Path: ultra.sonic.net!news From: nagasiva@luckymojo.com (nigris (333)) Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.thelema,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage Subject: Trogs in Thelemic Clothing? Date: 24 Jul 1999 02:00:38 -0700 Organization: Sonoma Interconnect,Santa Rosa,CA(us),http://www.sonic.net Lines: 139 Message-ID: <7nbvbm$e8c@bolt.sonic.net> Reply-To: spam@luckymojo.com NNTP-Posting-Host: bolt.sonic.net X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV) Xref: ultra.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:17491 talk.religion.misc:293681 talk.religion.newage:104940 49990521 IIIom a correspondent wrote: # Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law! The word of Sin is Restriction! previously that correspondent had written: #># When using the standard greeting on an e-mail list with a #># high Trog ratio, what is a 'Trog'? a 'non-member of the Crowley cult'? #># someone gets offended because the Crowley quotes are unattributed and #># accuses you of plagiarism. unusual. typically I find that such an accusation conceals a Crowley-hatred which seeks to flame in a manner supported by the rest of the forum. I had a similar experience in 'ARCANA' elist, wherein an individual who was one of a number of list- owners sought to 'put me in my place' by dissing Crowley to the list but in a manner merely acid and without substance. I responded with a similar acidity and quoted many of the Beast's texts in order to show his ignorance. it wasn't long before he had arranged my removal from subscription and permanent bar from subscription based on my 'rude participation'. neither was I provided warning nor forum rules indicating that my response in kind was out of place. communities run by idiots can be very biased against the controversial. caution is warranted or at least the expectation that one will become an outcaste based on one's outspokenness and/or affiliations. a different correspondent had written: #> Hmm... I haven't encountered this. Seems like a great opportunity to #> introduce Crowley to the Trogs. After all, it clearly is not #> plagiarism, since Crowley directly instructs us to use these #> salutations. please quote this instruction. I'd not remembered it contained in Letter 18 (19?) of MWT, for example, but perhaps I'm forgetting something? I wouldn't put it past Crowley to have provided the instruction to use Thelemic Greetings, but a specified type? # Not in my experience, since the person accusing of plagiarism KNOWS # where the quotes came from and tends to include a diatribe against # Crowley and anyone who would be so unenlightened to have anything # to do with his writing. What it generally turns into is either a # "you really don't know what you're talking about." and people have # only heard the negative side of things or a "here's my differing # opinion" and it turns into a huge debate that tends to get pretty # nasty. If this has turned anyone on to Thelema, it would truly # blow my mind. my response to that kind of behavior might be: kindly refer to the book "Magick Without Tears", by Aleister Crowley, where, in his description of what he called 'Thelemic Greetings', he offers his own example: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." and fairly provides ample incentive to do likewise. it is a commonality that those in the so-called 'Thelemic community' tend to use Thelemic Greetings as identifiers rather than the pioneering iconoclasm which they offered to their instigator(s), and for this reason I have adopted all manner of initial greeting (from 'Hail Satan!' to 'Save the Planet Kill Yourself!') and response (including 'E6!', which is an inversion of the paltry attempt to represent "Do what thou wilt..." with the number '93' and its subsequent use as a cult-identifier). you are welcome to adapt this to your form letters. # Then again, maybe I'm so unenlightened and uninitiated that # I could never give the proper response to a Trog who likes # to bait people who "quote the wickedest man on earth" # unattributed." (If there's anything more wicked than # plaigiarism, it MUST be the plagiarism of the most wicked # person ever!) is a 'Trog' someone who is not a Crowleyite? is this the development of the 'not one of us' verbiage so common in Judeochristian religions (e.g. 'goy', 'pagan', etc.)? is it valuable to associate with it an added implication that the Trog is 'unenlightened and uninitiated' (which I think actually mean 'unfamiliar with cult knowledge and untouched by group programming rituals')? or is this just one more step down that nonThelemic road to Crowleyitis? we should develop some sort of criteria by which one may recognize a 'Trog in Thelemic clothing' (in the same manner that Satanists recognize 'Sheep in wolves' clothing). perhaps these would be qualities we could identify: * tendency to utter cult-speak, such as 'Thelemic Greetings', without import, without being aware of their potential to transform personal and social spheres, inclusive of the nominally 'Thelemic' * presumption that Thelema begins and centers on Aleister Crowley or his various projectile personae * accepting "Liber Al vel Legis" as a holy book worthy of more than an academic interest * belief that magick (spelled with a 'K' "in order to distinguish it from stage magic, of course!) is primarily a ceremonial pursuit and that real-world application is neither demonstrative of success or at all necessary in its apprehension (since "the 'inner development' of its 'practice' is perceivable by the sensitive") * assimilation to the 'religion of Thelema' whose prophet is Crowley and whose rites include a variety of peculiar ceremonies of value in identifying 'the truly dedicated' * defense of everything related to the cult of Crowleyanity (called 'Thelema') despite its obvious limitations, follies, and lack of relevance in the context of human history can you think of many others? perhaps we can come up with a kind of 'Advanced Bonewits Cult Detection Evaluation Frame' for Thelemites. ;> will under love, blessed beast! nagasiva@luckymojo.com 333 -- emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired