[Opinion] "I Come To Praise Aleister, Not Bury Him."

[SkullTraill]

Yawn. Normally your posts are high quality. This? Like a juke box. Someone drops a quarter and you go straight to your post-cultural default settings. I mean, really now. You say "anti-semitic, racist, fascist" like those were bad things. I'm all of those and I say Crowley was simply and chronically confused. Drop a a quarter in him and there's no telling what'd he'd spurt out. Which, perhaps, is the source of fascination with him. (As evidenced even by the length and heat of your above post.)

@Rowena’s post actually was of high quality. It was well-researched, informed, and undeniable (I’m open to seeing arguments that he did not say what shes’s quoted but I’m pretty sure that will never happen).

I actually would have no problem with anyone who aligned with, followed, or set-aside the facts in her post for magickal gain, but to simply deny it or dismiss it saying “oh that’s just how he is honey, he was just so crazy you just can’t take him seriously heheheh ” is beyond ignorant and completely spineless and delusional. It gives the same energy as “Uncle Mo Lester just loves kids, there’s nothing wrong with how he touched your daughter”. Even more apt because I’m pretty sure Crowley actually was a sexually unhinged molester.

It’s fine to bring your own evidence to dispute Rowena’s claims, if you can provide the same level of research, quotes etc. And it’s also fine to say you’re also a racist, far-right. Everyone knows I accept that on WF as long as it doesn‘t directly affect anyone else on WF or break the rules. It’s even fine to deny that you’re a racist or right wing, but accept Crowley teachings.

But to deny this evidence without any of your own… or to simply dismiss it as lunacy? Then why follow his magickal teachings if he was such a lunatic crackhead? Even if he was, doesn’t mean his takes weren’t racist/far-right.

Get a grip, it’s laughable for you to question the quality of posting from one of the most composed and consistently high quality members of this forum as one of the lowest quality posters yourself just because you can’t accept the facts.

 

[Xenophon]

@Rowena’s post actually was of high quality. It was well-researched, informed, and undeniable (I’m open to seeing arguments that he did not say what shes’s quoted but I’m pretty sure that will never happen).

I actually would have no problem with anyone who aligned with, followed, or set-aside the facts in her post for magickal gain, but to simply deny it or dismiss it saying “oh that’s just how he is honey, he was just so crazy you just can’t take him seriously heheheh ” is beyond ignorant and completely spineless and delusional. It gives the same energy as “Uncle Mo Lester just loves kids, there’s nothing wrong with how he touched your daughter”. Even more apt because I’m pretty sure Crowley actually was a sexually unhinged molester.

It’s fine to bring your own evidence to dispute Rowena’s claims, if you can provide the same level of research, quotes etc. And it’s also fine to say you’re also a racist, far-right. Everyone knows I accept that on WF as long as it doesn‘t directly affect anyone else on WF or break the rules. It’s even fine to deny that you’re a racist or right wing, but accept Crowley teachings.

But to deny this evidence without any of your own… or to simply dismiss it as lunacy? Then why follow his magickal teachings if he was such a lunatic crackhead? Even if he was, doesn’t mean his takes weren’t racist/far-right.

Get a grip, it’s laughable for you to question the quality of posting from one of the most composed and consistently high quality members of this forum as one of the lowest quality posters yourself just because you can’t accept the facts.

Like a fish, I know when I am being baited. You've been stalking everything I posted today, trying to goad me. Sorry, I am not playing that game.

Post automatically merged: Jul 19, 2024

@Rowena’s post actually was of high quality. It was well-researched, informed, and undeniable (I’m open to seeing arguments that he did not say what shes’s quoted but I’m pretty sure that will never happen).

I actually would have no problem with anyone who aligned with, followed, or set-aside the facts in her post for magickal gain, but to simply deny it or dismiss it saying “oh that’s just how he is honey, he was just so crazy you just can’t take him seriously heheheh ” is beyond ignorant and completely spineless and delusional. It gives the same energy as “Uncle Mo Lester just loves kids, there’s nothing wrong with how he touched your daughter”. Even more apt because I’m pretty sure Crowley actually was a sexually unhinged molester.

It’s fine to bring your own evidence to dispute Rowena’s claims, if you can provide the same level of research, quotes etc. And it’s also fine to say you’re also a racist, far-right. Everyone knows I accept that on WF as long as it doesn‘t directly affect anyone else on WF or break the rules. It’s even fine to deny that you’re a racist or right wing, but accept Crowley teachings.

But to deny this evidence without any of your own… or to simply dismiss it as lunacy? Then why follow his magickal teachings if he was such a lunatic crackhead? Even if he was, doesn’t mean his takes weren’t racist/far-right.

Get a grip, it’s laughable for you to question the quality of posting from one of the most composed and consistently high quality members of this forum as one of the lowest quality posters yourself just because you can’t accept the facts.

Crowley was quite a fan of Paschal Beverly Randolph, the sex magician and a black man. Odd position for a racist. As already stated in a previous post, Crowley was anti-NSDAP and by some accounts took an active role. Lawrence Sutin, Richard Spence, and Tobias Churtin all insist his eccentricities were (at least partly) cover for his work for British intelligence. Odd career for a "fascist." Indeed, he was expelled from Mussolini's Italy. (By the by, at different times in the 20's and 30's, Churchill publicly praised both Mussolini and Hitler---does this mean he too was a "fascist"?)

My point throughout has been that Crowley was a contradictory figure. An individual who was frequently going several directions at once. To reduce him to a right-winger (or left-winger as another poster above did) misses the reality of the matter. And that reality is that Crowley was fundamentally confused. Not that this is at all rare or unique. He, however, rather too flamboyantly never resolved his conflicts.

Why follow his teachings? I do not. Nor has anything I posted implied otherwise. I have come to loathe the tradition Crowley represents. Still, he is a pivotal figure in his age. Indeed, mostly a negative example. But not one to be laid by epithets like a werewolf, silver bullets. The fact people find his sex life tacky is a bizarre reason for freethinking post-moderns to reject his work in magick. (As an aside, it is rich to see Anglophone posters screeching "authoritarian" at Crowley while living under the increasingly authoritarian U.S. and U.K. regimes. Enjoy.)

 

[neilwilkes]

Here are just a few or the many, many examples from his writings of why I consider Crowley far-right:

1. Crowley & Fascism:

"The Fascisti swarmed all over the city. I thought their behaviour admirable. "

"For sometime I had interested myself in Fascismo which I regarded with entire sympathy even excluding its illegitimacy on the ground that constitutional authority had become to all intents and purposes a dead letter. I was delighted with the common sense of its programme and was especially pleased by its attitude towards the Church... I was also convinced of the importance of the movement and of its almost immediate success. I did my utmost to persuade Austin Harrison of the soundness of my judgment. "

Crowley agreed with Fascist politics, and admired their behavior - before being expelled from Germany, he expressed a desire to meet with Hitler & convert him to Thelema based on these views, before Mussolini did a deal with the Catholic church, he likewise expressed admiration for him.


2. Crowley & anti-semitism:

"...Christians and other troglodytes - but most especially the parasites of man, the Jews"

"...but to the general position of the ethnologist that the Jews were an entirely barbarous race, incapable of any spiritual pursuit."

"Human sacrifices are to-day still practised by the Jews of Eastern Europe... and evidenced by the ever-recurring Pogroms against which so senseless and outcry is made by those who live among those degenerate Jews who are at least not cannibals."

"Israel has corrupted the world, whether by conquest, by conversion, or by conspiracy. The Jew has eaten his way into everything. The caricature of Semitic thought, Christianity, rotted Roman virtue through introducing the moral subterfuge of vicarious atonement."


3. Crowley & white supremacy:

"The appeal of the inferior races is, perhaps, a taint of atavism in our blood. Those weary spirits among us who despair of life, who fear to fall from the long ladder of evolution; are always ready to listen to the siren calls of the bestial."

"The campaigning against the supremacy of the higher races is therefore carried on, at the present time, by subtly undermining the spiritual bastions of Europe and America."

"There is one salient fact of to-day to which Europe and America can not shut their eyes. It is the surreptitious agitation of the inferior races, those whom evolution left behind – the negro and negroid types period. This menace grows with every year."

"The grotesque the atricalities of the renegade Annie Besant, the Barnum of the buck Messiah Krishnamurti, must serve to sharpen the will of the white race; not only to defend itself; but to sally forth once more as in the spacious days of Good Queen Bess, and reconquer our foregone prestige and mastery."

"We conquered the peninsula by sheer moral superiority. Our unity, our self-respect, our courage, honesty and sense of justice awakened the wonder, commanded the admiration and enforced the obedience of those who either lacked those qualities altogether, possessed some of them and felt the lack of the others, or had, actually or traditionally, sufficient of them to make them the criteria of right and ability to govern. As elsewhere observed, our modern acquiescence in the rationally irrefutable argument that the colour of a man’s skin does not prevent him from being competent in any given respect, has knocked the foundations from underneath the structure of our authority."


There are plenty of other examples if you care to look - Crowley was both a racist & a white supremacist - and that fact has been acknowledged by Frater Sabazius (Bill Breeze), current head of the OTO - he was openly against 'race mixing', and had something racist to say about every ethnicity he encountered, he was anti-semitic, and he pro-fascist.

Now, you can be an apologist & use arguments grounded in weak-minded moral-relativism about him 'being a product of his age' or his behavior being 'part of his culture', but the majority of the world opposed fascism, and during WWII American troops were shown training videos about how socially unacceptable racism was in Europe - so no, his views were not an acceptable part of his culture; and no, they did not represent the times in which he lived.

Crowley was an authoritarian, anti-semitic, racist, white-supremacist fascist (or fascist-sympathiser) - so yes, I do indeed consider that far-right.

Yet again all you do is try to force a man from a different age into your way of looking at things, and like everybody else who thinks like you do you're incapable of comprehending that not everybody thinks the same way that you do, and have (oh, the horror of it) a different opinion!
I'm not apologising for anybody - merely pointing out the rank hypocrisy of the modern Left - with 'rank' being the operative word!

 

[Khoren_]

To get back on topic, I personally despise Crowley but his 777 and book of correspondences has personally made me determined to dig through and create my own set of correspondences.

So maybe not a positive of the Man, but with enough derision, I'm sure anyone is motivated to do better than the self-styled beast.

(To note, I have, on occasion, also called myself the antichrist, and in at least one group have adorned this into the mythology of said group.)

 

[Gregorius]

Do as thou willt is still very funny to see being missinterpreted

 

[Robert Ramsay]

Do as thou willt is still very funny to see being missinterpreted

I remember that Crowley attempted to restate it to make it less open to misinterpretation: "Thou hast no choice but to do thy Will"

And in D&D terms, I believe that Crowley was Chaotic Neutral shading towards Chaotic Evil from time to time He praised and expounded 'Law' as long as it didn't have to apply to him

I still find his work, and the way he talked matter-of-factly about magic to be incredibly useful. No, I would never want to have met him.

 

[Khoren_]

Do as thou willt is still very funny to see being missinterpreted

LOVE UNDER WILL


Sorry, it's almost automatic at this point

 

[Xenophon]

LOVE UNDER WILL


Sorry, it's almost automatic at this point

One of those maxims that should not be imparted till the pupil has gone through the whole curriculum, just like "Do what thou wilt &c." In this instance, "love" is not simply a warm fuzzy; "will" not simply persistent impulse. Which is pretty much how the neophyte enthusiast construes things. Not that I am into either anyway. The whole point of the thread was that these times' persistent Crowley-bashing neglects the great influence he has had on the magick scene.

Post automatically merged: Jul 23, 2024

Do as thou willt is still very funny to see being missinterpreted

Sometimes not so funny, but I get your point.

 

[Khoren_]

The whole point of the thread was that these times' persistent Crowley-bashing neglects the great influence he has had on the magick scene.

I mean, a lot of people who were pretty icky as people also had some serious influence on the whole of magic.

I mean, Spare, Gardener, Blavatsky, and Kelley to name a few...

One of those maxims that should not be imparted till the pupil has gone through the whole curriculum, just like "Do what thou wilt &c." In this instance, "love" is not simply a warm fuzzy; "will" not simply persistent impulse.

And not to mention that a lot of people see something like

LOVE IS THE WHOLE OF THE LAW
LOVE UNDER WILL
DO WHAT THOU WILT

and just go "Morals are pointless, society is a sham, I can dethrone and kill god"

And I mean, they're not wrong, but like, they're doing it for the wrong reasons?

Should there be a thread about the actual pros and cons of exo- versus eso- tericism? I think that would be a good thread...

 

[Xenophon]

I mean, a lot of people who were pretty icky as people also had some serious influence on the whole of magic.

I mean, Spare, Gardener, Blavatsky, and Kelley to name a few...



And not to mention that a lot of people see something like

LOVE IS THE WHOLE OF THE LAW
LOVE UNDER WILL
DO WHAT THOU WILT

and just go "Morals are pointless, society is a sham, I can dethrone and kill god"

And I mean, they're not wrong, but like, they're doing it for the wrong reasons?

Should there be a thread about the actual pros and cons of exo- versus eso- tericism? I think that would be a good thread...

Don't think about it; start the thread!

 

[Rowena]

Crowley was quite a fan of Paschal Beverly Randolph

Yeah, I've heard that as well - but since you're clearly more familiar with his writings about PB Randolph than me, perhaps you'd provide a source for that - so I can read them for myself, it would provide an illuminating example of his hypocrisy.

 

[Xenophon]

Yeah, I've heard that as well - but since you're clearly more familiar with his writings about PB Randolph than me, perhaps you'd provide a source for that - so I can read them for myself, it would provide an illuminating example of his hypocrisy.

Donald Webb references it in his "Energy Magick of the Vampyre." See the Chapters on Randolph and Crowley respectively. Webb, however, rather unjustly accuses Crowley of phallocentricism. The Thelemic Order's website has an article that points out, "Reuss and Crowley were both heavily influenced by Randolph, though Crowley, more than Reuss, may have “gotten” Randolph’s core concept. While Crowley bears Reuss’ influence, his ultimate doctrines correspond more closely to Randolph’s focus on a moment of co-mingling, a mutual orgasm, or “nuptive moment,” than Reuss' phallocentric practice." Certainly Crowley's last disciple Kenneth Grant cannot be accused of phallocentricism in his Typhonian Trilogies where women play a key role.

I recall Crowley himself mentioning Randolph but cannot ferret out where from memory. Possibly in his autobiographical writings. You might also look at "Magia Sexualis" by Hugh Urban.

Of course, none of this exonerates Crowley of being a good bit of a cad throughout. It simply highlights the strong possibility that today's language of abuse (like that of most other epochs) tends to be rather ham-handed. One throws out a few pearls with the useless shells.

 

[Rowena]

I also couldn't find a single primary source - only speculation & hypothesis - and having a quick re-read of Urban's commentary on Randolph I'm not surprised - Randolph was openly against 'free-love', and having very clear about sex-magic being only practiced between married couples, and was otherwise quite conservative in many ways, none of which would seem to be all that appealing to Crowley.
While it does seem likely that both Reuss & Crowley knew of Randolph, and may have been influenced by his opening the door to public discussion of sex magic, there doesn't seem to be anything in either of their works that can be directly attributed to Randolph, or at least nothing I could easily find, so I'm going to assume that this is just another case of inventive 'Crowley Said' speculation by one author being presented as fact by others - something that is unfortunately common among Crowley commentators.

 

[Xenophon]

Hugh Urban's, "Unleashing the Beast" admits that Reuss had some significant contact with Crowley, but that Reuss' own "contact" with Randolph came through the German "Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor" after Randolph was no longer in Europe and long dead. So direct influence between Randolph and Crowley is lacking, as you point out.

On the other hand, and back to the main topic, Marco Pasi's book, "Aleister Crowley & the Temptation of Politics" concludes: "Thelema presents itself as a universalistic message, despite its elitist component. It does not postulate intrinsic differences between people on the basis of their birth, sex or ethnicity. (emphasis added.) For all that Crowley may have had some idiosyncrasies in this regard, it appears that he more or less consistently endeavoured to keep these personal attitudes separated from the universal value of his religious message. It should therefore be emphasized that, even if it is not too difficult to find sexist or racist statements in Crowley's writings, there does not seem to be an intrinsic anti-Semitic or racist component in Thelema."

Indeed, Far Right magi often take exception to Crowley for exactly these universalist elements. It takes some adroit acrobatics to manage to be hated by Left and Right at the same time.

Today's demi-adults are programmed to cry "racist," "sexist," "fascist" first ( and in general to "-ist" away like a nest of vipers,) then reject the bogey-man they have in broad strikes painted. Reality has a few more wrinkles than that. Crowley was rather distasteful, yes. To scorn his magick for that reason alone is to overreact.

 

[neilwilkes]

Today's demi-adults are programmed to cry "racist," "sexist," "fascist" first ( and in general to "-ist" away like a nest of vipers,) then reject the bogey-man they have in broad strikes painted. Reality has a few more wrinkles than that. Crowley was rather distasteful, yes. To scorn his magick for that reason alone is to overreact.

And that really does sum it up perfectly - the general trend to get out the 'Istophobic' name calling is endemic, especially amongst those who claim to think of themselves as 'Liberals' with the preachy 'we just think that hurty words are so wrong and anybody who uses them should be cancelled & thrown into Jail' right up to the point where they run into someone that they disagree with.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

And that really does sum it up perfectly - the general trend to get out the 'Istophobic' name calling is endemic, especially amongst those who claim to think of themselves as 'Liberals' with the preachy 'we just think that hurty words are so wrong and anybody who uses them should be cancelled & thrown into Jail' right up to the point where they run into someone that they disagree with.

Part of the problem is that many of the people who advance this point of view actually are the crappy thing they are being accused of.

Joke from Twitter:

How to find Nazis:

1) Make a post saying "Fuck Nazis"
2) Read the comments
3) You found the Nazis

 

[Rowena]

On the other hand, and back to the main topic, Marco Pasi's book, "Aleister Crowley & the Temptation of Politics" concludes: "Thelema presents itself as a universalistic message, despite its elitist component. It does not postulate intrinsic differences between people on the basis of their birth, sex or ethnicity. (emphasis added.) For all that Crowley may have had some idiosyncrasies in this regard, it appears that he more or less consistently endeavoured to keep these personal attitudes separated from the universal value of his religious message. It should therefore be emphasized that, even if it is not too difficult to find sexist or racist statements in Crowley's writings, there does not seem to be an intrinsic anti-Semitic or racist component in Thelema."

Even if I believed that assessment was correct - and I don't - my experience is that it certainly isn't borne out in practice - every Thelemic organization I've ever had personal contact with has certainly treated people differently based on 'the basis of their birth, sex or ethnicity', the OTO for example has openly admitted that it has a problem with both racism & sexism, and my experience is that the problems that they admit to are just the tip of a very unpleasant iceberg.

 

[Xenophon]

Part of the problem is that many of the people who advance this point of view actually are the crappy thing they are being accused of.

Joke from Twitter:

How to find Nazis:

1) Make a post saying "Fuck Nazis"
2) Read the comments
3) You found the Nazis

Simplistic. That tactic "works" with any group. Swap out Nazi for gay, woke, progressive, left-handed harelip clubfooted folks... The ones you have to worry about are those that don't rise to the bait. Historically, the Communist Party was pretty adept at this in various countries. (Witness Kim Philby for a very big one.)

Post automatically merged: Jul 26, 2024

Even if I believed that assessment was correct - and I don't - my experience is that it certainly isn't borne out in practice - every Thelemic organization I've ever had personal contact with has certainly treated people differently based on 'the basis of their birth, sex or ethnicity', the OTO for example has openly admitted that it has a problem with both racism & sexism, and my experience is that the problems that they admit to are just the tip of a very unpleasant iceberg.

Could be, could be. I don't hang with thelemites. Still there is the sadly neglected Xeno's Law of Sharing Power: "An exploitive system is one where me and my posse are not sole possessors of power."

Another consideration. I've spent a third of my life in Asia. And, as my boss reminded me more than once, the fact my notions are vetoed may have more to do with the fact I'm a genuine knothead than the fact I am a foreign knothead. Let those who have ears hear and heed.

Post automatically merged: Jul 26, 2024

Simplistic. That tactic "works" with any group. Swap out Nazi for gay, woke, progressive, left-handed harelip clubfooted folks... The ones you have to worry about are those that don't rise to the bait. Historically, the Communist Party was pretty adept at this in various countries. (Witness Kim Philby for a very big one.)

Post automatically merged: Jul 26, 2024

Could be, could be. I don't hang with thelemites. Still there is the sadly neglected Xeno's Law of Sharing Power: "An exploitive system is one where me and my posse are not sole possessors of power."

Another consideration. I've spent a third of my life in Asia. And, as my boss reminded me more than once, the fact my notions are vetoed may have more to do with the fact I'm a genuine knothead than the fact I am a foreign knothead. Let those who have ears hear and heed.

Interestingly enough, the article "Moving Past Crowleyism: Re-evaluating Jane Wiolfe's Discipleship in Thelema" (Novo Religio 26, 2022) by Ian S. Wilson argues that at the Celafu compound for Thelema, "Crowley is shown to be dreamy and distracted, while Wolfe was focused and expressed agency within the structure of Crowley’s religion." So what then...we can blame a woman for an organization "sexist" from the ground up? Inconvenient and indeed it verges on doctrinal deviationism given these times "narrative." Certainly we cannot cease steering by our constellation of comforting --isms.

​

 

[Asteriskos]

OK, Crowley gets little love in the forum. Still, he was---and remains--- immensely influential. So let's try saying something good about him. And no, saying "He had a wonderful head of hair in his youth" won't cut it.

ME: First, he had a pretty damned fine writing style (though organizational ability lags.) He had bigger balls than mine being the Alpine mountaineer he was. His working up the exhaustive lists of correspondences he did was quite a feat, and one useful---even though his work is not the last word here.

OK, Crowley gets little love in the forum. Still, he was---and remains--- immensely influential. So let's try saying something good about him. And no, saying "He had a wonderful head of hair in his youth" won't cut it.

ME: First, he had a pretty damned fine writing style (though organizational ability lags.) He had bigger balls than mine being the Alpine mountaineer he was. His working up the exhaustive lists of correspondences he did was quite a feat, and one useful---even though his work is not the last word here.

I'm pretty sure that the heavy lifting on Liber 777's correspondences was begun by SLM Mathers and Alan Bennett.
Bennett mentored Crowley and continued to help him with this while staying with him prior to going to Ceylon / Sri Lanka for the Buddhist monk lifestyle . At least the concept and early framework were "appropriated" by Bennett and Crowley.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

Simplistic. That tactic "works" with any group. Swap out Nazi for gay, woke, progressive, left-handed harelip clubfooted folks...

It's a joke. And it's not disturbing when gays or progressives defend themselves against someone saying "Fuck you".

Post automatically merged: Jul 26, 2024

Also, I've been lured off-topic, and I've said all I want to say about Crowley, so I'm stopping here.