![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
: 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.
( Read more... )
Tags: aleister crowley, ethics, genghis khan, politics
“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.
( Read more... )
Current Location: Leslieville
Current Music: Step by Step- Jesse Winchester