The Flesh of the Mongols
“The Mongol concept of a universal empire differed from that of the Chinese. The latter regarded the adoption of Chinese culture by the defeated nations as an essential part of the concept, whereas only economic interests were important to the nomads.”
-Paul Ratchnevsky, Genghis Khan, His Life and Legacy
The Mongols were important enough to be included along with the Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists in the rather striking passage in Liber AL III:53, but they seem to be the odd ones out. The creeds and the empires of the other peoples mentioned span centuries. The dominance of the Mongol empire, though it was geographically the largest contiguous empire in human history, lasted less than two hundred years. The creed of Genghis Khan, and the vital essence the first nomadic warriors used to realize this massive achievement, did not endure.
I believe that there is an analogy that can be drawn between the more or less irreligious character of the Mongol empire and our own modern imperialism which can help us understand out own culture’s relationship to religious nationalism, particularly as it occurs in Islam. There is a demonstrable isomorphism between the rise of Muhammed and the rise of Genghis Khan. Both men united previously conflicting nomadic tribes under a single ideology. Both men were struggling against larger empires, the Romans and Persians, and the Chin dynasty respectively, both empires expanded along established trade routes with the help of the merchant class, and there are other distinct characteristics that both Islam and the Mongol creed have in common. The religious character of Islamic imperialism, however, creates some interesting differences that are relevant to our understanding of modern Liberal Secular Humanism’s imperial efforts.
First, let’s attack the most obvious point. Islam did not die with Muhammed. The Mongol empire, however, did not long outlive Genghis Khan. Why might that be?
“This creature Man, who in his own selfish affairs is a coward to the backbone, will fight for an idea like a hero.”
-George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
We can see how this plays into what preserved Islam, but what about the Mongols? During Genghis Khan’s life, it was clear what the Mongolian warriors were fighting for. They were truly brothers in arms. The officers and soldiers ate the same food. The leaders of the army, including the Khan himself, dressed, conducted themselves, and were treated the same as the lowest soldiers. Honorifics, ceremonial pageantry, and other such pompous airs were shunned. Although the Mongols were merciless in destroying those who resisted them, enemy warriors who had been observed to follow orders and stay loyal to their commanders were often offered positions in the Golden Horde. Those who betrayed their commanders, even to Mongolian advantage, were tortured and killed. Although new recruits usually had to, at first, hand over a family member to stay with the Mongol leaders as insurance against treason, once they had proven their loyalty they were extraordinarily well treated. One of Genghis Khan’s best advisors and generals was actually an assassin from another tribe that had tried to kill the Mongol leader, who was so impressed by his attacker’s marksmanship (in spite of his continued ability to draw breath) that he took the man into his service immediately.
What sort of mentality are we seeing here? What makes it different from Islam? In his comments on AL III:52 & 53, Crowley makes the following points:
Of Islam:
“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.”
Of the Mongols, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists:
“Why assault their flesh rather than their eyes, as in the other cases? Because the metaphysics, or point of view, is correct.”
Many Thelemites have written extensively on subjects relating to Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. I don’t think I’ve ever noticed anyone so much as touch the Mongols. Why is that? What is it about the Mongol point of view which may get under a Thelemite’s skin?
“Life on the steppe made a warrior of every youngster and Genghis believed that a man’s fulfillment was to be found on the field of battle. On one occasion he asked Bo’orchu and other comrades what they thought was man’s highest bliss. They answered that it lay in falconry, when one rode out in the spring on a sturdy gelding, the hunting falcon on the wrist and loosed it against the prey. Genghis answered: ‘You are mistaken. Man’s greatest good fortune is to chase and defeat his enemy, seize his possessions, leave his married women weeping and wailing, ride his gelding, use the bodies of his women as a nightshirt and support, gazing upon and kissing their rosy breasts, sucking their lips which are as sweet as the berries of their breasts.”
-Ratchnevsky, p. 153
Clearly, in the Khan’s eyes, sex and violence, mutually inclusive, were the whole point of life. This is well worth thinking about. Thelemites often criticize the “Old Aeon” as anti-sexual, or sexually inhibited. It’s a small wonder that those same people who cling to this view avoid looking closely at the most sexually aggressive group included among the world’s major religious ideologies by Aiwass.
We can frankly admit that, even in the tolerant Mongolian empire, there were certain customs of the nomadic people imposed on those that they conquered. It was required, as per the tribal custom, that people take in travelers and offer them food and shelter. For the same reason, urinating indoors was punishable by death (if you insist that people take strangers into their home, it is only fair to also insist that they are more or less housebroken). Islamic customs of hospitality and restrictions on cleanliness are not dissimilar. Charity is a pillar of Islam, and Muslims are required to donate a certain amount of their income to the poor. The Mongol empire also had a tax, levied on the spoils of war, which went to providing poor and starving people with food. This is remarkable, in that every other comparable charitable enterprise in the twelfth century had some implicit religious character. The Mongols, however, had the equivalent of modern secular social programs going to economically support tribes that had been loyal to the Khan but fallen on hard times. All of this, however, depended on maintaining the warrior lifestyle that Genghis Khan lived, but never codified in any text or series of abstract rules or guidelines.
This kind of charity is not the only thing the Mongols had in common with the modern west. As the quote at the outset of this post indicates, economic interests drove Mongolian imperialism. Cities or people were almost always offered a chance to surrender and be spared. Although the Mongols have a reputation for merciless violence, they tended to give their victims an opportunity to continue about their lives more or less undisturbed as long as they got their end. This tactic, and the promise to kill every man woman and child that crossed their path if the offer was refused, (what do we call them? “Civilian hostages,” is the term I believe…) had the effect of turning the people against their leaders, if those leaders did not seem willing to acquiesce to Mongolian rule. Merchants and tradesman, often Muslims who viewed the Mongolian empire as a breath of fresh air distinct from other imperial rulers in that they did not interfere with their religious practices, would go ahead of the Golden horde spreading tales of its ferocity, its invincibility, and the futility of resisting conquest. Today, the western mass media accomplishes similar tasks in parts of the world in which western business has a vested interest. Religious “freedom,” that is, the de-politicizing of religion, is just good for business.
“Genghis was tolerant. As a statesman he knew the danger to internal peace represented by wars of religion, and as a conqueror he recognized that the proclamation of religious freedom was a powerful weapon in his struggle against peoples of other religions. Genghis thus ordered that all religions should be respected and that none should be given precedence over the others…”
-Ratchnevsky, p.197
At what cost?
Although the Mongols had no spiritual crisis comparable to what we see in our society, Genghis Khan did. Later in life he was greatly conflicted about himself and his achievements. He asked questions which would have been absurd for a prophet like Muhammed to ask himself. How could a former slave become the Emperor of the world? This identity crisis lead Genghis Khan to meet with Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, and Taoist religious leaders. It was finally a Taoist sage by the name of Changchun that gave him some answers that seemed to help ease his mind, although he did not, by any means, convert to Taoism. A flirtation with spirituality, very similar to what we see in our culture, was all that was took place. For Muhammed, questions like “Why me? How can this be?” were answered before the battle for conquest had even begun. And those, of course, are the very questions that plague our privileged western society. We have every advantage, and we use it to live lives of empty entertainment and shallow consumerism. Weighted against that, these people who live in the most affluent, technologically advanced civilization in the world are bombarded by images of human misery and suffering on a daily basis, and they simply do not know how to place the opportunities and benefits of their own lives into any kind of meaningful context with respect to those images.
Victory can be as difficult to understand and process as defeat. But, and here is the interesting question, why were the Mongols victorious? Ratchnevsky dismisses the notion that it was a question of superior cavalry, military strategy, or mere ferocity. Instead, he attributes Mongolian success during the life of Genghis Khan to military meritocracy.
“The Mongol army was organized on principles which differed from those of enemy armies. Appointment to command was based solely on ability and results, not on birth or position in the tribal hierarchy. One of Genghis’ bilik states: ‘He who is able to command ten men in battle will be able to command a thousand or ten thousand in battle formation, and he deserves such a command.’ Officers who were not able to meet the demands of their appointment were removed and their commands entrusted to subordinates. The possibility of unrestricted promotion - every soldier carried a marshal’s baton in his knapsack - gave rise to lively competition among the warriors. The military commanders owed their position to Genghis Khan [not, let us make the distinction, to their friends and relatives -007] and he could rely on their unconditional loyalty and military efficacy.”
-Ratchevsky, p. 171
Success is your proof, then! This is a key aspect of the Mongol character. This is the only legitimate form of heirarchy.
One thing that Islam and Genghis Khan had in common was that they served to dis-integrate the tribal class structure that had characterized the lives of their people. This is, in a very real sense, the key to any major social change. Although class does not disappear, it is re-ordered. This is always accompanied by a violent shake-up of a society, but in the case of nomadic peoples being dominated by foreign empires, it was absolutely necessary to their own survival and success, not to mention the transition to imperial status themselves.
In Genghis Khan’s case, the whole thing was carried on the character and integrity of a particular individual, which influenced the phylogenetic development of an entire people. Although it did not become codified into a coherent system, as Islam did, this also meant that it could not be misused or corrupted by other interests, which Islam, along with many other religions, has been.
Those are, to my mind, the most salient characteristics in question. Pardon me if this post seems fragmented. Any one of these topics would be worthy of a more in-depth treatment, but I present them in review here to legitimize my claim that there is, indeed, a particular isomorphism between the nomadic-come-imperial characters of the Mongolians and Islam, and another distinct isomorphism between the secularism of modernity and the religious tolerance of the shamanistic Mongols.
-Paul Ratchnevsky, Genghis Khan, His Life and Legacy
The Mongols were important enough to be included along with the Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists in the rather striking passage in Liber AL III:53, but they seem to be the odd ones out. The creeds and the empires of the other peoples mentioned span centuries. The dominance of the Mongol empire, though it was geographically the largest contiguous empire in human history, lasted less than two hundred years. The creed of Genghis Khan, and the vital essence the first nomadic warriors used to realize this massive achievement, did not endure.
I believe that there is an analogy that can be drawn between the more or less irreligious character of the Mongol empire and our own modern imperialism which can help us understand out own culture’s relationship to religious nationalism, particularly as it occurs in Islam. There is a demonstrable isomorphism between the rise of Muhammed and the rise of Genghis Khan. Both men united previously conflicting nomadic tribes under a single ideology. Both men were struggling against larger empires, the Romans and Persians, and the Chin dynasty respectively, both empires expanded along established trade routes with the help of the merchant class, and there are other distinct characteristics that both Islam and the Mongol creed have in common. The religious character of Islamic imperialism, however, creates some interesting differences that are relevant to our understanding of modern Liberal Secular Humanism’s imperial efforts.
First, let’s attack the most obvious point. Islam did not die with Muhammed. The Mongol empire, however, did not long outlive Genghis Khan. Why might that be?
“This creature Man, who in his own selfish affairs is a coward to the backbone, will fight for an idea like a hero.”
-George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
We can see how this plays into what preserved Islam, but what about the Mongols? During Genghis Khan’s life, it was clear what the Mongolian warriors were fighting for. They were truly brothers in arms. The officers and soldiers ate the same food. The leaders of the army, including the Khan himself, dressed, conducted themselves, and were treated the same as the lowest soldiers. Honorifics, ceremonial pageantry, and other such pompous airs were shunned. Although the Mongols were merciless in destroying those who resisted them, enemy warriors who had been observed to follow orders and stay loyal to their commanders were often offered positions in the Golden Horde. Those who betrayed their commanders, even to Mongolian advantage, were tortured and killed. Although new recruits usually had to, at first, hand over a family member to stay with the Mongol leaders as insurance against treason, once they had proven their loyalty they were extraordinarily well treated. One of Genghis Khan’s best advisors and generals was actually an assassin from another tribe that had tried to kill the Mongol leader, who was so impressed by his attacker’s marksmanship (in spite of his continued ability to draw breath) that he took the man into his service immediately.
What sort of mentality are we seeing here? What makes it different from Islam? In his comments on AL III:52 & 53, Crowley makes the following points:
Of Islam:
“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.”
Of the Mongols, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists:
“Why assault their flesh rather than their eyes, as in the other cases? Because the metaphysics, or point of view, is correct.”
Many Thelemites have written extensively on subjects relating to Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. I don’t think I’ve ever noticed anyone so much as touch the Mongols. Why is that? What is it about the Mongol point of view which may get under a Thelemite’s skin?
“Life on the steppe made a warrior of every youngster and Genghis believed that a man’s fulfillment was to be found on the field of battle. On one occasion he asked Bo’orchu and other comrades what they thought was man’s highest bliss. They answered that it lay in falconry, when one rode out in the spring on a sturdy gelding, the hunting falcon on the wrist and loosed it against the prey. Genghis answered: ‘You are mistaken. Man’s greatest good fortune is to chase and defeat his enemy, seize his possessions, leave his married women weeping and wailing, ride his gelding, use the bodies of his women as a nightshirt and support, gazing upon and kissing their rosy breasts, sucking their lips which are as sweet as the berries of their breasts.”
-Ratchnevsky, p. 153
Clearly, in the Khan’s eyes, sex and violence, mutually inclusive, were the whole point of life. This is well worth thinking about. Thelemites often criticize the “Old Aeon” as anti-sexual, or sexually inhibited. It’s a small wonder that those same people who cling to this view avoid looking closely at the most sexually aggressive group included among the world’s major religious ideologies by Aiwass.
We can frankly admit that, even in the tolerant Mongolian empire, there were certain customs of the nomadic people imposed on those that they conquered. It was required, as per the tribal custom, that people take in travelers and offer them food and shelter. For the same reason, urinating indoors was punishable by death (if you insist that people take strangers into their home, it is only fair to also insist that they are more or less housebroken). Islamic customs of hospitality and restrictions on cleanliness are not dissimilar. Charity is a pillar of Islam, and Muslims are required to donate a certain amount of their income to the poor. The Mongol empire also had a tax, levied on the spoils of war, which went to providing poor and starving people with food. This is remarkable, in that every other comparable charitable enterprise in the twelfth century had some implicit religious character. The Mongols, however, had the equivalent of modern secular social programs going to economically support tribes that had been loyal to the Khan but fallen on hard times. All of this, however, depended on maintaining the warrior lifestyle that Genghis Khan lived, but never codified in any text or series of abstract rules or guidelines.
This kind of charity is not the only thing the Mongols had in common with the modern west. As the quote at the outset of this post indicates, economic interests drove Mongolian imperialism. Cities or people were almost always offered a chance to surrender and be spared. Although the Mongols have a reputation for merciless violence, they tended to give their victims an opportunity to continue about their lives more or less undisturbed as long as they got their end. This tactic, and the promise to kill every man woman and child that crossed their path if the offer was refused, (what do we call them? “Civilian hostages,” is the term I believe…) had the effect of turning the people against their leaders, if those leaders did not seem willing to acquiesce to Mongolian rule. Merchants and tradesman, often Muslims who viewed the Mongolian empire as a breath of fresh air distinct from other imperial rulers in that they did not interfere with their religious practices, would go ahead of the Golden horde spreading tales of its ferocity, its invincibility, and the futility of resisting conquest. Today, the western mass media accomplishes similar tasks in parts of the world in which western business has a vested interest. Religious “freedom,” that is, the de-politicizing of religion, is just good for business.
“Genghis was tolerant. As a statesman he knew the danger to internal peace represented by wars of religion, and as a conqueror he recognized that the proclamation of religious freedom was a powerful weapon in his struggle against peoples of other religions. Genghis thus ordered that all religions should be respected and that none should be given precedence over the others…”
-Ratchnevsky, p.197
At what cost?
Although the Mongols had no spiritual crisis comparable to what we see in our society, Genghis Khan did. Later in life he was greatly conflicted about himself and his achievements. He asked questions which would have been absurd for a prophet like Muhammed to ask himself. How could a former slave become the Emperor of the world? This identity crisis lead Genghis Khan to meet with Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, and Taoist religious leaders. It was finally a Taoist sage by the name of Changchun that gave him some answers that seemed to help ease his mind, although he did not, by any means, convert to Taoism. A flirtation with spirituality, very similar to what we see in our culture, was all that was took place. For Muhammed, questions like “Why me? How can this be?” were answered before the battle for conquest had even begun. And those, of course, are the very questions that plague our privileged western society. We have every advantage, and we use it to live lives of empty entertainment and shallow consumerism. Weighted against that, these people who live in the most affluent, technologically advanced civilization in the world are bombarded by images of human misery and suffering on a daily basis, and they simply do not know how to place the opportunities and benefits of their own lives into any kind of meaningful context with respect to those images.
Victory can be as difficult to understand and process as defeat. But, and here is the interesting question, why were the Mongols victorious? Ratchnevsky dismisses the notion that it was a question of superior cavalry, military strategy, or mere ferocity. Instead, he attributes Mongolian success during the life of Genghis Khan to military meritocracy.
“The Mongol army was organized on principles which differed from those of enemy armies. Appointment to command was based solely on ability and results, not on birth or position in the tribal hierarchy. One of Genghis’ bilik states: ‘He who is able to command ten men in battle will be able to command a thousand or ten thousand in battle formation, and he deserves such a command.’ Officers who were not able to meet the demands of their appointment were removed and their commands entrusted to subordinates. The possibility of unrestricted promotion - every soldier carried a marshal’s baton in his knapsack - gave rise to lively competition among the warriors. The military commanders owed their position to Genghis Khan [not, let us make the distinction, to their friends and relatives -007] and he could rely on their unconditional loyalty and military efficacy.”
-Ratchevsky, p. 171
Success is your proof, then! This is a key aspect of the Mongol character. This is the only legitimate form of heirarchy.
One thing that Islam and Genghis Khan had in common was that they served to dis-integrate the tribal class structure that had characterized the lives of their people. This is, in a very real sense, the key to any major social change. Although class does not disappear, it is re-ordered. This is always accompanied by a violent shake-up of a society, but in the case of nomadic peoples being dominated by foreign empires, it was absolutely necessary to their own survival and success, not to mention the transition to imperial status themselves.
In Genghis Khan’s case, the whole thing was carried on the character and integrity of a particular individual, which influenced the phylogenetic development of an entire people. Although it did not become codified into a coherent system, as Islam did, this also meant that it could not be misused or corrupted by other interests, which Islam, along with many other religions, has been.
Those are, to my mind, the most salient characteristics in question. Pardon me if this post seems fragmented. Any one of these topics would be worthy of a more in-depth treatment, but I present them in review here to legitimize my claim that there is, indeed, a particular isomorphism between the nomadic-come-imperial characters of the Mongolians and Islam, and another distinct isomorphism between the secularism of modernity and the religious tolerance of the shamanistic Mongols.