Since search engines are what they are, I feel the need to place  this note at the very top. The following essay was written by a Catholic-with- a-questionable-past, for Catholics and other sorts of Christians.
If you are not any sort of Christian, some of what follows may irritate you. Which is just fine, as far as I’m concerned. But if you go ahead and read it, and are then vexed because it has a Christian point of view. . . well, don’t blame me.
Much of what I write will not be new. We know what is happening,  the battle unfolding around us, as Good and Evil resolve in greater
and greater clarity, as they continue to battle as they have done for so long, only more obvious than we’re used to. But it’s hard to  put into words, sometimes. Often, I find I cannot best Galadriel:
“ I feel it in the water, I feel it in the earth, and I smell  it in the air”
But the intuitions of the nature of what happens around us do little to effect the battle. It is one thing to know one is in the middle of a battle. Yet another to see it clearly, much less leap in, katana swinging! This is my attempt to focus some of what surrounds us.
In the years since the events of 9/11, I’ve learned a lot about  Islam. I’ve read the Koran, the Hadith. I’ve learned about Islamic
jurisprudence, about Taqiyya and abrogation, among other abominations. Many of you reading this are as familiar as I am with these concepts. You’d know the Verse of the Sword if you saw it, and could give at least a basic explanation of why that verse is the heart(less-ness) and soul(less-ness) of Islam.
I remember when I was first exposed to these things.  My reaction,  however, was not so much shock or sudden dismay, when that understanding dawned. Rather, it was surprised recognition. These verses, these doctrines, struck a chord in my psyche, a memory close to the core of my being. I had encountered this spirit  before, and I recognized it immediately. Wow, I thought to myself, that reminds me of  The Book of the Law . . .funny that . . .
This thought stuck with me for some time, slowly stewing as I  learned and grew. It revisited me yet again this past Lent and then, on Holy Thursday, I was graced with an insight about why a certain thing I was dealing with was sinful. (No, won’t tell.  Suffice to say, I got myself to confession post haste, and have had few difficulties since, Deo gracias.) I shall explain that insight later on – but it was the key to the similarities between these two books, written 1500 years apart. It was also a major key to understanding the nature of sin itself. I’ve felt a pressing need to share this with you, because as I will show in Part II, it
is intimately related with things happening in the world today.
People try to shrug certain things off as simply “different”, or “Maybe immoral, but not evil.” What I want to show is why these things aren’t simply “different”, or “mildly immoral but not evil”, but are in fact evil on the small, personal, every-day scale.
What follows is a retracing of my thought process, so that I may share this understanding to the best of my ability.  It will follow in the chronological order of my being introduced to the material which is, interestingly enough, the reverse chronology from when they were first introduced to the world. We start with the work of  Late 19th-Early 20th Century occultist, Aleister Crowley.
[Important note: The rest is below a break not simply because this is a long essay, but because some of the material that follows is some of the more rancid, vile writings ever to be published in the  English language. This is not fit reading for children. To be clear, if you are younger than 17 years old, please have a trusted adult read what follows. If  they decide you can handle it, fine. If they decide against you reading it, thank them for their trouble and skip to Part II. This is difficult for a 31 year old. Likewise, adults: This will not be pleasant. There is no shame in skipping to Part II of this
essay, where I apply my conclusions to the current situation. I can only respect those who wish to keep their brains clean of the yuckiness that follows.]

Thelema
The Wikipedia entry for Thelema is surprisingly good. Thelema is a neo-Pagan religion founded by Aleister Crowley, based on his writings, and incorporating Western  Occult tradition, Yoga, bits of Eastern Occultism, and some Kabbalah. Thelema is mostly practiced by members of the A∴A∴ and the Ordo  Templi Orientis (O.T.O.), though it certainly had influence on later springs of Neo-Paganism, as Crowley was a teacher of:  Gardner, who founded Wicca; Jack Parsons (and through him, L. Ron  Hubbard, and thus, Scientology and therefore a large chunk of Hollywood), and Israel Regardie, while his writings further  inspired the creation of The Temple of Set, and the writings of  Robert Anton Wilson among others. In some form or another, ideas  tracing back to him can be found throughout the Hollywood, Wall Street, and Capitol Hill crowds.
Crowley himself was, by most accounts, an unrepentant jackass. The sort of guy even a nun might take great pleasure in punching in the face. He was a virulent antisemite and misogynist, a racist of the highest degree. Not to mention, arguably a sex-crazed pervert– and that has nothing to do with his bisexuality.  That said, he did have moments of genius and usefulness.  His charts in 777 and Sepher Sephiroth are fine work, and exceedingly useful to those who follow such pursuits as would find such things useful.
Even in his most benighted works, flashes of insight dance throughout some otherwise horrific pages, a strange mixture of getting half of everything completely right, and the rest
completely wrong. These moments of genius only fueled to even greater heights his hubris, arrogance, and the blind stupidity that follows from these things. In his day, he was called “The wickedest man in the  world.” This is not far off the mark, in my opinion.
The Book of the Law
According to Crowley, the contents of The  Book of the Law were dictated to him over the course of  three days– April 8,9, and 10, in the year 1904, when he was in
Cairo, Egypt. While he first said that the writing was “an
excellent example of automatic writing”, he later clarified that, in fact, the text had been dictated to him by the spirit Aiwass, who was the messenger of Horus (in the text referred to as “Ra-Hoor- Khuit”).
Correspondingly, there are three parts to the text: The first is “spoken” by Nuit (The Infinite, matter), the Second by Hadit (The point, energy), the third by Ra-Hoor-Khuit (Crowned and Conquering Child, the God of War and Vengeance). Crowley comments, at the beginning of the book, that each chapter also corresponds to an age:

The Third Chapter of the Book is difficult to understand, and may be very repugnant to many people born before the date of the Book (April 1904).
It tells us the characteristics of the Period on which we are now
entered. Superficially, they appear appalling. We see some of them already with terrifying clarity. But fear not!
It explains that certain vast “stars” (or aggregates of experience) may be described as Gods. One of these is in charge of the destinies of this planet for periods of 2,000 years. In the history of the world, as far as we know accurately, are three such Gods:
Isis, the mother, when the Universe was conceived as simple
nourishment drawn directly from her; this period is marked by
matriarchal government.
Next, beginning with 500 B.C., Osiris, the father, when the
Universe was imagined as catastrophic; love, death, resurrection, as the method by which experience was built up; this corresponds to  patriarchal systems.
Now, Horus, the child, in which we come to perceive events as a
continual growth partaking in its elements of both these methods, and not be overcome by circumstance. This present period involves  the recognition of the individual as the unit of society. . . This “God”, Horus . . . rules the present period of 2,000 years, starting in 1904. Everywhere his government is taking root.   Observe for yourselves the decay of the sense of sin, the growth of  innocence and irresponsibility, the strange modifications of the reproductive instinct with a tendency to become bisexual or epicene, the childlike confidence in progress combined with nightmare fear of catastrophe, against which we are yet half unwilling to take precautions.
Consider the outcrop of dictatorships, only possible when moral
growth is in its earliest stages, and the prevalence of infantile
cults like Communism, Fascism, Pacifism, Health Crazes, Occultism in nearly all its forms, religions sentimentalized to the point of practical extinction. . .”

As with so many things, Crowley gets so much right, only to get the rest so grievously wrong that all his good parts are undermined. But I’ll return to that. Let us simply acknowledge for the point of this essay that, in terms of the present, the Third  part of the book is the most important, as pointed out the scribe himself. Thus, we’ll not mention or write much on the first two books, as they deal with previous “AEons”.
[Interesting side note: In the oral tradition I was exposed to  during my time in New Orleans (1998-2002), it was said of The Book of the Law that only one person would ever truly ever completely understand it while remaining sane, for it was written for that one person. Few others would understand it, and those that did who weren’t the intended one, would be driven mad by the understanding. I dismissed that, until the first time I cracked The Book open, at which point I experienced the mind-twisting effects of the words myself. Ew!]
A Few Words on Dealing with Religious Texts
Before we dive into the actual work of this essay, let me take a few moments to make a few points, for the purpose of clarity and consistency.
We all, I think, understand that any text held as a “religious”  text will have layers of meaning – The literal, the allegorical, the moral, the metaphysical, and so forth. The wealth of Christian denominations springs from the fact that people read the same words and find different meanings in them. However, what I’d like to point out is that, no matter what other meanings or levels may or may not exist for a given text, the literal is always there, and always first. This is not due to theological preference, but to simple psychology. The brain remembers the literal understanding first, and the literal is what makes the most impact. I couldn’t for the life of me remember the contents of the Book of Revelation, until I read the Left Behind series. Having read a literal interpretation, I now can remember interesting little creepy things. Whether or not I follow that interpretation is entirely seperate – the literal interpretation is the most visceral, and has the greatest impact on the
subconscious.
Its true that often the “inner” meanings of texts are more meaningful for the spiritual seeker, as the pursuit of understanding enables an unfolding revelation that leads one
(hopefully) closer and closer to the Divine Reality. But because the “inner” meanings are held in such esteem, the literal is too often of secondary concern, even though this is the level of understanding that sears into the subconscious. The rabbis and Church Fathers can say that The Song of Songs is all about God’s Love for His people all they want (and I would be the last to dispute this understanding)– but that doesn’t discount the fact
that the book is a sensual, sometimes racy bit of super-romantic poetry that gets the girls’ hearts thumpin’. The literal interpretation is no less important just because there’s an “inner meaning” or “Greater/ deeper/ higher truth” behind the words.
What this means for this essay: There are fine, upstanding, decent and honorable people who follow Thelema. They are the sort of people you’d invite over for dinner with the family, and you wouldn’t mind if they watched the kids every now and then. They are, in short, Good People. They are also extraordinarily rare among the sort that follow this way. I do not wish to discount the “inner meanings” that some have found and been enlightened by, nor discount the incredible discipline it takes to reach such levels of growth along such a dangerous, slippery road. If that’s how Understanding, Wisdom, etc, find their way to you, go for it. Far be it from me to limit the workings of Grace. I am not writing this to cast aspersions on any individuals. I am not saying that a person will not experience positive spiritual growth if they follow this path – I am saying that it will be very, very difficult and, should they fail, there will be nothing but Grace to catch them.

I have seen both. A few [two, actually] that managed to sort through the stinking morass with some measure of success, and many more who became Entirely Lost.

How this relates to Thelema, Islam, Judeo- Christianity
When trying to understand religious texts, one first of all reads the primary text itself. After this, or at the same time, one generally has on hand one or more secondary texts, full of commentaries by wise and learned folk who know the system and context of the text. For Christianity, there is 2,000 years of writings by Saints, theologians, preachers, novelists, mothers. . .  everyone has had insight to share and, as the I am writing from a
Catholic-Christian perspective, it is with this heritage that I comment upon Christian tradition and understanding. For Islam, after the Koran, one studies the Hadith and then various esteemed works of Islamic jurisprudence. For The Book of the Law, there are several commentaries written by Crowley himself, and one final commentary compiled and completed (mostly written by Crowley, however) by Louis Wilkinson in The Law is For All. I choose this text as the guiding commentary because it’s the “final version”, so to speak.  After a lifetime of attempts, this was the culmination.
For this reason, when seeking some understanding of the writings of the Book of the Law, I will consult with this work to give further explanation. This is not the understanding that everyone who follows this way has– indeed, to point to any interpretation and say “This is what they all believe!” would be to entirely miss one of the main points of Thelema.  However, what this will show is the initial seed from which many of the later sprouts took
root, and thus the ultimate end to which these sprouts grow. All philosophies and theologies carry their seeds with them. The seed growns into a tree, which bears fruit, bearing the seed from which it came. Poison fruits come from the seeds of Poison Fruit Trees.   While some leaves or some very specific preparations of the fruit may be edible, even nutritious, the fact of the Poison Fruit remains.
For now, let us look at the third book of the Book of the Law.
Excerpts from The Book of the Law and the The Law is For All
Before we dive in, one more note. Unlike the Koran or the Biblical texts, the Book of the Law was originally written in the English of  the early 20th Century. For this reason, there is no need for translation into English. The words you are about to read are the exact words written down by Crowley in 1904.
The entire text of the Book of the Law can be found here, if you so wish. I will not note quote the entirety of the third book (although I may come close), as this essay is lengthy
enough – one can find it at the link if one wishes to check my context and copy-paste skills.
First Excerpt: Book III, verses 4-18 {Emphasis mine}

4. Choose ye an island! 5. Fortify it! 6. Dung it about
with enginery of war! 7. I will give you a war-engine. 8. With it
ye shall smite the peoples; and none shall stand before you.
9. Lurk! Withdraw! Upon them! this is the Law of the Battle of
Conquest: thus shall my worship be about my secret house.
10. Get the stele of revealing itself; set it in thy secret temple –
– – and that temple is already aright disposed — & it
shall be your Kiblah for ever. It shall not fade, but
miraculous colour shall come back to it day after day. Close it in
locked glass for a proof to the world.
11. This shall be your only proof. I forbid argument. Conquer! That is enough. I will make easy to you the abstruction from the ill-ordered house in the Victorious City. Thou shalt thyself convey it with worship, o prophet, though thou likest it not. Thou shalt have danger & trouble. Ra-Hoor-Khu is with thee. Worship me with fire & blood; worship me with swords & with spears. Let the woman be girt with a sword before me: let blood flow to my name. Trample down the Heathen; be upon them, o warrior, I will
give you of their flesh to eat!
12. Sacrifice cattle, little and big: after a child.
13. But not now.
14. Ye shall see that hour, o blessed Beast, and thou the Scarlet
Concubine of his desire! 15. Ye shall be sad thereof.
16. Deem not too eagerly to catch the promises; fear not to undergo the curses. Ye, even ye, know not this meaning all.
17. Fear not at all; fear neither men nor Fates, nor gods, nor
anything. Money fear not, nor laughter of the folk folly, nor any
other power in heaven or upon the earth or under the earth. Nu is your refuge as Hadit your light; and I am the strength, force,
vigour, of your arms.
18. Mercy let be off; damn them who pity! Kill and torture;  spare not; be upon them!

It is of interest to note that there is no commentary from verse four until verse 18. There is some interpretation that talk of killing and sacrifice is reference to various acts of sexual magic. If so, I fail to see how that improves verse 12. The commentary expands upon verse 18 by saying:
An end to the humanitarian mawkishness which is destroying the human race by the deliberate artificial protection of the unfit.  What has been the net result of our fine “Christian” phrases?   In the good old days there was some sort of natural selection;
brains and stamina were necessary to survival. The race, as such, consequently improved. But we thought we knew oh! so much better, and we had “Christ’s law” and other slush. So the unfit crowded and contaminated the fit, until the Earth herself grew nauseated with the mess. We had not only a war which killed some eight million
men, in the flower of their age, picked men at that, in four years,  but a pestilence which killed six million in six months.
Are we going to repeat the insanity? Should we not rather breed humanity for quality by killing off any tainted stock,
as we do with other cattle, and exterminating the vermin which
infect it?
Remember that last sentence– it is important. Otherwise,  I think the commentary speaks for itself. Moving on, the next several verses have to do with setting up the temple, and gets very involved with some admittedly interesting Gematria puzzles, and describing the manner of offering, and how to use the remnants of
the offering to smite one’s enemies. Certainly magickally sound, consistent with the system being set up, and I’m certain we’ve all wanted some personal smiting going on, so this is clearly what I would consider a relatively minor quibble. Then some bit of hymn- work, and advise on how the Book should be replicated. The next really “interesting” passage comes with verse 43 {emphasis mine}:

43. Let the Scarlet Woman beware! If pity and
compassion and tenderness visit her heart; if she
leave my work to toy with old sweetnesses; then
shall my vengeance be known. I will slay me her child: I will alienate her heart: I will cast her out from men: as a shrinking and despised harlot shall she crawl through dusk wet streets, and die cold and an-hungered.
44. But let her raise herself in pride! Let her follow me in my way! Let her work the work of wickedness!  Let her kill her heart! Let her be loud and adulterous!  Let her be covered with jewels, and rich garments, and let her be shameless before all men!
45. Then will I lift her to pinnacles of power: then will I breed
from her a child mightier than all the kings of the earth. I will
fill her with joy: with my force shall she see & strike at the
worship of Nu: she shall achieve Hadit.
46. I am the warrior Lord of the Forties: the Eighties cower before me, & are abased. I will bring you to victory & joy: I will
be at your arms in battle & ye shall delight to slay. Success is your proof; courage is your armour; go on, go on, in my strength; & ye shall turn not back for any!
47. This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast; for in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another: in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine. Let him not seek to try: but one cometh after him, whence I say not, who shall discover the Key of it all. Then this line drawn is a key: then this circle squared in its failure is a key also. And Abrahadabra. It shall be his child & that strangely. Let him not seek after this; for thereby alone can he fall from it.
48. Now this mystery of the letters is done, and I want to go on to the holier place.
49. I am in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods of men.

There is no commentary from verse 43, until verse 49, which merely explains that the “Secret Fourfold Word” is the “Law” itself; “Do What Thou Wilt.” I should note that my emphasis in verse 47 was to point out that there is no translation involved for this text. As
for the rest. . . there is no commentary.  There is no given explanation for those verses, presumably because they were considered clear enough, and not in need of explanation. Again, while followers of Thelema might rightly claim a deeper, higher meaning, my argument is that such meanings do not discount the literal. Next we come up to what, for me, are the worst of the verses.

50. Curse them! Curse them! Curse them!
51. With my Hawk’s head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he
hangs upon the cross.
52. I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind
him.
53. With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the
Buddhist, Mongol and Din.
54. Bahlasti! Ompehda! I spit on your crapulous creeds.
55. Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her sake
let all chaste women be utterly despised among you!
56. Also for beauty’s sake and love’s!

Honestly, I could have put all six verses in bold. I will note that a common interpretation of the word “love”, for the writings of Crowley, is to merely substitute the word “Sex.” Before I comment much further, allow me to quote the commentary:
For Verse 51, the commentary: We are to consider carefully the particular attack of Heru-ra-ha against each of these “gods,” or prophets; for though they may be, or represent, the Magi of the past, the curse of their Grade must consume them.
Thus it is the eyes of “Jesus” — his point of view — that must be destroyed; and this point of view is wrong because of his Magical Gesture of self-sacrifice.
One must not for a moment suppose that this verse supports the historicity of “Jesus.” “Jesus” is not, and never was, a man; but he was a “god,” just as a bundle of old rags and a kerosene tin on a bush may be a “god.” There is a man-made idea, built of ignorance, fear, and meanness, for the most part, which we call “Jesus,” and which has been tricked out from time to time with various gauds from Paganism, and Judaism.
The subject of “Jesus” is, most unfortunately, too extensive  for a note; it is treated fully in my book 888.
Oh, where to start? Well, in 1904, yes, there was this idea that Jesus never actually existed. I don’t know many die-hard atheists who even believe that anymore. They may dispute much of the rest of the story, but that he existed is pretty much a given these days.   Pointing out that self-sacrifice is what made his point of view wrong . . . if I may slide into my less-than-orthodox-past for a moment, this seems to be a complete lack of understanding of the basics of blood magick. Granted, I stayed more in the grey/white
areas of blood magick (And yes, there is such a thing!), and I’m sure Crowley thought all of that was for pansies. And I’ll even allow for the possibility that he’d be right about that. But
the self-sacrificial aspect of blood magick is at the very core of what powers it. Well, that and pain. . . But moving on. The most important thing missing is any understanding of Christianity at all. Perhaps it’s because the Christian role models in his life were very poor examples. Crowley shouldn’t have fallen into the trap of judging a tradition by one or a very few of its members, but he did. This is what we call a “novice mistake.” He knew and
understood less about Christianity than the average ten year old, and it shows. It’s actually rather pathetic. As is his total lack of understanding about Islam, as seen in the commentary to verse 52:
Mohammed’s point of view is wrong too; but he needs no such  sharp correction as “Jesus.” It is his face — his outward semblance– that is to be covered with His wings. The tenets of Islam, correctly interpreted, are not far from our Way of Life and Light and Love and Liberty. This applies especially to the secret tenets. The external creed is mere nonsense suited to the intelligence of the peoples among whom it was promulgated; but even so, Islam is magnificent in practice. Its code is that of a man of courage and honor and self- respect; contrasting admirably with the cringing cowardice of the damnation-dodging Christians with their unmanly and dishonest
acceptance of vicarious sacrifice, and their currish conception of  themselves as “born in sin,” “miserable sinners” with “no health in us.”
There will be more detail on Islam below, but note the almost- kinship claimed. I was shocked when, while reading the commentaries for my notes for this essay, I came across this. I had considered an indirect association of the two, but this! Here we see Crowley
kissing up to the cult of a deranged pedophile. When we get into the Hadith, you will see what Islam truly is. And remember, here Crowley has claimed that Islam is not far from the way he is setting up.
Verses 53-54 are about the rending the flesh of all religions outside of Christianity and Islam. In the commentary, he writes:
“Din”– “Severity” or “judgement”– may refer to the Jewish Law, rather than the Faith (al-din) of Islam. Assuming this, the six religions whose flesh must be torn out cover the whole globe outside Islam and Christianity.
Why assault their flesh rather than their eyes, as in the other cases? Because the metaphysics, or point of view, is correct– I take Judaism as Qabalistic– but the practice is imperfect.
Alright. Moving on. Verse 55. Crowley goes on and on for pages about this verse. I suspect because he knows how unpleasant it is, and how hard he must work to try to make it “acceptable.” However, he only proceeds to display his own failings as he tries, desperately, to spin this in an “admirable” direction. Due to his  sudden verbosity at this point, I will not quote his entire commentary. (If someone would like to challenge my context, I will then copy the entire commentary for verse 55 at that time.)
The first part of the commentary for this verse is a bit of linguistic juggling, connecting the root Mara with the Sanskrit words for the sea and “to slay.” He then quotes himself from
Liber XCVII (again, excerpting):
. . . Liber 418 has some explanation of this: “because she hath shut herself up,” I seem to remember is the phrase She is sakti, the te, the Magical Door between the tao and the
Manifested World. The great obstacle then is if that Door be locked up. Therefore Our Lady must be symbolized as a Whore . . .
. . . Moreover there is Mary, a blasphemy against B A B A L O N, for she hath shut herself up; and therefore she is the Queen of all those wicked devils that walk upon the earth, those that thou sawest even as little black specks that stained the Heaven of Urania . . .
Crowley continues to comment: It is this “shutting up” that is hideous, the image of death.
It is the opposite of Going, which is God.
Women under Christianity are kept virgin for the market as Strasbourg geese are nailed to boards till their livers putrefy. The nature of a woman has been corrupted, her hope of a soul thwarted, her proper pleasure balked, and her mind poisoned, to titillate the jaded palates of senile bankers and ambassadors.
Why do men insist on the “innocence” of women? Crowley asks. What follows will be familiar to anyone slightly acquainted with 3rd wave feminism.
. . . 1. To Flatter their vanity
2. To give themselves the best chance of (a) escaping venereal disease, (b) propagating their noble selves
3. To Maintain power over slaves by their possession of Knowledge
4. To keep them docile as long as possible by drawing out the debauching of their innocence . . .
5. In primitive communities, to serve as a guard against surprise and treachery.
6. To cover their secret shame in the matter of sex.
Hence the pretense that a woman is “pure”, modest, delicate, aesthetically beautiful and morally exalted, ethereal and unfleshly, though in fact they know her to be lascivious, shameless, coarse, ill-shapen, unscrupulous, nauseatingly bestial both physically and mentally . . . Her mental and moral characteristics are those of the parrot and the monkey. Her physiology and pathology are hideously disgusting, a sickening slime of uncleanliness. Her virgin life is a sick ape’s, her sexual life a drunken sow’s, her mother life all bulging filmy eyes and sagging udders.
These are the facts about “innocence;” to this has man’s Christian Endeavor dragged her when he should rather have made her his comrade, frank, trusty, and gay, the tenderer self of himself, his consubstantial complement even as the Earth is to the Sun.
Crowley then starts talking about how “we of Thelema” are the people who truly respect Woman. I would like at this point to refer to that unabashedly manly man of men, Ace, host of Ace of Spades HQ. In a post from 26 February 2011, he writes the following:

A related thought I’ve had concerns feminists’  religious doctrine that social restraints on sexual behavior is all  caused by grubby, oppressive, vagina-shackling men. This doesn’t
make sense at all, and never has made sense, and is an unchallenged meme in the Grrls Rule, Boys Drool leftist feminist culture not because it makes a lick of sense but only because it hangs all the evils of the world on the Designated Sexual Villains in the feminist morality play. Men, of course.
If one accepts the hard-to-dispute premise that, between the sexes, women prefer a higher-sexual-cost regime in which men are supposed  to “work for it,” as it were, and men prefer a lower-sexual-cost  regime in which their sexual needs can be gratified with almost no work whatsoever (compare and contrast female wish-fulfillment romcoms with male wish-fulfillment pornos, or even James Bond movies, actually), then of course it makes sense that women, rather than men, have a sound motive for increasing the sexual penalties for promiscuous sex whereas men have stronger motive for decreasing them.
Any feminist (from the leftist POV, I mean) examination of
prostitution — oh, I’m sorry, “sex worker labor-trade” or whatever we’re supposed to call it — begins (and usually ends, frankly) with the unexamined and unchallenged premise that it is men who wish to criminalize prostitution, dirty men who make prostitutes social pariahs, filthy men who make the term “whore” a hateful one used to keep sex-working labor-traders in their despised place at the bottom of  the social heirarchy.
But men, of course, are the primary consumers of sex-work labor- trade. Whether straight or gay, the overwhelming rule is then men pay sex-workers for genital-labor. There is a niche market of prostitution for women, but it is such a tiny market it seizes the public imagination precisely because it is so rare.
The prominent male equivalent of a sex-working genital-trader for women is not in fact a paid prostitute — that exists, but in
vanishingly small numbers — but a gigolo, who is primarily a consort, a romantic-type companion who doesn’t get paid cash-on-the-barrelhead for sexual favors but rather receives gifts and upkeep for maintaining the illusion he’s romantically interested in his sugar-momma. Only secondarily, if at all, is a gigolo a stud for hire.
Given this situation, which of the two sexes has a stronger
interest in criminalizing prostitution? Which of the two sexes
uses the services of prostitution — is “helped” by the service, in their own minds — and which of the two sexes is harmed by prostitution?
It seems to me that, rather obviously, it is women who have the
strongest motivation to criminalize prostitution, to drive it away and underground, and to make the trade as socially-penalized as possible. It is women who are harmed by their men inflicting emotional distress on them by employing the services of a genital- trader, it is women who suffer second-hand venereal disease, it is women who see a share of the couple’s collected wealth being diverted away, outside the couple, to pay for the upkeep of a prostitute.
That’s not nothing, is it?
It is worth noting, I think, that the criminalization of
prostitution occurred with the rise of women’s rights and
women’s sufferage. Prostitution was famously legal in Victorian
England, for example. (A libertarian English writer at NRO liked to quip that he was all in favor of re-imposing Victorian morality on society, given that prostitution, drugs, and guns were not only legal but barely restricted at all.)
This is not to make women the Bad Guys in new morality play — women have perfectly reasonable and perfectly valid reasons for wishing to make prostitution (and, more importantly, soliciting
the services of a prostitute) as rare and as socially unacceptable as possible.
But it is to suggest that left-leaning feminists are rather, what’s
the word?, silly in their determination to pin this alleged wrong
on men.

Do read the whole thing, as they say. It can be found here: http://ace.mu.nu/archive
s/312602.php Ace here easily takes apart Crowley’s thesis, using basic knowledge and easy logic.  Substitute “Christianity” for “men”, and you have the perfect rebuttal to everything Crowley is trying to claim.  Crowley goes on and on, praising Whoredom, the Scarlet Woman, and how awesome it is to be The Beast, that he gets a bit boring. . . so I’m going to skip to his ideas on “sexual liberation.”
. . . The best women have always been sexually free, like the best men; it is only necessary to remove the penalties for being found out. Let’s Women’s labour organizations support any individual who is economically harried on sexual grounds; let social organizations honour in public what their members practice in private.
Most domestic unhappiness will disappear automatically, for its  chief cause is the sexual dissatisfaction of wives . . . .The crime of abortion will lose its motive in all but the most
exceptional cases.  Blackmail will be confined to commercial and political offences. . .
Social scandals and jealousies will tend to disappear. Sexual disease will be easier to track and to combat, when it is no longer a disgrace to admit it.
Prostitution (with its attendant crimes) will tend to disappear  . . . . . .. . . The modern woman is not going to be a dupe, slave, and victim anymore; the woman who gives herself up freely to her own enjoyment, without asking recompense, will earn the respect of her brothers, and will openly despise her “Chaste” or venal sisters, as men now despise “milksops”, “sissies,” and “tango lizards.” Love is to be divorced utterly and irrevocably from social and financial agreements, especially marriage. Love is a sport, an art, a
religion, as you will. . .“Mary inviolate” is to be “torn upon wheels” because tearing is
the only treatment for her; and . . . “a wheel,” is the name of the feminine principle. It is her own sisters who are to punish her for the crime of denying Her nature . . .”
The state of society since the late 1960’s tells us all we need to know about the results of Crowley’s ideas. There’s more that follows, but I think that’s all we need of both the Book of the Law and The Law is for All right now. But, before we move on, consider the following questions:
What is the general gist of Crowley’s writings? What is the vision he sees for humankind? Having over a century since the Book of the Law was written, during which time many of his ideas became mainstream, what has been the result? Why have these results occurred? What is there in this root that ends with the results we have seen? Overall, what is it that his writings endorse for humanity? Sum it all up in less than ten words: What does Crowley desire for the species?
Islam
Most readers here will be well familiar with Islam, and with the following terms: Abrogation, Hudna, Taqqiya, Jizya, and Kafir. If you do not know these words, please look them up. They are key in understanding the true teachings of Islam.
Abrogation is important because it shows forth the lies we are fed about Islam being a “Religion of Peace.” This doctrine, noting the very plain contradictions between various
verses in the Koran, says that the verse  written later take precedence. This is key, because all the “Peace and Love and Unicorns” verses were written in the Medina period, when the Muslims were a minority. Later, in the Mecca period, the Muslim community is stronger, and all the bloody, vitriolic verses are written. There is not a single “peaceful” verse that is not abrogated by a later, violent verse.
Taqqiya and Kitman are basically, religiously sanctioned lying. If you are Muslim, you can lie your pants off about anything (including your religion) if your life is in danger, or if it will help further the Glory of Allah. So, if you’re trying to convince some well-meaning Christians that you are no threat to them, you simply say “Oh, but, jihad is just an interior struggle! We have no wish to harm you!” Even if you are, in that same moment, planning on how to behead them all. It’s all good by Allah!
Most of you already know this, but review is always a good idea.
The Koran and The Hadith
The best highlight of the problematic verses of the Koran – those that are not abrogated by later verses, by the way – comes from my internet role-model, Ann “IAmDagny” Barnhardt.  Ann reads each verse, explains the context, and then proceeds to deal with the
pages in the most appropriate manner – by burning them and uttering passages from the prayers for Exorcism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LCLDjPNpf4&feature=player_embedded
I believe she’s said what needs saying on that matter.
If the Koran is the God-written gospel of Islam, then the Hadith is the rest of the Testament, being the accounts of the life of the prophet Mohammad.
Here’s a nice powerpoint presentation on the both the Koran and the Hadith: http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/12/perfect- man-of-islam.html (HatTip, Ann Barnardt) I would call your attention to pages 251 and 256 of the presentation. On page 251 we see that Mohammad was suicidal when “inspiration” failed to come regularly, and that “Gabriel” had to intervene on these occasions. On page 256 we see that another cause
of his suicidal impulses was that he believed himself to be possessed by a demon, and again, “Gabriel” had to intervene to keep him from hurling himself off the mountain.
Having studied a bit of angelology in my time, I can tell you that there are ways to know whether an entity you may be dealing with is an angel or a demon. Throughout history, a very clear pattern
arises. Although the initial appearance of the angel may startle the one who sees them, the angel always brings one of the following messages: “Do not fear,” “Praise God (and God alone),” or some message warning of danger, or announcing blessing. Everyone who encounters an angel is made better by it, for angels are messengers
of God. Their appearance is a herald of safety and even joy. They deliver their message and depart forthwith, getting out of the way of the human who then must decide their course in light of the angel’s message. Their message never contradicts scripture, and true angelic encounter leaves one closer to God, not farther. A message may be challenging, or troubling, but it is always a blessing. Angelic encounters do not lead to depression or suicide inducing terror.
Demonic encounters, however, do exactly that. The subject of demonic oppression or possession displays great fear, wild mood swings, suicidal tendencies, and many more symptoms that, taken together, cannot be explained by psychology.
Ex-Palestinian-Terrorist Walid Shoebat points out some other interesting facts in his book God’s War on Terror. In this book, he points out the many similarities between “Allah” and Satan. Both are the “Most Proud” – indeed, “The Most Proud One” is one of the 99 Beautiful Names of Allah. Shoebat also points out where Allah refers to himself as the “Greatest of Deceivers.” In fact, the entire Section II of this book is devoted to pointing out
the similarities. And check out his work regarding the Mark of the Beast– blew my mind!
Islamic Funeral Prayers
Ann sure is useful. She gives us a good highlight of the result of Islamic teaching, by writing about Islamic Funeral Prayers. These prayers are where a community will express their hopes and desires for the afterlife of the departed, and will give good insight into
what Islam teaches its adherents to hold as important. Ann writes:

But there is one passage in the funeral rite that jumped out at me that I have not seen anyone else write about. This
particular passage is just another way to show and prove how
utterly satanic and evil the islamic cult is, and how diametrically opposed islam is to not only the Judeo-Christian milieu, but also to all human civilization in general. Here is the excerpt, taken from the U.S. Navy’s burial ceremony guide:
“O allah, forgive him, have mercy on him, pardon him, grant him
security, provide him a nice place and spacious lodgings, wash him (off from his sins) with water, snow and ice, purify him from his sins as a white garment is cleansed from dirt, replace his present abode with a better one, replace his present family with a better one, replace his present partner with a better one, make him enter paradise and save him from the trials of grave [sic] and the punishment of hell.”
I read that and felt like I had been punched in the stomach. And
then I remembered that was a muslim prayer, and thus it has satan as its source and nadir. I should, by now, know to EXPECT the most awful, hateful, destructive and rotten fruits from all things muslim, but (thankfully) I’m not completely jaded yet. Did you see the two phrases that stunned me?
“…replace his present family with a better one,
replace his present partner with a better one…”
Just sit in stillness with that for a moment. Imagine that your
spouse or one of your parents or grandparents has just died. You, your entire family and all of your family friends are at the
funeral, and the priest or minister says, “Merciful Lord Jesus,
please replace this man’s wife with a better wife and replace his
family with a better family in heaven.”
The spousal relationship and the family bond is the number one
image of God in our earthly lives. God is trying to let us have of
taste of what He has within Himself through marriage and family. He also repeatedly uses the reality of marriage and fidelity in marriage as an analogue for His love for us. We are in a covenant with God – not a contract. Marriage is the same – a covenant, NOT a mere contract. Read the Song of Songs or the book of Hosea to see marriage as an image, both the honeymoon and the tough part requiring sacrifice and fidelity. Finally, read the Pauline epistles wherein Paul can’t hardly get through a chapter without reminding one and all that Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church is His Bride. Read about Jesus telling us that through Him we are adopted sons and daughters of God – coheirs to the Kingdom of Heaven. Remember Jesus teaching us by example to call God “Abba”,  which literally means “Daddy”.  Now go back up and read the muslim funerary quote. You find me a muslim man who is in love with his one wife and will tell you that the best part of his day is waking up next to his best friend and I’ll show you a muslim apostate.
Islam is evil. There is nothing even remotely good about it. Even
the funerals are satanic and designed to destroy human love and break people’s hearts. Looking forward to heaven? Don’t bother. Your spouse has a new, better spouse to replace your sorry @$$, and your parents have new, better children to replace the walking disappointment that is YOU. No one loves you, you are a disappointment and a mistake, and no one is waiting for you. So sayeth allah the merciful.]

What we see, then, in Islam, is the same spirit behind the writing of The Book of the Law. Both revel in the degradation of all humanity; men, women and children.
The Fall of Satan
We now step backward in time once again. Or rather, we’re stepping a bit sideways, outside of time, to the story about how Satan got his butt kicked out of Heaven. In my time wandering through the wastes and valleys of western religion, I’ve come across several
different versions. But for the sake of this article, I’ll go with the more detailed “orthodox” Christian version.  In this version, Satan is the brightest, most beautiful of angels (as he is in every version). He is Angel #1. Satan doesn’t rebel just because out of nowhere he believes himself as greater than his maker. No, Satan’s rebellion is a reaction to something God Himself does/ reveals.
God, being all-knowing, lays out the plan for Salvation–> a plan which includes the Incarnation and Events That Follow. Satan sees The Son becoming human– born of a human women, living a fleshy life that includes eating, digestion and the rest, and is  horrified. Surely the God he bows before will not lower Himself to be one of these beasts! Well, yes, actually, that’s exactly what The Plan entails and, moreover, as The Son is God, that means that the angels (every last one of them) will be worshiping The Son as a Human.
Well, this is just too much for Satan! Hells No, he says, I’m not bowing down before some smelly, dirty, disgusting beast! It’s one thing to worship a being that is greater than oneself, but an angel, worshiping a mere human, an animal? Puh-leaze!
This outburst is what prompts angel #2, Michael, to cry out “Who is like God?!” which is an angelic version of saying “Excuse me, but who do you think you are, to tell God what not to do!” Michael and his buddies then boot Satan, and the 1/3 of the heavenly host that take his side, out of Heaven.
The Essence of Sin
So, the Book of the Law and The Law is For All, The Koran and Hadith, the Fall of Satan. What do all these things have in common?
What they have in common is the idea that Humans are beasts. They treat humans as beasts, expect humans to be beasts, and endorse humans behaving as beasts. The Book of the Law and it’s commentary advance the idea of treating humans like cattle, to be
bred and slaughtered as one breeds and slaughters for meat. The writings of Islam expect and endorse humans acting like rabid beasts upon the earth, making deceit and murder holy, endorsing the rape of women and children, and rewarding cruelty and barbarism.
The story of the Fall has the then-top angel proclaiming that humans are disgusting beasts, and Salvation is a degradation of God.
Thus, I believe that the Christian can define sin as “Anything (thought, word or deed) which has the intent or result of degrading any human to beast or beast-like status.”
The inverse might also be true– a virtue might be defined as “Anything (thought, word or deed) which has the intent or result of recognizing the universally royal status of the Children of God.”  By “universally royal status of the Children of God”, I mean the
recognition that humans have Logic and Love, that we are all possessed of Free Will by our Maker. [I would note, of course, that Humility is most becoming in Princes and Princesses.]
[Under this definition, the American Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights are, by their nature, exceedingly virtuous documents. Each affirms that the various rights recognized are given to all humanity by their Creator, and cannot be taken away by any mortal agency– or immortal, as no angel can strip humanity of these rights either. Each recognizes the primacy of Human Free Will (for good or ill), and facilities that men posses in the realms of Logic and Love.]
I believe that this squares well with the usual definition of sin, as a voluntary act against the Laws of God and Nature. The Catholic Encyclopedia goes on in some great, theological detail, on sin, the essence of sin, the types of sin, etc. [hey, we’re Catholic. We know from sin!]
All the things that God spells out in the Bible as against His law (Mind you, I am separating out those laws that are solely for the Jewish People, like the Kosher laws. Jews are not supposed to eat pepperoni pizza. But it is not immoral for a Gentile like myself to
do so. Some of the Law is there to make the Jewish People the Jewish People. We’re addressing all the rest) are all things in which the person who commits the thing, or the person whom the thing is committed against, is lowered in perception to a state that is less than human.
Likewise, the things that violate the Laws of Nature are those things where humans consent to be ruled by something other than God. They are those things that Reason fails to conquer, or when Reason itself fails to give way to God. Lust, for instance, is such  a violation. This is not because sensuality itself is sinful– God’s first direction for Adam and Eve was to “Go Forth and Multiply”. Having sexy feelings for your spouse is far from sinful.  But, if those “Sexy Feelings” rule you, or if sensuality becomes  your master, and you start looking at other people for sensual pleasure, if you indulge in pr0n or cheat or fornicate – then you have become a slave to desire. In addition, in your mind you have
degraded the object of your lust into a mere toy, a mere thing that exists only to satisfy your urges. and so by consenting of a sin of lust, you have sinned twice, because you
have degraded yourself and another. Even if it’s all in your head.
In another example: Drinking wine is not a sin. Jesus did it quite a bit, we are told, and had dab hand at making it when needed and His Mum got on His case about it. However, drunkeness is sinful, because one becomes a slave of the alcohol. Likewise, playing a few rounds of Texas Hold ‘Em isn’t itself sinful – but if you gamble to the point that you cause harm to others, or become a slave of gambling, then that is a sin.
On a personal level, there is nothing sinful about eating chocolate. Indeed, I believe God smiles when we enjoy the wonders of His creation. However, if I eat chocolate to the point that my body is harmed by it, if I cannot control myself around chocolate, then it is a sin, because I have allowed the confection to make me it’s b!tch, and not the other way around.
Humans are neither slaves nor animals. Any act which degrades us to these states is sinful. Any ideology or philosophy that encourages such behavior is EVIL. Evil as in “This is exactly what Satan was saying. . .” evil.  Evil because it puts humans on Satan’s side,
evil because by such acts, humans deny God and their Divine Inheritance. Got it?
This concludes Part I. In Part II, we shall examine this idea as it applies to current events.
Works Cited:
Books:

  • Crowley, Aleister. The Book of the Law, Liber Al vel  Legis. Centennial Edition.  York Beach, ME. Red Wheel/ Weiser, LLC. 2004.
  • Crowley, Aleister. The Law is For All: The Authorized Popular Commentary to The Book of the Law. Ed. Hymeneus Beta and Louis Wilkinson.  Tempe, AZ. New Falcon Publications. 1996.
  • Shoebat, Walid and Joel Richardson. God’s War on Terror: Islam, Prophecy, and the Bible.  Top Executive Media. 2008.

Internet:

Further Reading (If Interested):
On Magick and Western Esotericism, the following authors and books may be of use:
Kraig, Donald Michael. Modern Magick: Twelve Lessons in the High Magickal Arts.
Llewellyn Publications.

Back when I was associated with a group, this book was one of our basic textbooks–my copy is an earlier edition than the one linked to, so I’m not sure what
changes have been made. Assuming not much, here’s my recommendation: If you want to gain a basic understanding of the esoteric world from the esoteric point of view, I can think of no better starting place. Kraig writes clearly on the basics, ethics,
and the different “types” of magick that are out there.

Almost anything written by Dion Fortune. I am very partial to Fortune as, in the history of Western (and especially English – language) Occultism, she is the most clear-headed and sensible. She conveys more practical understanding about psychic vampirism in one
page of Psychic Self-Defence than Konstaninos wrote in an earlier book.
The writings of Israel Regardie are also quite good – I especially recommend A Garden of Pomegranates: Skrying the Tree of Life, for a thorough and detailed look at Western Occult Kabbalah.
Islam vs The West

Posted in Uncategorized
Share