"The Crowley 'Joke' & My Allergic Reaction to Occultism"

[zangtang]

if the 'church with congregation inside' mythos is true, its happened before.

[Nordic]

Evil as a trampoline to higher dimensions?

Brilliant.

And that is, in 7 words, the essence of occultism.

Anyone who wants to be a good person would avoid it.

Those who think they can play with fire they do not understand and win? Pure hubris.

And you don't joke about murdering children. You don't later say "oh it's just a metaphor for masturbation" and expect anyone to believe you. In no way imaginable is it that.

[Iamwhomiam]

Evil as a trampoline to higher lower dimensions.

Like jumping on an express train to Hell, while thinking it was the local.

The damnedest thing is, like a passenger engrossed in reading a book, you never realize you're on the wrong train till it's too late and there is no way for you to safely jump off or stop the train. You're the riding the train to its and your final destination.

Dammit all! not the place you intended to be, but there you are.

I don't like discussing the subject of Dark Magic because most have no idea of its subtle power over those seeking its secrets. Even innocently pursuing a better understanding of its mechanics, you will forever be changed, and in my view, not for the better. It hard to rid you mind of something you willingly put there.

It brings up too many characters I'd rather not think about, ever.

It's mandatory, though, and completely unavoidable to have those unsavory characters in my head when discussing such a topic or its professors. It's not good for me to dwell upon its (magic/magik) negative aspects.

We watch or read news of abounding horrors, but these are just the effects of evil committed by those affected by its powers.


Good subject to develop an allergy to.

[guruilla]

This morning's unpleasant exchange with a Crowley-defender:

Jack
DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 10:28 AM EDIT REPLY
I haven’t seen any evidence that Crowley ever involved children in sex magick rituals. If such evidence exists, I would have thought it would have come out by now.

You say “…and even made a pilgrimage to Crowley’s Thelema Abbey, where Crowley allegedly conducted sexual rituals that included children”. Perhaps you should quote the evidence cited by your stated 1972 reference for those of us who don’t have it to hand, rather than just repeat a claim and know nothing of the worthiness or otherwise of a book over 40 years old. Sounds like hearsay that is just being repeated. You’re better than that, aren’t you?

JH
DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 10:37 AM EDIT REPLY

crowley-kinsey.jpg

Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research, by Wardell Baxter Pomeroy, Yale University Press, 1972.

Do not as yet know what the source is for the Crowley child abuse angle. See no reason to doubt it in light of all the other evidence, but not claiming it as proof either. The argument that it would have come out by now doesn’t seem like much of an argument, to me.

Jack
DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 10:43 AM EDIT REPLY
A lot of the hysterical claims about Crowley are based on his own writings, which were more examples of his black humour than his dreaded deeds. But I am not aware of anyone who has come forward to say they were abused by Crowley as child, nor have any of the supposed human sacrifices been unearthed.

Certainly when I met Victor Neuburg’s son, he didn’t have anything good to say about Crowley, but that was entirely based on what he saw as a negative influence on his father and conveniently forgets that his father wanted to be in this relationship with Crowley. But actual child abuse, actual human sacrifice, you’d have to be somewhat foolish to believe that without any actual evidence.

JH
DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 10:51 AM EDIT REPLY
Why foolish? What reason would you or anyone have to think that Crowley would have drawn that particular line (that of sex with children)? If he was moving in circles in which this was being done (and he was), do you think Crowley would have backed away from that on moral grounds?

As for black humor, I posted about that already. Jokes are frequently used as a way to encode confessions for those who know how to recognize them. Jimmy Savile cracked a lot of black jokes too. Turns out they weren’t jokes. If you want to come and defend Crowley, you need to bring more to the table than this. He is so utterly implicated that I can’t see how anyone would even try to extricate him, except if they were personally invested in his belief systems (which I was, once). Or are you concerned that his reputation needs protecting? That would be a supreme irony.

Jack
DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 11:02 AM EDIT REPLY
If there’s some actual evidence that Crowley was a child-abuser, I’m perfectly willing to change my opinion about him. But I don’t see the point of joining a paedophile-condemning bandwagon without the evidence, otherwise one may as well say ALL 70s disc jockies were paedophiles and congratulate oneself on a resoundingly strong opinion.

As for black humour, sometimes it’s just black humour. I have no idea, for example, whether Lautréamont liked to slice the cheeks off young boys or not. When I read it I took it as fiction myself.

But it sounds like you want to believe that Crowley was a nonce and there are no two ways about it. I’m not defending Crowley, more standing up for innocent until proven guilty, which I think is still a sound principle. Crowley himself at least was not bothered about his reputation. Something good in that. But if we are to go into the future thinking he was also an evil child-molester I think you’ll need to put up a little more than your vague suspicions based on a dislike of the man.

JH
DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 11:33 AM EDIT REPLY
I don’t think you are paying attention to what is being mapped out here, which is much larger than any group or individual. Why the special interest in defending Crowley? Much of this is circumstantial evidence which, as it mounts, becomes increasingly damning (at least to my eyes, others can judge for themselves). But there are countless others also being implicated.

What you are arguing against isn’t opinion (I haven’t expressed much by way of opinion in these posts) but evidence. If you don’t like the way the evidence points to Crowley’s complicity in networks of child abuse, sorry, there’s nothing I can do about that. I am not aware of stacking the deck against anyone. Go back and read the post. It is possible that the charges of Crowley involving children in his rituals are false. It is also possible they are true. These allegations are simply one more piece of evidence being presented. Is the fact there is no public record of anyone claiming they were sexually abused by Crowley supposed to constitute evidence also? OK then, it’s now on the record.

Also, the overlap between disc jockeying and child sexual abuse, while not entirely non-existent, is obviously less significant than the one between CSA and sex magick. So “arguments” like that border on the disingenuous.

Jack
DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 11:52 AM EDIT REPLY
Evidence? You haven’t cited any actual evidence, nor even actual allegations, just scattered bits of sensationalistic gossip without specific detail. Anyone can say anything about anyone, doesn’t mean it’s true, but to dump Crowley into your cultural paedophile mash-up rather detracts from the damning evidence about Kinsey and is an easy pot-shot to make, given that Crowley already lorded up his ‘wicked’ reputation, as if that is all he was about.

Frankly I find your inclusion of him here in an otherwise interesting piece on Kinsey is just too tabloid to take seriously. I thought you had a more penetrating vision than that.

JHsaid: “Also, the overlap between disc jockeying and child sexual abuse, while not entirely non-existent, is obviously less significant than the one between CSA and sex magick.”

— Hang on, apart from the fact that both have the word” sex” in common, I don’t see that any link has actually been established.

It seems, Jasun, that you want to instil an attitude of unquestioning acceptance of ‘evidence’, but you should know that when a person regards weak ‘evidence’ that is little more than hearsay as being as convincing as strong evidence in the end this will cast doubt on that person’s ability to assess the value of any evidence.

JH
DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 1:19 PM EDIT REPLY
Are you a practicing occultist by any chance? If you are upset about the idea of Crowley being involved in these areas, can you admit that? I hear that you want to assist me with making a better case but somehow I don’t believe it. Using terms like “scattered bits of sensationalistic gossip without specific detail,” for example, when referring to a cited reference from a published work, just because it suggests something you personally find offensive, seems like selective logic. Is an allegation evidence? Of something anyway. As I said already, you could just as easily question other names being implicated here, since much of it is only meant to be suggestive, not conclusive.

On the other hand, arguing that there’s no concrete connection between sex magick and child sexual abuse is not even stupid, it’s dishonest, and to me suggests an affiliation with such systems which you are not owning up to. If you practice sex magick or endorse it, maybe best to just say so? No one is going to accuse you of being a pedophile here.

Jack
DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 1:27 PM EDIT REPLY
JH said: “Are you a practicing occultist by any chance?”

— Why should that make a difference, apart from the fact that I may be more reasonably informed about Crowley because I may have studied him in some detail?

I’m not ‘upset’ about you including Crowley, more upset if we’re going to use that emotive word that my initial impression of YOU was so misguided. This is piss-poor championing of a cause, and now you see me as some kind of person with an agenda because you can’t prop up your case any better.

JH said: ” If you practice sex magick or endorse it, maybe best to just say so? No one is going to accuse you of being a pedophile here.”

— Now you indulge in ‘guilt by association’. Obviously you have no interest in discussing the matter, more interested in writing off opposers by first suggesting they are involved sex magicians and then tacitly suggesting they could even be paedophiles and the very enemy in the midst. What a slimy bugger you’re turning out to be.

“As I said already, you could just as easily question other names being implicated here, since much of it is only meant to be suggestive, not conclusive.”

— I haven’t read all of your articles, nor am I particularly informed about Leadbetter and others, so I simply have no perspective to offer. There is no mystery here. I chimed in on Crowlet because I felt a generalised association was being bandied about and pointed at Crowley that simply doesn’t accord with what I know about the man. Should I have remained silent, when I saw what I considered to be a potential injustice? That you now bandy the same kind of ‘darkening’ association at me tells me everything I need to know about your own ‘fearful’ position. You’re simply justifying a prejudice and have probably forgotten why you hold it in the first place.

JH
DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 1:58 PM EDIT REPLY
Not a very artful dodging of the question, Jack. Followed by resorting to insults, perhaps in the hope of escalating? SOP for trolls. Nice try.

Those who have read the full exploration know that the picture being drawn here has many layers and nuances, and that what it suggests is that Crowley, along with countless others, was part of a very large and long-running program of social engineering which includes the sexual abuse of children, leftist politics, witchcraft & occultism, psychiatry, medicine, and even the entertainment media. How witting some of these players were is always hard to determine, but not especially relevant unless the aim is to cast moral judgment, which mine isn’t.

“Jack” has shown himself to be unwilling or incapable of engaging in an honest, open dialogue, and, in a mere handful of posts, has managed to move from a semblance of serious challenging to snarky remarks, ad hominem attacks, and slippery non-denial denials. Since he’s not adding anything helpful to the discussion, and barring a drastic change in content, future comments from “Jack” will be removed. I am averse to censorship, but not as averse as I am to having my time used up dealing with trolls.

https://auticulture.wordpress.com/2015/ ... mment-6303

[RocketMan]

I found this bit rather unsettling

I haven’t read all of your articles, nor am I particularly informed about Leadbetter and others, so I simply have no perspective to offer. There is no mystery here. I chimed in on Crowlet because I felt a generalised association was being bandied about and pointed at Crowley that simply doesn’t accord with what I know about the man.

as the bolded phrase is (or rather was) verbatim on Jimmy Savile's gravestone. Could be nothing, could be something. Never know with these left hand types. You kept your responses to an even keel pretty well, the guy acted like a prick if you ask me.

[guruilla]

I found this bit rather unsettling

I haven’t read all of your articles, nor am I particularly informed about Leadbetter and others, so I simply have no perspective to offer. There is no mystery here. I chimed in on Crowlet because I felt a generalised association was being bandied about and pointed at Crowley that simply doesn’t accord with what I know about the man.

as the bolded phrase is (or rather was) verbatim on Jimmy Savile's gravestone. Could be nothing, could be something. Never know with these left hand types. You kept your responses to an even keel pretty well, the guy acted like a prick if you ask me.

Well spotted. I actually skipped right over that without noting.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Can either of you provide a link reproducing Savile's gravestone inscription that includes the phrase, "There is no mystery here"?

Haven't found it (though I've performed only a cursory google search thus far...)

[coffin_dodger]

Is Yale University Press unwaveringly credible as a source of unbiased, independent inquiry into an individual clearly at odds with The System? I have doubts.

[guruilla]

Is Yale University Press unwaveringly credible as a source of unbiased, independent inquiry into an individual clearly at odds with The System? I have doubts.

Of course it isn't but then neither is any mainstream press. They are vulnerable to lawsuits, however. As I said when I first posted that segment, I would be very curious to know what the basis for the claims is.

Not entirely persuaded that a British and/or German intelligence operative can be described as "clearly at odds with The System."

[cptmarginal]

.
Can either of you provide a link reproducing Savile's gravestone inscription that includes the phrase, "There is no mystery here"?

Haven't found it (though I've performed only a cursory google search thus far...)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jimm ... dstone.jpg

Knighted by our Queen he was and knighted by the Pope
This boy from humble background
Brought to everybody hope

A legend and a one off there's no mystery to unravel
This miner, DJ, friend to all
Was simply

Jimmy Savile

It rhymes, you see.

[cptmarginal]

I think this quote from the end of Peter Levenda's Unholy Alliance is worth adding here. I just happened to have been flipping through the paperback and reading this part recently.

The Swiss OTO is noteworthy for several things. In the first place, they are probably the best-organized and most profitably run Thelemic (i.e., Crowleyan) enterprise on earth. From all accounts, including but not limited to Mr. King's, they perform the most perfect of all Gnostic Masses (an occult version of the Catholic Mass) to be found. Although, as someone who has witnessed many a Gnostic Mass in the States, the author must offer the proviso that virtually anything would be an improvement. Further, they run a guesthouse, a printing press, and operate their own apothecary specializing in "Paracelsian" remedies: an industry for which the Nazis would have given them high marks indeed.

What calls our attention to the Swiss OTO, however, is an item recorded by Francis King in his Satan and Swastika, in which he mentioned that—in the first issue of its newsletter E.O.L. Mittedungs-blau, dated June 9, 1954—the Abbey published a Memorial notice for Lanz von Liebenfels, calling him a "shining example of unswerving faith and the very highest virtue"! That the best-run example of a Thelemic community should have openly praised one of the spiritual Fathers of the Third Reich is a phenomenon that is troubling, to say the least. That they are serious Thelemites and devotees of Aleister Crowley cannot be denied. How, then, do they manage to reconcile these two conflicting philosophies? This is a problem that vexes the student of modern occultism, because admiration of Crowley and his philosophy has emerged in organized Satanism, neo-Nazi political parties, racist hooliganism, alienated teenagers, and jaded rock-and-rollers alike. Crowley once wrote—in an attack on Arthur Edward Waite, a former colleague in the Golden Dawn and the author of many books on occultism—"Magick is a mirror, wherein who sees muck is muck.' One could perhaps also say, "Crowley is a mirror in which one who sees a Nazi, is a Nazi." As Crowley was certainly an anti-establishment sort of fellow, and as Nazism is about as anti-establishment as you can get in most countries, it would follow that Nazis might find a kindred soul in Aleister Crowley. Yet, one would think that the OTO of Switzerland—an organization that is arguably the oldest continuous Thelemic Lodge in the world—would know better.

I add this here with some reservations. I have no problem reconciling my own interest in Crowley's work and writings with a healthy dose of suspicion and sometimes revulsion about the events of his life. (As a somewhat unrelated tangent: Peter Levenda can be seen as pretty shady himself, and though I don't actually suspect him of intelligence involvement one could be forgiven for doing so.)

[guruilla]

As a somewhat unrelated tangent: Peter Levenda can be seen as pretty shady himself, and though I don't actually suspect him of intelligence involvement one could be forgiven for doing so.)

I brought this up in a non-confrontative fashion at the start of my last convo with PL. Nothing of obvious consequence in his response, but maybe worth mentioning anyway.

[lunarmoth]

It's interesting how 'child abuse' is what clinches it for many, instead of all the other sordid details of Crowley's career. As if, in the end, children were the only people left on this planet with their humanity still intact.

I hope we all get over our infatuation with evil soon...

I guess I'll put that down as my wish for 2016.

[lunarmoth]

[lunarmoth]

Fire started Dec 23rd, halfway between Solstice & Christmas

hah, what an interesting coincidence

Faeries set it, obviously,