Editorial

Excerps from:

Ayn Rand's forward to the 25th Anniversary edition of

The Fountainhead:

[See also the Howard Roark trial summation from this novel further down towards the bottom of this page.]

Religion's monopoly in the field of ethics has made it extremely difficult to communicate the emotional meaning and connotations of a rational view of life. Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man's reach. "Exaltation" is usually taken to mean an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. "Worship" means the emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man. "Reverence" means the emotion of a sacred respect, to be experienced on one's knees. "Sacred" means superior to and not-to-be-touched-by any concerns of man or of this earth. Etc. But such concepts do name actual emotions, and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions. What, then, is their source or referent in reality?
It is the entire emotional realm of man's dedication to a moral ideal. Yet apart from the man-degrading aspects introduced by religion, that emotional realm is left unidentified, without concepts, words or recognition. It is this highest level of man's emotions that has to be redeemed from the murk of mysticism and redirected at its proper object: man. It is an emotion that a few---a very few---men experience consistently; some men experience it in rare, single sparks that flash and die without consequences; some do not know what I am talking about; some do and spend their lives as frantically virulent spark-extinguishers. A cruder variant of the same hatred [for man] is represented by those concrete-bound, "statistical" mentalities who---unable to grasp the meaning of man's volition---declare that man cannot be an object of worship, since they have never encountered any specimens of humanity who deserved it. The man-worshipers, in my sense of the term, are those who see man's highest potential and strive to actualize it. The man-haters are those who regard man as a helpless, depraved, contemptible creature---and struggle never to let him discover otherwise. It does not matter that only a few in each generation will grasp and achieve the full reality of man's proper stature---and that the rest will betray it. It is those few that move the world and give life its meaning---and it is those few that I have always sought to address. The rest are no concern of mine; it is not me they will betray: it is their own souls.

AL III.49: "I am in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods of men."

The evident interpretation of this is to take the word to be "Do what thou wilt," which is a secret word, because its meaning for every man is his own inmost secret. And it is the most profound blasphemy possible against all 'gods of men,' because it makes every man his own God.

We may then take it that this Solar-Phallic Ra Ha is Each Man Himself. As each independent cell in our bodies is to us, so is each of us to Heru-Ra-Ha. Each man's 'child'-consciousness is a Star in the Cosmos of the Sun, as the Sun is a Star in the Cosmos of Nuith.

Serious students should consult Chpater 2 of Liber 333, and the Commentary thereof. “Q.V.I.F.” is “Quif”, an

To “curse them” is part of the Initiatic process. You can’t rise above them as long as you are psychologically in awe of them. Eventually you learn to ignore them, but until you do, you must make cursing them an actual rite. Particularly those “gods” which you were taught to worship by your parents.

Emotional habits are just as difficult to eradicate or to create as any other habits. You drill yourself out of them or into them by routine—dreary, long routine. The difference is—and it is the whole difference!--that you create or destroy your habits deliberately. As a rule, it takes at least three months—a station of the sun—to establish a momentum in consciousness. It may take a lifetime to get rid of it.

AL III.51: "With my Hawk's head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross."

We are to consider carefully the particular attach of Heru Ra Ha against each of these 'gods' or prophets; for though they be, or represent, the Magi of the past, the curse of their Grade must consume them. (See Liber Magi.) 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.

The main source of the ‘Jesus” of the New Testament was the unnamed ‘Master of Righteousness’ of the Essenes; but it is impossible nowadays to separate what is historical and about him from what is historical about Ionas, or the Rabbi X, or the Rabbi Y. To say nothing of the legendary and hieratic details cribbed from the hagiographies of Dionysis, Meithras, Attis, Osiris, and others.

But even if it were possible to winnow the genuine form the spurious in the ola podrida of the Gospels—for

what? Sixteen hundred years of ‘Jesus’ ought to be enough for nay healthy stomach.

Unhealthy stomachs may keep their Isa, for all we care. See AL I, 49, and the Commentary thereof.

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 honour 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'

AL III.53: "With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the Buddhist, Mongol and Din."

"The Indian." The religion of Hindustan, metaphysically and mystically comprehensive enough to assure itself

the possession of much truth, is in practice almost as superstitious and false as Christianity, a faith of slaves, liars and dastards. The same remarks apply roughly to Buddhism.

'Mongol:" presumably the reference is to Confucianism, whose metaphysical and ethical flawlessness has not

saved its adherents from losing those ruder virtues which are proper to a Fighting Animal, and thus yielding at

last a civilization coeval with history itself to the barbarous tribes of Europe.

"Din" -- 'severity' or 'judgment' may refer to the Jewish Law, rather than to the Faith (ad 'din') of Islam. Assuming this, the six religions whose flesh must be torn out cover the whole globe outside Islam and Christianity.

It should be noted that these religions are mentioned impersonally, while Christianity and Islam are mentioned in the person of their founders, or alleged founders. Obviously, ‘Din’ refers to Mosaic Law; Islam has already been disposed of in the previous verse.

Why assault their flesh rather than their eyes, as in the other cases? Because the metaphysics, or point of view,

Orgnaized religion is the death of Theurgy. But at least it should not be the death of common sense. You are free to make a fool of yourself, but leave your neighbor alone. He may make a Fool of himself—who knows?

Behold! In these Chapters have I, thy Father, restricted myself, not speaking of any immediate Echo of a Word in the World, because, there Men being long since withdrawn into their Silence, it is their One Word, and that

Alone, that resoundeth undiminished through Time. How Mohammed, who followeth, is darkened and confused by His Nearness to our own Time, so that I say not save with Diffidence that His Word ALLH may mean this or that. But I am bold concerning His Doctrine of the Unity of God, for God is Man, and he said therefore: Man is One. And His Will was to unite all Men in One reasonable Faith: to make possible international Co‑ operation in Science. Yet, because He arose in the Time of the greatest possible Corruption and Darkness, when every Civilisation and Every Religion had fallen into Ruin, by the malice of the great Sorcerer of Nazareth, as some say, He is still hidden in the Dust of the Simoom, and we may not perceive Him in His true Self of Glory. Nevertheless, behold, o My Son, this Mystery. His true Word was La ALLH, that is to say: (there is) No God, and LA AL is that Mystery of Mysteries which thine own Eye pierced in thine Initiation. And of that Truth have the Illusion and Falsehood enslaved the Souls of Men, as is written in the Book of the Magus.

Now, o my Son, having understood the heaven that is within thee, according to thy will, learn this concerning the hell of the slaves of the slave‑gods, that it is a true place of torment. For they, restricting themselves, and being divided in will, are indeed the servants of sin, and they suffer, because, not being united in love with the whole Universe, they perceive not beauty, but ugliness and deformity, and, not being united in understanding thereof. Conceive only of darkness and confusion, beholding evil therein. Thus at last they come, as did the

Manichaeans, to find, to their terror, a division even in the one, not that division which we know for the craft of

love, but a division of hate. And this, multiplying itself, conflict upon conflict, endeth in hotchpot, and in the

impotence and envy of Choronzon, and in the abominations of the abyss. And of such the Lords are the Black

Brothers, who seek by their sorceries to confirm themselves in division, yet in this even is no true evil, for love

conquereth all, and their corruption and disintegration is also the victory of Babalon.

Alas, my son! this hath been fatal constantly to many a man of noble aspiration, that these words were hidden

from his understanding. For there is a balance in all things and the body hath charter to fulfil his nature, even as the mind hath. So to repress one function is to destroy that proportion which is wholesome, and wherein indeed all health and sanity have consistency. Verily, it is the art of life to develop each organ of body and mind, or, as I may say, each weapon of the will to its perfection, neither distorting any use, nor suffering the will of one part to tyrannize over that of another. And this doctrine (be it accursed!) that pain and repression are wholesome and profitable in themselves is a lie born of sin and of ignorance, the false vision of the Universe and of its laws that is the basis of the averse formula of the Slain God. It is true that on occassion one limb must be sacrificed to save the whole body, as when one cutteth away one hand that is bitten by a viper, or as when a man giveth his life to save his city. But this is a right and natural subordination of the superficial and particular to the fundamental and general will, and moreover it is a case extraordinary, relating to accident or extremity, not in any wise a rule of life, or a virtue in its absolute nature.

AL II.52: "There is a veil: that veil is black. It is the veil of the modest woman; it is the veil of sorrow, & the pall of death: this is none of me. Tear down that lying spectre of the centuries: veil not your vices in virtuous words: these vices are my service; ye do well, & I will reward you here and hereafter."

It is defined as a ghost or apparition. Why is it that none of those presently calling themselves Thelemites can understand Motta's teachings on the Christist egregore?...and equate this with that lying spectre?

When I say I curse Christianity, Judaism and Islam (the three desert religions), why do they think that I am including the people as well? I curse the religions and what those religions are doing to the people that adhere to them. The rape of women, the destruction of the healthy sexual drive and subsequently a healthy psychology. Yes, this Christist egregore, this "lying spectre of the centuries" has been slowly destroying our race for over 1500 years!

But all these Thelemics, they'd rather practice their blind religiosity and their knee-jerk, fascist PC-ism. They're actually envious of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the councils of Rabbis and Imams. They want to be just like them...to spread their hatred all over the Earth...from Inquisition to Jihad; the denigration of woman (check out the misogyny in all these Thelemic bodies!) and the suppression of free speech. Though they will spend a lot of time covering their vices with virtuous words...they are misanthropes; the lot of them!!!

The third chaper of Liber AL vel Legis is about cursing these spectres, cursing these false apparitions. Don't confuse this with hating these gods by quoting Liber Librae...that's just veiling your vices in virtuous words. There's a difference between that scarecrow, Jesus, and the Christ (the center of us all...Hadit); there's a difference between that angry and jealous demiurge, Jehovah, and the Tetragrammaton. But don't hate these things...for that's but a separate way to loving them. Rather as the third chapter of AL teaches us..."Curse them! Curse them! Curse them!"

But these Thelemics don't like the third chapter at all. They'd just as soon ignore it. And they've condemned me for accepting the whole of this great Holy Book as they being the dupes of the Black Lodge (without any and every doubt!), can only accept the parts of AL that they like...that fit their cushy, feel-good, blind religiosity. And they are destroying this wonderful philosophical system. They've even turned Crowley into a god, worshipping him...particularly the Caliphate drones. And the Mottants would set up a papacy with their "Office of the Beast." How ridiculous is that?!

Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which has two major effects on learning:

Cognitive dissonance was first investigated by Leon Festinger and associates, arising out of a participant observation study of a cult, which believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood, and what happened to its members — particularly the really committed ones who had given up their homes and jobs to work for the cult — when the flood did not happen. While fringe members were more inclined to recognise that they had made fools of themselves and to "put it down to experience", committed members were more likely to re-interpret the evidence to show that they were right all along (the earth was not destroyed because of the faithfulness of the cult members).

Ordeal is therefore an effective — if spurious — way of conferring value on an educational (or any other) experience. "No pain, no gain", as they say.

It is not, however, the qualities of the course which are significant, as the amount of effort which participants have to put in: so the same qualification may well be valued more by the student who had to struggle for it than the student who sailed through.

ATHERTON J S (2002) Learning and Teaching: Cognitive dissonance [On-line]: UK: Available: http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/dissonance.htm Accessed: 4 August 2003

The Christian Myth about the Founding Fathers
of the United States of America

"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine."
-George Washington (1732-1799) From the Treaty of Tripoli

The Religious Right is a dangerous group. They are the greatest agents of Propaganda the world has seen since the Communist Party in Russia was in power. The great lie brought forth by the Religious Right is the false belief that this nation was a “Christian Nation” in it’s inception, and is still a "Christian Nation." This is completely and utterly FALSE. To prove this point, we present quotes (below) from the Founding Fathers of this country.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) 3rd American president, author, scientist, architect, educator, and diplomat. Deist, avid separationist.

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies."

"His [Calvin's] religion was demonism. If ever man worshiped a false God, he did."

"Their [Presbyterian’s] ambition and tyranny would tolerate no rival if they had power."

"It is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist. It is error, alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."

"If by religion, we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your [John Adams’] exclamation on that hypothesis is just, 'that this would be the best of worlds if there were no religion in it'."

More quotes from Jefferson:

"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies."

"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But a heresy it certainly is. Jesus told us indeed that 'God is a spirit,' but he has not defined what a spirit is, nor said that it is not matter. And the ancient fathers generally, if not universally, held it to be matter: light and thin indeed, an etherial gas; but still matter." [letter to John Adams, August 15, 1820]

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites." [Notes on Virginia]

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes" [Letter to von Humboldt, 1813].

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." [Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823]

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own" [Letter to H. Spafford, 1814].

Nation's third president compiled the four Gospels into a single text without miracles that ends with Jesus' burial rather than the resurrection.

By Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 5, 2008

Making good on a promise to a friend to summarize his views on Christianity, Thomas Jefferson set to work with scissors, snipping out every miracle and inconsistency he could find in the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Then, relying on a cut-and-paste technique, he reassembled the excerpts into what he believed was a more coherent narrative and pasted them onto blank paper -- alongside translations in French, Greek and Latin.

In a letter sent from Monticello to John Adams in 1813, Jefferson said his "wee little book" of 46 pages was based on a lifetime of inquiry and reflection and contained "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man."

He called the book "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth." Friends dubbed it the Jefferson Bible. It remains perhaps the most comprehensive expression of what the nation's third president and principal author of the Declaration of Independence found ethically interesting about the Gospels and their depiction of Jesus.

"I have performed the operation for my own use," he continued, "by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter, which is evidently his and which is as easily distinguished as diamonds in a dunghill."

The little leather-bound tome, several facsimiles of which are kept at the Huntington Library in San Marino, continues to fascinate scholars exploring the powerful and varied relationships between the Founding Fathers and the most sacred book of the Western World.

The big question now, said Lori Anne Ferrell, a professor of early modern history and literature at Claremont Graduate University, is this:

"Can you imagine the reaction if word got out that a president of the United States cut out Bible passages with scissors, glued them onto paper and said, 'I only believe these parts?' "

"He was a product of his age," said Ferrell, whose upcoming book, "The Bible and the People," includes a chapter on the Jefferson Bible. "Yet, he is the least likely person I'd want to pray with. He was more skeptical about religion than the other Founding Fathers."

In Jefferson's version of the Gospels, for example, Jesus is still wrapped in swaddling clothes after his birth in Bethlehem. But there's no angel telling shepherds watching their flocks by night that a savior has been born. Jefferson retains Jesus' crucifixion but ends the text with his burial, not with the resurrection.

Stripping miracles from the story of Jesus was among the ambitious projects of a man with a famously restless mind. At 71, he read Plato's "Republic" in the original Greek and found it lackluster.

Ever the scientist, he inoculated his wife, children and many of his slaves against smallpox with fresh pus drawn from infected domestic farm animals, according to Robert C. Ritchie, W.M. Keck Foundation director of research at the Huntington Library.

"For a lot of people, taking scissors to the Bible would be such an act of desecration they wouldn't do it," Ritchie said. "Yet, it gives a reading into Jefferson's take on the Bible, which was not as divine word put into print, but as a book that can be cut up."

Jefferson, a tall vigorous man who preferred Thucydides and Cicero to the newspapers of his day, was not the only 18th century leader who questioned traditional Christian teachings.

Like many other upper-class, educated citizens of the new republic, including George Washington, Jefferson was a deist.

Deists differed from traditional Christians by rejecting miraculous occurrences and prophecies and embracing the notion of a well-ordered universe created by a God who withdrew into detached transcendence.

Critics of the time regarded deism as an ill-conceived attempt to reconcile religion with scientific discoveries. For rationalists in the Age of Enlightenment, deism was one of many efforts to liberate humankind from what the deists viewed as superstitious beliefs.

Jefferson was a particular fan of Joseph Priestley, a scientist, ordained minister and one of Jefferson's friends. Priestley -- who discovered oxygen and invented carbonated water and the rubber eraser -- published books that infamously cast a critical eye upon biblical miracles. Jefferson was particularly fond of Preistley's comparison of the lives and teachings of Socrates and Jesus.

Discussions and letters between Jefferson and another friend, Philadelphia physician Benjamin Rush, led Jefferson to compile his "wee little book." In a letter to Rush on April 21, 1803, Jefferson said his editing experiment aimed to see whether the ethical teachings of Jesus could be separated from elements he believed were attached to Christianity over the centuries.

"To the corruption of Christianity I am indeed opposed," he wrote to Rush, "but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself."

Therefore, Ritchie said, "for Jefferson, the Bible was a book that could be made and unmade."

The Jefferson Bible remained largely unknown beyond a close circle of relatives and friends until 1904, when its publication was ordered by Congress. About 9,000 copies were issued and distributed in the Senate and the House.

Today several editions of the Jefferson Bible are available through booksellers. A few online versions exist, including one on the website of the Jefferson Monticello, www.monticello.org/library/links/jefferson.html.

It is hard to say whether Jefferson would have objected to publication of the book.

"Say nothing of my religion," Jefferson once said. "It is known to myself and my God alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life; if that has been honest and dutiful to society, the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one."

"I conceive, then, that the Infinite has created many beings or gods vastly superior to man."

"It may be these created gods are immortals; or it may be that after many ages, they are changed, and others supply their places."

"Howbeit, I conceive that each of these is exceeding good and very powerful; and that each has made for himself one glorious sun, attended with a beautiful and admirable system of planets."

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." [ in a letter to Thomas Jefferson]

The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it.

But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed.

Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1500 years.

The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles.

"The Christian religion and Masonry have one and the same common origin: Both are derived from the worship of the Sun. The difference between their origin is, that the Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun."

"There is scarcely any part of science, or anything in nature, which those imposters and blasphemers of science, called priests, as well Christians as Jews, have not, at some time or other, perverted, or sought to pervert to the purpose of superstition and falsehood."

"The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing and admits of no conclusion."

James Madison (1751-1836) American president and political theorist. Popularly known as the "Father of the Constitution." More than any other framer he is responsible for the content and form of the First Amendment.

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.".

"Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion.”

"In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." [April 1, 1774]

"...the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State [Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819]

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" [Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822].

"The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.”

In 2000 Years of Disbelief by James A. Haught, Lincoln is mentioned on pages 125 through 127. From the material presented it would seem that Lincoln as a young man was an avid anti-christian and most likely an atheist. In his later years, he came to believe in God, but still was anti-religious in the sense that he rejected organized religion. Some selections from Haught:
John T. Stuart, Lincoln's first law partner: "He was an avowed and open infidel, and sometimes bordered on Atheism...He went further against Christian beliefs and doctrines and principles than any man I ever heard."
Joseph Lewis quoting Lincoln in a 1924 speech in New York: " The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."
Lincoln in a letter to Judge J.S. Wakefield, after the death of Willie Lincoln: "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."
As a young man Lincoln apparently wrote a manuscript that he planned to publish, which vehemently argued against the divine origin of the Bible and the Christian scheme of salvation. Samuel Hill, a friend and mentor, convinced him to drop it, considering the disastrous consequences it would have on his political career.
William H Herndon, a former law partner, wrote a biography on Lincoln titled: "The true story of a great life". In it Herndon discusses Lincoln's religious views extensively.
Gordon Leidner has collected some quotations from Lincoln's later years in which he invokes God, and he makes the argument that Lincoln became a sincere believer. It seems to me he did come to believe in God, but he never accepted organized Christianity.
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

"Certain people have a greater developed astral body than the norm, either due to deliberate training, genetic inheritance, magnetic influences of where they live or the people with which they enter into contact with. For example, trained Initiates, are themselves, developed to a high degree, but not of a degree raised enough to have overwhelmed the Ego, possess intensely magnetic, disturbing personalities for sensible people who are not accustomed to the existing presence of psychic force in high tension. In circumstances in the which Aspirants already of a certain development extend the conscience of the internal vehicles with greater ease, those that are not prepared can become extremely disturbed by the constant presence of an initiate. Therefore, advanced occultists that, without having yet reached total balance and destruction of one’s powers, and allow the profane to enter in one’s circle, are being imprudent and until indiscreet. But they cannot, in all fairness, be accused of abusing their faculties. They emanate force involuntarily, due to its high internal load. The initiates of higher advancement always live away from the multitude, they not only need isolation for their work, but know its influence produces a violent psychic reaction in the profane."

Act with integrity; search for authenticity in your heart and clarity in your mind.

Everyday speech gives us clues we would be wise to follow. It hints that there may be a general law or principal that a person will feel himself to be going forward when he puts himself into his actions, presuming this to be equivalent to self-disclosure (making patent his true self), but that if this is not so, he will be liable to feel that he is 'going back' or is stationary, or 'going round in circles,' or getting nowhere.' In 'putting myself into' what I do, I lose myself, and in so doing I seem to become myself. The act I do is felt to be me, and I become 'me' in and through such action. Also, there is a sense in which a person 'keeps himself alive' by his acts; each act can be a new beginning, a new birth, a re-creation of oneself, a self-fulfilling.
To be 'authentic' is to be true to oneself, to be what one is, to be 'genuine.' To be 'inauthentic' is to not be oneself, to be false to oneself: to be not as one appears to be, to be counterfeit. We tend to link the categories of truth and reality by saying that a genuine act is real, but that a person who habitually uses action as a masquerade is not real.
In everydday speech, and in more systematic theory which, to adpat a remark of William James, is but an unduly obstinate attempt to think clearly, 'authentic' action or 'inauthentic' action can be viewed from many angles: from each angle different features come to the fore.
The intensification of the being of the agent through self-disclosure, through making patent the latent self, is the meaning of Nietzsche's 'will to power.' It is the 'weak' man who, in lieu of potentiating himself genuinely, counterfeits his impotence by dominating and controlling others, by idealizing physical strength or sexual potency, in the restricted sense of the capacity to have erections and to ejaculate.
The act that is genuine, revealing, and potentiating is felt by me as fulfilliing. This is the only actual fulfillment of which I can prroperly sepak. It is an act that is me: in this action I am myself. I put myself 'in' it. In so far as I put myself 'into' what I do, I become myself through this doing. I know also that the converse is true, when I feel 'empty,' or am haunted by futility. In the light of such impressions of myself, I am compelled to see the other. I suspect 'frantic' activity in another. I sense that he senses in his actions a lack of intrinsic meaning: that in clinging to external formulas and dogmas he senses his emptiness. I expect that such a person will envy and resent others. If, from my impression of myself, I see him as not fulfilling himself by not putting himself into his own future, I am alert to various ways in which he will try to fill his emptiness. One fills oneself with others (introjective identification) or lives vicariously by living through the lives of others (projective identification). One's 'own' life comes to a stop. One goes round in a circle, in a whirl, going everywhere and getting nowhere.

That a wise man does not judge himself or others by things that happen. He knows that most evil is an accident and that calamities are as impersonal as the feet that step on ants. (I do not speak of the calamities that are always with us and that are actually our character.)

That a wise man does not judge the hour but the year. He mistrusts his anger and knows it for a bruise that will be healed. He knows that when it has healed it belongs to memory, not judgments.

That a wise man knows he has only one enemy--himself. This is an enemy difficult to ignore and full of a cunning lacking in the enemies outside. it assails one with doubts, fears and disgusts. It always seeks to lessen, and leads one away form one's goals. It is an enemy never to be vanquished by constantly outwitted.

That a wise man never measure anything by what he feels for it. A woman is not as wonderful as his love, a dollar is not as big as his need for it.

That foolish people look for importance in their friends. the smaller a man is, the happier he is when he sits beside superiors of any sort--even those who may despise him. It is a happiness that never lasts. a beggar, however well treated, ends up full of misery and curses.

That a wise man will not trust too much those who admire him, even for his wisdom. He knows that an admirer is never truly satisfied until he can substitute pity for his admiration and disdain for his applause. our admirers are always on the lookout for evidences of our collapse. They find a solace in the fact that our superiority was transitory and that we end as they do--old and useless.

that a wise man will always allow a fool to rob him of ideas without yelling, "Thief." If he is wise he has not been impoverished. Nor has the fool been enriched. The thief flatters us by stealing. We flatter him by complaining.

That a wise man, asked how many women have loved him, will divide his conquests by ten, subtract half from the remainder, erase the result and answer, "Only the woman who still loves me, which makes one."

A man’s desire to hear the intimate cry of another’s heart never lessens. When he hears it something more remarkable than peace, honor and solvency appear in his life. He buds again through love. He comes into a sort of spectacular existence in another’s need of him. His humanity fizzes in him because another soul desires him. Love is the magician that pulls him out of his own hat.

That a wise man cannot evade pain or rage, but when they come to him he treats the as visitors and not as permanent relatives. A man who suffers too long or remains too long angry is not at grips with any enemy, but coddling a disease.

That a wise man will not try to pretend he is improving with age. He knows that the years diminish him, that time rots his body, cools his blood, darkens his brain and, like a furtive embalmer, prepares him for his winding sheet.

That a wise man is never impressed by other "wise men." I noticed early that pompous people have actually less a high opinion of themselves than a desire to create such an opinion in others.

Overproud people are also wasted on me, as are faced with granite expressions. I know that excessive pride is a sort of paste that holds an inner rubbish in place. It is also a bid for applause that people make who have done nothing.

Fools who specialize in deep silences also fail to disturb me with their grimness or their pauses. I find the pantomimes of stupidity no more impressive than its oralizings.

I know a man is hollow who play-acts importance, graceless when he tries to make me feel ill at ease, and a fool if he tries to impress me rather than interest me.

I know that a man who struts in my presence hopes to find in my eyes an importance missing in his own.

People who glow with success I have found among the most charming of humans. But those seemingly successful ones who try to bulldoze applause out of me, I know for impostors. They have not found success but are still looking for it.

The same is true of piety or of happiness or of wisdom. Their true possessors do not need me as an audience.

I know that a man who tries to convert me to any cause is actually at work on his own conversion, unless he is looking for funds under the mask of some fancied nobility.

I know that a man who shows me his wealth is like the beggar who shows me his poverty; they are both looking for alms from me, the rich man for the alms of my envy, the poor one for the alms of my guilt.

And last: That a wise man saves his good manners for disaster. A fool practices them when they are useless.

I saw a most marvelous film...a Gary Cooper film, based on an Ayn Rand novel: The Fountainhead. Ayn Rand's Objectivist Philosophy reads like a Thelemic prototype. At the end of the film, the protagonist, Howard Roark gives his testimony and summation. It's a fascinating read and I am fortunate to have found the script and video clip online. See below.

"Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded. But thereafter men had fire to keep them warm, to cook their food, to light their caves. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had lifted darkness off the earth. Centuries later, the first man invented the wheel. He was probably torn on the rack he had taught his brothers to build. He was considered a transgressor who ventured into forbidden territory. But thereafter, men could travel past any horizon. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had opened the roads of the world.

"That man, the unsubmissive and first, stands in the opening chapter of every legend mankind has recorded about its beginning. Prometheus was chained to a rock and torn by vultures--because he had stolen the fire of the gods. Adam was condemned to suffer--because he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Whatever the legend, somewhere in the shadows of its memory mankind knew that its glory began with one and that that one paid for his courage.

"Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received--hatred. The great creators--the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors--stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The first airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.

"No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift he offered and that gift destroyed the slothful routine of their lives. His truth was his only motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own way. A symphony, a book, an engine, a philosophy, an airplane, or a building--that was his goal and his life. Not those who heard, read, operated, believed, flew or inhabited the thing he had created. The creation, not its users. The creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his truth. He held his truth above all things and against all men.

"His vision, his strength, his courage cam from his own spirit. A man's spirit, however, is his self. That entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of the ego.

"The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power-- that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He had lived for himself.

"And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement.

"Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. Animals obtain food by force. Man has no claws, no fangs, no horns, no great strength of muscle. He must plant his food or hunt it. To plant, he needs a process of thought. To hunt, he needs weapons, and to make weapons--a process of thought. From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man--the function of his reasoning mind.

"But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. it is a secondary consequence. The primary act--the process of reason--must be performed by each man alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man con use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred.

"We inherit the products of the thought of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make a cart. The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane. But all through the process what we receive from others is only the end product of their thinking. The moving force is the creative faculty which takes this product as material, uses it and originates the nest step. This creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single individual men. That which it creates is the property of the creator. Men learn from one another. But all learning is only the exchange of material. No man can give another the capacity to think. Yet that capacity is our only means of survival.

"Nothing is given to man on earth . Everything he needs has to be produced. And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways-- by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows. The creator faces nature alone. The parasite faces nature through an intermediary.

"The creator's concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite's concern is the conquest of men.

"The creator lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself. The parasite lives second-hand. He needs others. Others become his prime motive.

"The basic need of the creator is independence. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be curbed, sacrificed or subordinated to any consideration whatsoever. It demands total independence in function and in motive. To a creator, all relations with men are secondary.

"The basic need of the second-hander is to secure his ties with men in order to be fed. He places relations first. He declares that man exists in order to serve others. He preaches altruism.

"Altruism is the doctrine which demands that man live for others and place others above self.

"No man can live for another. He cannot share his spirit just as he cannot share his body. But the second-hander has used altruism as a weapon of exploitation and reversed the base of mankind's moral principles. Men have been taught every precept that destroys the creator. Men have been taught dependence as a virtue.

"The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves. The relationship produces nothing but mutual corruption. It is impossible in concept. The nearest approach to it in reality--the man who lives to serve others--is the slave. If physical slavery is repulsive, how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit? The conquered slave has a vestige of honor. He has the merit of having resisted and of considering his condition evil. But the man who enslaves himself voluntarily in the name of love is the basest of creatures. He degrades the dignity of man and he degrades the conception of love. But this is the essence of altruism.

"Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution--or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement.

"Men have been taught that their first concern is to relieve the suffering of others. But suffering is a disease. Should one come upon it, one tries to give relief and assistance. To make that the highest test of virtue is to make suffering the most important part of life. Then man must wish to see others suffer--in order that he may be virtuous. Such is the nature of altruism. The creator is not concerned with disease, but with life. Yet the work of the creators has eliminated one form of disease after another, in man's body and spirit, and brought more relief from suffering than any altruist could ever conceive.

"Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone.

"Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egotist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge, or act. These are functions of the self.

"Here the basic reversal is most deadly. The issue has been perverted and man has been left no alternative-and no freedom. As poles of good and evil, he was offered two conceptions: egotism and altruism. Egotism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism--the sacrifice of self to others. This tied man irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self. When it was added that man must find joy in self-immolation, the trap was closed. Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal--under the threat that sadism was his only alternative. This was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind.

"This was the device by which dependence and suffering were perpetuated as fundamentals of life.

"The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence or dependence. The code of the creator or the code of the second-hander. This is the basic issue. It rest upon the alternative of life or death. The code of the creator is built on the needs of the reasoning mind which allows man to survive. The code of the second-hander is built on the needs of a mind incapable of survival. All that which proceeds from man's dependence upon men is evil.

"The egoist in the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man--and he asks no man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.

"Degrees of ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man's independence, initiative and personal love for his work determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man. Independence is the only gauge of human virtue and value. What a man is and makes of himself; not what he has or hasn't done for others. There is no substitute for personal dignity. There is no standard of personal dignity except independence.

"In all proper relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to anyone. An architect needs clients, but he does not subordinate his work to their wishes. They need him, but they do not order a house just to give him a commission. Men exchange their work by free, mutual consent to mutual advantage when their personal interests agree and they both desire the exchange. If they do not desire it, they are not forced to deal with each other. They seek further. Anything else is a relation of slave to master, or victim to executioner.

"No work is ever done collectively, by a majority decision. Every creative job is achieved under the guidance of a single individual thought. An architect requires a great many men to erect his building. But he does not ask them to vote on his design. They work together by free agreement and each is free in his proper function. An architect uses steel, glass, concrete, produced by others. But the materials remain just so much steel, glass and concrete until he touches them. What he does with them is his individual product and his individual property. This is the only pattern for proper co-operation among men.

"The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man's first duty is to himself. His moral law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men. This includes the whole sphere of his creative faculty, his thinking, his work. But it does not include the sphere of the gangster, the altruist and the dictator.

"A man thinks and works alone. A man cannot rob, exploit or rule--alone. Robbery, exploitation and ruling presuppose victims. They imply dependence. They are the province of the second-hander.

"Rulers of men are not egoists. They create nothing. The exist entirely through the persons of others. Their goal is in their subjects, in the activity of enslaving. They are as dependent as the beggar, the social worker and the bandit. The form of dependence does not matter.

"But men were taught to regard second-handers--tyrants, emperors, dictators--as exponents of egotism. By this fraud they were made to destroy the ego, themselves and others. The purpose of the fraud was to destroy the creators. Or to harness them. Which is a synonym.

"From the beginning of history, the two antagonists have stood face to face: the creator and the second-hander. When the first creator invented the wheel, the first second-hander responded. He invented altruism.

""The creator--denied, opposed, persecuted, exploited--went on, moved forward and carried all humanity along on his energy. The second-hander contributed nothing to the process except the impediments. The contest has another name: the individual against the collective.

"The 'common good' of a collective--a race, a class, a state-- was the claim and justification of every tyranny ever established over men. Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive. Has any act of selfishness ever equaled the carnage perpetrated by disciples of altruism? Does the fault lie in men's hypocrisy or in the nature of the principle? The most dreadful butchers were the most sincere. They believed in the perfect society reached through the guillotine and the firing squad. Nobody questioned their right to murder since they were murdering for an altruistic purpose. It was accepted that man must be sacrificed for other men. Actors change, but the course of the tragedy remains the same. A humanitarian who starts with declarations of love for mankind and ends with a sea of blood. It goes on and will go on so long as men believe that an action is good if it unselfish. That permits the altruist to act and forces his victims to bear it. The leaders of collectivist movements ask nothing for themselves. But observe the results.

"The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is--Hands off!

"Now observe the results of a society built on the principle of individualism. This, our country. The noblest country in the history of men. The country of greatest achievement, greatest prosperity, greatest freedom. This country was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism. It was based on a man's right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not anyone else's. A private, personal, selfish motive. Look at the results. Look into your own conscience.

"It is an ancient conflict. Men have come close to the truth, but it was destroyed each time and one civilization fell after another. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

"Now, in our age, collectivism, the rule of the second-hander and second-rater, the ancient monster, has broken loose and is running amuck. It has brought men to a level of intellectual indecency never equaled on earth. It has reached a scale of horror without precedent. It has poisoned every mind. It has swallowed most of Europe. It is engulfing our country.

"I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built. We are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live.

"Now you know why I dynamited Cortlandt.

"I designed Cortlandt. I gave it to you. I destroyed it.

"I destroyed it because I did not choose to let it exist. It was a double monster. In form and in implication. I had to blast both. The form was mutilated by two second-handers who assumed the right to improve upon that which they had not made and could not equal. They were permitted to do it by the general implication that the altruistic purpose of the building supersede all rights and that I had no claim to stand against it.

"I agreed to design Cortlandt for the purpose of seeing it erected as I designed it and for no other reason. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid.

"I do not blame Peter Keating. He was helpless. He had a contract with his employers. It was ignored. He had a promise that the structure he offered would be built as designed. The promise was broken. The love of a man for the integrity of his work and his right to preserve it are now considered a vague intangible and an unessential. You have heard the prosecutor say that. Why was the building disfigured? For no reason. Such acts never have any reason, unless it's the vanity of some second-handers who feel they have a right to anyone's property, spiritual or material. Who permitted them to do it? No particular man among the dozens in authority. No one cared to permit it or to stop it. No one was responsible. NO one can be held to account. Such is the nature of all collective action.

"I did not receive the payment I asked. But the owners of Cortlandt got what they need from me. they wanted a scheme devised to build a structure as cheaply as possible. They found no one else who could do it to their satisfaction. I could and did. they took the benefit of my work and made me contribute it as a gift. But I am not an altruist. i do not contribute gifts of this nature.

"It is said that I have destroyed the home of the destitute. It is forgotten that but for me the destitute could not have had this particular home. Those who were concerned with the poor had to come to me, who have never been concerned, in order to help the poor. It is believed that the poverty of the future tenants gave them a right to my work. that their need constituted a claim on my life. That it was my duty to contribute anything demanded of me. This is the second-hander's credo now swallowing the world.

"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone's right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need.

"I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others.

"It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.

"I wished to come here and say that the integrity of a man's creative work is of greater importance than any charitable endeavor. Those of you who do not understand this are the men who're destroying the world.

"I wished to come here and state my terms. I do not care to exist on any others.

"I recognize no obligations toward men except one: to respect their freedom and to take no part in a slave society. To my country, i wish to give the ten years which I will spend in jail if my country exists no longer. I will spend them in memory and in gratitude for what my country has been. It will be my act of loyalty, my refusal to live or work in what has taken its place.

"My act of loylty to every creator who ever lived and was made to suffer by the force responsible for the Cortlandt I dynamited. To every tortured hour of loneliness, denial, frustration, abuse he was made to spend--and to the battles he won. To every creator who was destroyed in body or in spirit. To Henry Cameron. To Steven Mallory. To a man who doesn't want to be named, but who is sitting in this courtroom and knows that I am speaking of him."

The work of any magickal lodge of any sort is to bring new Gnosis to the world, proving contact with the Secret Chiefs. This is its sole validation. New Gnosis means new knowledge and not recycled information or the egoic rantings of self-absorbed, pseudo adepts. The mere fact that one can re-write something into one's own words and copyright that does not constitute new knowledge, nor does it reveal Gnosis and contact with the Secret Chiefs. Rather it represents the converse, which becomes all the more evident by their actions in declaring themselves to be altruistic in the self-righteous indignation they consistently hold against those creators amongst us.

Cognitive Dissonance

The Christian Myth about the Founding Fathers
of the United States of America

More quotes from Jefferson:

"There is scarcely any part of science, or anything in nature, which those imposters and blasphemers of science, called priests, as well Christians as Jews, have not, at some time or other, perverted, or sought to pervert to the purpose of superstition and falsehood."

"The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing and admits of no conclusion."

James Madison (1751-1836) American president and political theorist. Popularly known as the "Father of the Constitution." More than any other framer he is responsible for the content and form of the First Amendment.

Politics and the English Language

George Orwell

1946

Cognitive Dissonance

The Christian Myth about the Founding Fathers of the United States of America

More quotes from Jefferson:

"There is scarcely any part of science, or anything in nature, which those imposters and blasphemers of science, called priests, as well Christians as Jews, have not, at some time or other, perverted, or sought to pervert to the purpose of superstition and falsehood."

"The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing and admits of no conclusion."

James Madison (1751-1836) American president and political theorist. Popularly known as the "Father of the Constitution." More than any other framer he is responsible for the content and form of the First Amendment.

Politics and the English Language

George Orwell

1946

The Christian Myth about the Founding Fathers
of the United States of America