sort, merely making things up as he pleased to back up his insane theories
about a made-up planet called Nibiru on its way back from the edges of the solar system.

The vast Sumerian era supposedly allowed manifestation of anything
by magickal means. The people and the spirits/gods/angels/reptiles
cooperated. Sort of a Garden of Eden, conveniently situated in
fertile Mesopotamia, the "Cradle of Civilization." As the "vibrations"
of the planet became more dense, they found it harder to
"materialize" things, and they had to do more physical labor.
Then that civilization degenerated and the spiritual tradition was
transferred to Egypt, where it underwent some changes.
That's the generalized tradition as I understand it.

That's not the "generalized tradition", that's more insane madman
ramblings. Honestly, if you are going to take your views on Sumerian
civilization from people like Sitchin then you forfeit your right to talk
about Mesopotamian civilizations.

As for your further personal attack on me and your immature use of the word
"anal-ized", I'm going to ignore it.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6837
 
"amadan-De" wrote:
While I may raise an eyebrow (or three) at some
specific details I can only whole-heartedly endorse your general thrust.

To "raise an eyebrow" implies:
(1) WTF is he talking about?
(2) Where did he get that from?
(3) He's trying to trick me!
(4) Oh no! He's not losing his marbles, is he?

I would be willing to plead guilty to some of these options, if you will
understand that I often mingle common sense, crazy wisdom, other
traditions, scientific data, myths and true experiences, all together in
a common topic, and I especially am drawn to those expressions that
I just know are going to cause some eyebrows to rise.
My only redeeming feature is that I avoid lying and/or the purposeful creation of illusion. I enjoy mixing the planes, but try to never confuse them - a disaster indeed?

I just thought we might look at ancient Sumerian concepts instead of flogging the Yazidi; everything else that I wrote was from the Bardo of Hallucinations.

Thanks, Sh.'.


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 686
 
"Shiva" wrote:
To "raise an eyebrow" implies:
(1) WTF is he talking about?
(2) Where did he get that from?
(3) He's trying to trick me!
(4) Oh no! He's not losing his marbles, is he?

LOL You forgot (5) Are you sure? or as Cromwell so pithily put it "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
Re: (4) Lost mine ages ago so never held that against anyone 🙂

"Shiva" wrote:
I often mingle common sense, crazy wisdom, other
traditions, scientific data, myths and true experiences, all together in
a common topic, and I especially am drawn to those expressions that
I just know are going to cause some eyebrows to rise.
My only redeeming feature is that I avoid lying and/or the purposeful creation of illusion. I enjoy mixing the planes, but try to never confuse them - a disaster indeed?

I operate in a similar fashion - though possibly more drily. Problems generally arise when people are not aware that they are doing it or, to a lesser extent, hearing it. Glad to hear that it's a conscious game. 😉

@graspee - You rightly mention some of the eye-brow raising points (though not all) but I think that you have completely failed to engage with the deeper intent (as I see it) of the "anal-ize" comment. Try wearing it as a possible sideways comment on the nit-picking nature of the analysis (though this does reduce it to a single facet of meaning again it may be one you are more comfortable with).

Anyway, a full day beckons so as the sage said "Can't stop, keep rockin' kid".


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

It would be conducive to the discussion if you could cite evidence that backs up your contention.

Indeed it would. I´ll point you to the book by Kreyenbroek that I mentioned earlier in the thread. I don´t have the book close to me at the moment though in a day or two I´ll be able to give you some quotations.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

She died a grisly and painful death at the hands of a rampaging mob.

Yes, she did.

There is no "context" to defend such barbarism

I´ve nowhere stated that I defend or justify the actions. I said that I can understand. Big difference.

If I continue to use the earlier analogy it would be a tragedy if a Jewish mob killed a Jewish girl who had married a German nazi, though, and this is a big though, to see this as a greater or more important tragedy then the holocaust implies not being able to see things in their right light.


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 523
 
"2109" wrote:
An analogy of how the yezidis experience it could probably be done of how most jews would experience it if a jewish girl during the holocaust would fall in love with a german nazi, leave her religion and marry him.

Oh, so that's alright then. Definitely smash some stones in her face, yep, makes absolute sense.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"2109" wrote:
If I continue to use the earlier analogy it would be a tragedy if a Jewish mob killed a Jewish girl who had married a German nazi, though, and this is a big though, to see this as a greater or more important tragedy then the holocaust implies not being able to see things in their right light.

The point is, I believe, that the woman in question, or any other woman or man, has the right to have a sexual relationship with anyone of age and consent that she Will, and the fact that her culture regulates this natural function makes it (dare I say it?) 'unThelemic.' Any violation of the Law of Thelema is a Criminal act and, since this sort of violation is systemic in this culture, it is a Criminal culture. It doesn't matter if their ancestors were a superior race from another star system come to save us, or just another tribe of backwards assholes, as is the case with the Judeo-Christians.


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 523
 
"Camlion" wrote:
"2109" wrote:
If I continue to use the earlier analogy it would be a tragedy if a Jewish mob killed a Jewish girl who had married a German nazi, though, and this is a big though, to see this as a greater or more important tragedy then the holocaust implies not being able to see things in their right light.

The point is, I believe, that the woman in question, or any other woman or man, has the right to have a sexual relationship with anyone of age and consent that she Will, and the fact that her culture regulates this natural function makes it (dare I say it?) 'unThelemic.' Any violation of the Law of Thelema is a Criminal act and, since this sort of violation is systemic in this culture, it is a Criminal culture. It doesn't matter if their ancestors were a superior race from another star system come to save us, or just another tribe of backwards assholes, as is the case with the Judeo-Christians.

Well said Camlion. Perhaps Graspee was being a bit over-enthusiastic and blustery when he was talking about "making war" on the culture, but it surprises me that some people here seem to be vaguely defending smashing stones in a girl's face because the smashers are part of some ancient culture - seemingly on the basis of some wishy-washy PC nonsense and "moral equivalence" meme-jugglery.

What has Thelema come to? 😀

These sorts of acts are barbarous, whether they're done by Jews, by Muslims, by Christians, Hindus, Buddhists or Yezidis, or so-called "Thelemites", come to that.

As I see it, in Thelema, the love of a human being for another is sacred. Romantic love, while it doesn't always necessarily work out (it's always an adventure 😉 ), is one of the easiest and most natural links the average person has to God. Lovers are blessed to see the world as it truly is, as full of love, made of love. Romantic love eventually destroyed literalist Christianity's dominance. It will destroy Islam, it will destroy every silly slave culture, in the end.

Love and association are the sacred, free choice of every human being, as an individual expression of the Divine. If a religion or culture dissagrees with that, so much the worse for the religion or culture. THAT is Thelema.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 856
 

Well said, GuruGeorge! 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

For those interested there is an exceptional piece on the Yezidi people in the recently release Strange Attractor Journal 4 by Erik Davis. Well thought out and well researched.

http://strangeattractor.co.uk/books/strange-attractor-journal-four/


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Indeed. I'd rather state my case perhaps over-dramatically and be seen as "over-enthusiastic and blustery" than choose careful, gentle words that don't offend but can be seen as quietly defending the Yezidi way of life.

If people knew me "off the page" as it were, they'd know I always state my opinions clearly and honestly, even when it causes offence, distress and so forth. I'd much rather be hated for my opinion than liked for my not having stated one.

That quality I have probably comes across better in real life; On a forum it looks more like I am a troll.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"graspee" wrote:
Indeed. I'd rather state my case perhaps over-dramatically and be seen as "over-enthusiastic and blustery" than choose careful, gentle words that don't offend but can be seen as quietly defending the Yezidi way of life.

If people knew me "off the page" as it were, they'd know I always state my opinions clearly and honestly, even when it causes offence, distress and so forth. I'd much rather be hated for my opinion than liked for my not having stated one.

That quality I have probably comes across better in real life; On a forum it looks more like I am a troll.

At least you won't be mistaken for a moral coward with regard to the Law of Thelema, afraid to take any sort of stand at all in the face of Criminal activity taking place right under your nose. You're okay by me. 😉


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 856
 
"graspee" wrote:

The Sumerian tradition is not well known to us. Its monuments
are reduced to mere foundations and piles of clay tablets
(some of which are very old).

What does the age of the clay tablets have to do with anything? Is a culture somehow more obscure because its writings are old?

No its culture is more obscure because many of those piles of clay tablets haven't been translated yet. There are thousands of them that have been found. The age, 4000+ years old has to do with it being perhaps the oldest written language in the Golden Crescent. It's not like picking up last week's copy of "The Times." It takes scholars years to figure out those tablets, agree what they say, and then publish their findings.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

It doesn't take years for scholars to "figure out those tablets, agree what they say, and then publish their findings". The publishing part takes a while, yes, but most of those tablets are not of the same order as Enuma Elish; They are mostly simple trade agreements and so forth; Any competent Sumerian translator can translate a tablet in no time at all. The reason there are thousands of tablets still untranslated has more to do with the paucity of translators, their being occupied with other things, and (with a lot of the tablets) their being obviously of little academic worth.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I don't see any indication that the action was sanctioned by the entire community, the act was regarded as a crime and perpetrators with which a case against could be made were prosecuted accordingf to the law of the land. I see no precedence to persecuting the entire cultural group.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"AEternitas" wrote:
I don't see any indication that the action was sanctioned by the entire community, the act was regarded as a crime and perpetrators with which a case against could be made were prosecuted accordingf to the law of the land. I see no precedence to persecuting the entire cultural group.

I don't see anyone advocating the persecution of any culture here. We can, however, judge any culture by measuring it objectively against an appropriate standard, such as this one:

"Camlion" wrote:
whether or not an individual among this group has the right to to live in the way that he wills to do; to work as he will, to play as he will, to rest as he will, to die when and how he will; to eat what he will, to drink what he will, to dwell where he will, to move as he will on the face of the earth; to think what he will, to speak what he will, to write what he will, to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will, to dress as he will; to love as he will, when, where, and with whom ye will.

ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

So you he Law of Thelema applies to people who haven't even adopted it huh?

I think it's worth noting that in cultures such as this one, the identity of the individual is in the context of their role within a group. I highly doubt that the Yezidi people see the individual identity as being as highly valued as that of the group identity, which can plainly be seen by the actions of the group in regards to an action that threatened the continuation of said group. In short, the Yezidi define themselves as a people, not as indvidual persons. I know as a modern western person this is completely alien to your comprehension but on the other hand, so is your own stance to the Yezidi.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

It's not so much a case of whether Thelema "applies" to these people, it's more a case of we, as Thelemites, judging them by our Thelemic standards. In fact the part of Thelema we are judging them by is analogous to the standards of a great number of right-thinking, non-Thelemic people too. It's a case of granting everyone the same freedom to act so long as they themselves don't, by acting freely restrict the freedom of other people. John Stuart Mill had it covered in "On Liberty", amongst other people.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

As I said, that's the problem, you are trying to judge them by thelemic standards, which for them neither apply nor attain. The same goes for your conceptions of right-thinking, liberty and freedom. I'm sure they, as a group of people who identify themselves as a group, not as individuals, would define these things much differently than you would.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

They are a bunch of murdering thugs, stop making excuses for them.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

All of them?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Regarding Melek-Taus as Azazel.

Kreyenbroek 1995:99. In both Browe´s and Guest´s version of Mashaf Resh Melek-Taus is identfied with Azazel. Kreyenbroek mentions two other versions of the Angelic heptad where Azazel is identified with one of the Angels.

I don´t have my copy of Mashaf Resh here at the moment though we can look to Chumbley´s Qutub where he quote a section of the black book and where it is stated that Shaitan is the secret name of their god, and also that it should not be used.

@Gurugeorge

You know, it helps to read all that a person writes.

I´ve nowhere stated that I defend or justify the actions. I said that I can understand. Big difference

I can understand why some people here are refering to thelema as to why the actions of the yezidis are wrong. Though if we´ll judge the yezidis by religious standars which are not their own someone could aswell say that according to muslims the yezidis are devil-worshippers, among the worst kind of non-believers and should all be killed.

@Graspee

They are a bunch of murdering thugs, stop making excuses for them.

That is like saying that you as a american/english/french/whatever is a part of a greater community which sometimes have killed other people. And because you are this (whatever you are) you are a part of this "bunch of murdering thugs".

Your post is very close to racism.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Probably best to think about the creed as well, not just the actions of the mortals who used it (or didn't they?) to justify their crime.

I know next to nothing about the Yezidi, their Book, what they believe, and how their religion treats the various categories and members of society: women, men, kids, believers, non-believers, outsiders, foreigners, animals, etc. If their creed is misogynist then quite simply it would seem to be at odds with Thelema, which holds that "every man and every woman is a star".

If it stipulates a massive list of artificial taboos and other repressive dogma then it goes against "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".

If it advocates hate then it goes against "love is the law, love under will".

I don't know if it is misogynist or not. The atrocity described earlier appears to have been culturally grounded but it's hard to say whether it's the influence of Islam or of their own religion. Sadly I don't think many or any Yezidi give a rat's rear end about Aleister Crowley although I'd be delighted to be proven wrong on this. That would make an interesting chat. For me anyway!


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 856
 
"AEternitas" wrote:
So you he Law of Thelema applies to people who haven't even adopted it huh?

Have you never read Liber Oz? That is the manifesto of the rights of every man, woman and child. "The Law is for All." Whether they know it or not, as the Highway Patrol Officer will tell you, "ignorance of The Law is no excuse." If a bastard thinks it's OK to beat up on women and children of *my* accquaintance, I've got friends who'll make sure he gets persuaded not to do it again. I don't care who he is, he'll identify with his victims soon enough.

Some people are so pig-ignorant and stubborn, that fear is the only thing that they understand-- love and compassion they see as weaknesses in other people to be exploited. But The Law is theirs too, know it or not.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Yes I am familiar with Liber Oz, and I agree that this was a crime indeed, but I disagree that this behavior reflects the actions of the entire Yezidi community. But my point being that Thelema and Liber Oz seem to place considerable importance on the individual whereas a culture such as the Yezidi place much more emphasis on the role of the individual in relation to the group, and as such the concepts outlined in Liber Oz would be near incomprehensible to them. In the eyes of the people that commited this act, this woman had commited a very serious crime against her community (which had nothing to do with her being a woman, a man would have shared the same fate for similar actions). And this crime they felt was punishable by death unfortunately.
On an entirely different line of thought which brings us back to the topic, I don't think our primary point of interest as Thelemites is with the Yezidi themselves (or their values and customs), but with the mythological figures of their religion, Shaitan or Melek-Taus.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"AEternitas" wrote:
So you he Law of Thelema applies to people who haven't even adopted it huh?

I think it's worth noting that in cultures such as this one, the identity of the individual is in the context of their role within a group. I highly doubt that the Yezidi people see the individual identity as being as highly valued as that of the group identity, which can plainly be seen by the actions of the group in regards to an action that threatened the continuation of said group. In short, the Yezidi define themselves as a people, not as indvidual persons. I know as a modern western person this is completely alien to your comprehension but on the other hand, so is your own stance to the Yezidi.

You've made the case of Thelema for me, thanks. Per Liber AL, 'the Law is for all.' The prophecy of our Book is 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.' Group identity, as opposed to individual identity, is Criminal constraint in the light of the Law. 'Every man and every woman [not just those in chosen cultures] is a star.' It's very simple, and it's very serious. If a culture doesn't suit the Law, the culture adapts; the Law does not adapt to backward culture.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Noctifer" wrote:
Sadly I don't think many or any Yezidi give a rat's rear end about Aleister Crowley although I'd be delighted to be proven wrong on this. That would make an interesting chat. For me anyway!

Fortunately, no one really need hear of AC, the Law of Thelema remains the Law, either way.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"AEternitas" wrote:
On an entirely different line of thought which brings us back to the topic, I don't think our primary point of interest as Thelemites is with the Yezidi themselves (or their values and customs), but with the mythological figures of their religion, Shaitan or Melek-Taus.

The topic is 'The Yezidis,' who are a fine example of Criminals with regard to the Law of Thelema. I know you prefer to play at magic and mythology, AEternitas, but what is happening on less abstract planes if of at least of equal importance - there are lives being devalued, wasted, in this case, due to Criminal constraint.


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 501
 

Aside from this famous case - a few years ago now - of some unfortunate getting lynched for miscegenation, anyone know anything else about the Yezidis?

OK


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 856
 
"AEternitas" wrote:
But my point being that Thelema and Liber Oz seem to place considerable importance on the individual whereas a culture such as the Yezidi place much more emphasis on the role of the individual in relation to the group, and as such the concepts outlined in Liber Oz would be near incomprehensible to them. In the eyes of the people that commited this act, this woman had commited a very serious crime against her community (which had nothing to do with her being a woman, a man would have shared the same fate for similar actions). And this crime they felt was punishable by death unfortunately.

Are you kidding? Her death, by stoning, had *everything* to do with her being a woman. The subjugation of women is an integral part of this societies mores and folkways. It's been that way since the Patriarchs threw Asherah and her worshippers out of the Temple of Solomon and (almost) completely wrote her out of "Da Bible" in 500-400 B.C.E. and in Islam (at least) since the determination that in the Koran, Sura an-Najm (The Star) 53:19-22 were "Satanic Verses"--
"Now tell me about Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat,
The third one, another goddess..."

Allāt, al-'Uzzā and Manāt were three goddesses worshipped by the Meccans of the day. The subtext to the event is that Muhammad was backing away from his otherwise uncompromising monotheism by saying that these goddesses were real and their intercession effective. Mohammed originally claimed these to be the word of the Archangel Gabriel, Islamic tradition holds that Gabriel chastised Muhammad for adulterating the revelation, at which point [Qur'an 22:52] is revealed to comfort him,

"Never sent We a messenger or a prophet before thee but when He recited (the message) Satan proposed (opposition) in respect of that which he recited thereof. But Allah abolisheth that which Satan proposeth. Then Allah establisheth His revelations. Allah is Knower, Wise."

Muhammad took back his words and the persecution by the Meccans of the Goddess worshippers resumed.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I reconsidered my comment regarding the misogynistic qualities of their actions. Perhaps a male would not have gotten similar treatment for running off to marry a Muslim woman? But who can say.
Regardinng your other comments, I didn't think the Yezidi were Muslim, or that they gave two shits about the prophecies of Muhhamed. Perhaps their attitude towards women stems from some other source, is misogynistic they are.


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 523
 
"AEternitas" wrote:
I reconsidered my comment regarding the misogynistic qualities of their actions. Perhaps a male would not have gotten similar treatment for running off to marry a Muslim woman? But who can say.
Regardinng your other comments, I didn't think the Yezidi were Muslim, or that they gave two shits about the prophecies of Muhhamed. Perhaps their attitude towards women stems from some other source, is misogynistic they are.

Well it's just a general tribal thing isn't it? The Jews were the same back in the day (the Bible has some appalling stuff in it). It's probably something to do with hot weather making people horny, but the culture trying to make bloodlines and inheritance clearer. Quite mechanical, really.

It's true that to some extent it's all relative. Someone said above that it may be the case that the Yezidis' cultural norms are relatively a bit more moral towards women than some of their surrounding Muslim culture. On the other hand, some Muslim cultures elsewhere may be more moral than them. The restrictions of ancient Jews in the Bible may have been relatively better than some of their surrounding cultures, and so on.

And it's fine to understand that, and it's fine to understand - as it were, in an anthropological sense - the motivations that led to such a barbarous act (which by the way was performed by 1,000 people from the local community in concert, if the article is right).

But from a Thelemic point of view, a stand must be taken - a stand which happens to coincide with a modern point of view on these things (precisely because that modern point of view has been magickally brought into being by the declaration of Thelema, if you believe in that sort of thing 😉 ).

All the old religions and cultures will reform themselves according to Thelemic lines. I was just thinking there about good old Tibetan Buddhism. Wonderful stuff, in terms of some of the teachings. Yet Tibetan Buddhism has a murky side to it too - you had the usual situation of priests lording it over peasants for hundreds of years. Truly a dreadful, static culture of oppression. (A fact noted by the Communist Chinese, in their criticisms of Tibetan Buddhism and their exposés of its abuses.) The attitude of some of the teachers coming to the West has been noted to be appallingly misogynistic and rigidly heirarchical. But the leading lights such as the Dalai Lama are well aware of all this, and have done and are doing their best to make their religion conform to Thelemic (i.e. scientific) cosmology, and moral principles (as expressed, albeit "through a glass darkly", in modern Western mores that, e.g., equalize women's rights with mens').

A similar process must - and will - occur with all the old religions and therefore cultures, since their cultures are so bound up with religion), sooner or later.

The trouble we're having from Islamic fundamentalism at the moment is the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the old guard in that religion. (The egregore, having become a vampiric automaton, like Christianity's before it, is dying.)

It's all hopeless. They will fail, they will be reformed, there is nothing they can do.

Once the dust has settled, you'll still have all the wonderful, unique expressions of all those ancient cultures, just they will accept individualism.

Because actually that's what it's all about. There's a tendency in academia (an analysis of the causes of which would lead us too far astray here) to shill for collectivism, and to pretend that the death of nasty old capitalist, American-led individualism and modernity are imminent (always just around the corner isn't it?) and to push invented holdout memes like "multiculturalism" and "post-modernism" and "political correctness" down peoples throats. Don't kid yourself, they're just the last gasp of ancient forms of slave collectivism, in natty pseudo-intellectual garb. It's all just useful idiotry.

Thelema is individualism, modernity and (shock! horror!) progress, and it's still only just starting. The equalization of women's rights in the West is just a little foretaste of what's to come; the Gernsbackian "comet tail" mentioned at the end of one of the Aethyrs, the prevalence of s-f and "superhero" memes as modern mythology, these are all little glimpses and foretastes of what's in store for us.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

A truly excellent post, George, thanks for that.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Aeternitas, by continually writing things such as "In the eyes of the people that commited this act, this woman had commited a very serious crime against her community" you continue to try to justify and excuse their actions as some sort of "cultural difference" that we should try to understand from their viewpoint.

What possible reason do you have for being so lenient to these murdering scum?

And, by the way, 2109, Yazidism/Yezidism is a religion, not a race, so my post is in fact nowhere near racist.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

My point is two fold. 1)you can't conceive a world view that would justify this act, 1,000 of them could and 2) They coulnd't possibly conceive of a world view that puts an individuals rights above those of the group such as in Thelemic and other western modes of thought. My point is that, for the Yezidi people, maintaining the integrity of their bloodline is of the utmost importance. Right and wrong aren't written in bold letters in stone or in the sky, it's pretty much all relative and subjective. One man's senseless murder is another man's justified and necessary act. I'm not trying to justify anything at all, I'm simply pointing out that these people come from a world that operates in a manner which is completely alien to your sense of values, ethics and morals.
Your reaction to what happened seems to be driven primarily by an emotional reaction, which I'm told isn't Thelemic.
Another consideration that bothers me somewhat is that Muslims commit crimes like this all the time, but the "satan worshipping" Yezidi do it and it makes international headlines as if it were something that hasn't been going on for thousands of years.
That's another point. People haven't changed snce ancent times, zero social progress has taken place. People aren't just going to suddenly evolve because you and Liber Oz say so.

The Yezidi people may not be a "race" but they consider themselves to be descended from Adam. They also don't breed outside of their own people. Yeah, kinda racist.


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 501
 

I always enjoy posts from gurugeorge and this one is no exception. I was struck by this bit in particular:

"gurugeorge" wrote:
(which by the way was performed by 1,000 people from the local community in concert, if the article is right).

and would like to say that I share this reservation.

1000 is a suspiciously round and big figure and intrinsically implausible from a 'not enough room to swing a cat' point of view. If you've ever been to a good riot you have probably noticed that most people aren't doing anything except attend. (which I suppose is why snipers on roofs is enjoying such a vogue these days) I bet 970 people were just there for a good day out. Anyway to attract a crowd of 1000 seems a sign of how rare the event is or maybe how boring it is most days in old Yezidiland.

We are all going to die. Some happily, some horribly and we don't get much of a choice. Every day people get crushed by cars, rotted by radiation and victimised by viruses. There are wars going on and bombs going off so what is the fascination with this particular example?

It's a pretty girl. I really think it's that simple. Maybe I should watch more horror films or read more Jack the Ripper books but apart from a passing sympathy when the news was fresh this example does not particularly ring my bell.

But life's not all dull; there's always righteous indignation and moral outrage to laugh at. And to marvel at its contagiousness and how identical it from dusty street to computer desk.

Roll on the day when every form of intolerance has been ruthlessly stamped out!

OK


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 856
 
"AEternitas" wrote:
Regardinng your other comments, I didn't think the Yezidi were Muslim, or that they gave two shits about the prophecies of Muhhamed. Perhaps their attitude towards women stems from some other source, is misogynistic they are.

Nobody said they were. I merely pointed out where and when the Jews and Muslims started their respective misogyny. I *said* the Yezidis were a polygot religion that incorporate portions of Islam, Judaism, and Zoroasterianism with their own faith. They believe in Heaven, they believe in Angels, they have a number of other similarities with the tennants of Judaism and Islam.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"AEternitas" wrote:
Another consideration that bothers me somewhat is that Muslims commit crimes like this all the time, but the "satan worshipping" Yezidi do it and it makes international headlines as if it were something that hasn't been going on for thousands of years.
That's another point. People haven't changed snce ancent times, zero social progress has taken place. People aren't just going to suddenly evolve because you and Liber Oz say so.

I, for one, find the Yezidis nothing more than a convenient example (which happens to be on-topic for discussion here and now) of a mindset that is gradually devolving in the world - but is still quite evident among the descendants of the major religions in the world, including those who continue to be dominant cultures in England and America. Evolution is expedited by stress, so let there be great stress upon and within these Criminal cultures and, by all means, let there be as little tolerance as possible. Any nobility therein that once may have been a mitigating factor in judging these dying cultures is diminishing with each passing day. Sympathy for the rotting corpse is slowly waning. Those who, out of moral cowardice, prefer to stand back and observe, feigning impartially, eventually face the risk that if they weren't part of the solution they've become part of the problem.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

To condemn an entire culture, race or religion based on one incident and to justify and advocate intolerance toward that race, religion or culture appears part of the same old weary problem than it does any kind of solution.

If people wish to declare war on something I suggest they declare war on their own sleep.


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 3
Share: