Notifications
Clear all

Crowley the deceiver  

  RSS

herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 464
02/05/2015 10:22 am  
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
Crowley was known for lies, trickery and deceit, and his writings had an underpinning theme of inherent contradiction.

Having read all of the major works by Crowley, and many of his obscure minor works, I am left with the impression that Crowley was sincere in his beliefs and convictions. In response to your accusations, i have started this thread in an effort to documents the alleged lies, trickery and deceit Crowley engaged in.


Quote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
02/05/2015 11:04 am  

Having read all of the major works by Crowley, and many of his obscure minor works, I am left with the impression that Crowley was sincere in his beliefs and convictions. In response to your accusations, i have started this thread in an effort to documents the alleged lies, trickery and deceit Crowley engaged in.

Faking his own death, Liber Apotheosis, breaking all of his G.'.D.'. oaths, claiming O.H.O. against Reuss' wishes, literally hundreds of promises made for repayments of moneys borrowed (diaries, letters), promises of sending written materials (talismans paper to Curwen which didn't actually exist), etc., etc., etc., are just a few of the points which instantly spring to mind.

I'm not inclined to dig through his diaries and correspondence to pull out some quotes in favour of my opinion, although I could easily do so, but I do get the impression that Crowley didn't have any problem in lying his way to both a better life and a more esteemed facade. Obviously nobody's perfect, but some people do try really hard to seem so! heh

As for my use of the term 'contradiction,' I meant from a magical and philosophical point of view, as in A & Not-A, et al.

Also, to be frank, I'm really not sure what Crowley believed, or whether he was sincere or not in his convictions. He seemed to chop and change his opinion continuously, and some of his opinions became reversed during the course of his life. With Regards AL, a close look at the cover immediately reveals a confusion of beliefs. Was it automatic writing? Was it dictated? Was in 1904 or 1906? At any rate, it doesn't look like it bothered him until much later. Weird, that! ... I would have thought that having a praeter-human voice dictate a book to you over the course of three days would have been an experience of such magnitude that stashing the book away to be forgotten about would have been the last thing on his mind!

I, too, have also read all of Crowley's major and minor works, correspondences & diaries. 🙂 An interesting and fun read, aren't they? 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5349
02/05/2015 2:13 pm  
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
Faking his own death, Liber Apotheosis, breaking all of his G.'.D.'. oaths, claiming O.H.O. against Reuss' wishes, literally hundreds of promises made for repayments of moneys borrowed ...

Yup!  Those are the charges all right!

I'm having trouble pinning down what Apotheosis actually said, but the rest of this (^) list of accusations seems correct. You might want to add the announcements of Waite's death ;D and Reuss's mental disability :o.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
02/05/2015 2:44 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
I'm having trouble pinning down what Apotheosis actually said

The text and astrological chart can be found at the links below. As they're viewable without authorization I suspect O.T.O. no longer considers them 'not for publication.'

http://archives.bapho.net/C/C0000029/C0000029.html & http://archives.bapho.net/C/C0000030/C0000030.html

Seems as though Crowley wanted Parsons to front Agape Lodge, and in order for that to happen Crowley had to convince W.T. Smith into taking an extended magical retirement. Al used Smith's birth chart to suggest he was some form of God ready to be awakened; he took the bait, went off in search of his hidden divinity, and left the pathway clear for Parsons. Ingenious! Deceitful!


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2738
02/05/2015 7:23 pm  
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
"Shiva" wrote:
I'm having trouble pinning down what Apotheosis actually said

The text and astrological chart can be found at the links below. As they're viewable without authorization I suspect O.T.O. no longer considers them 'not for publication.'

http://archives.bapho.net/C/C0000029/C0000029.html & http://archives.bapho.net/C/C0000030/C0000030.html

Seems as though Crowley wanted Parsons to front Agape Lodge, and in order for that to happen Crowley had to convince W.T. Smith into taking an extended magical retirement. Al used Smith's birth chart to suggest he was some form of God ready to be awakened; he took the bait, went off in search of his hidden divinity, and left the pathway clear for Parsons. Ingenious! Deceitful!

Yes, Martin Starr's 'The Unknown God' book is one of the most fascinating and entertaining true stories I have read in a long time. 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5349
02/05/2015 8:22 pm  
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
Crowley wanted Parsons to front Agape Lodge, and in order for that to happen Crowley had to convince W.T. Smith into taking an extended magical retirement ... Ingenious! Deceitful!

Oh yeah!  I remember that little trick. It really helped things along for Parsons to take over, spawn Hubbard, meet Cameron, and then get himself terminated ... so that Germer could close the Ordo.

(... after Crowley's death)

Closed!
[/align:2poh2rht]


ReplyQuote
steve_wilson
(@steve_wilson)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 155
02/05/2015 8:45 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
Crowley wanted Parsons to front Agape Lodge, and in order for that to happen Crowley had to convince W.T. Smith into taking an extended magical retirement ... Ingenious! Deceitful!

Oh yeah!  I remember that little trick. It really helped things along for Parsons to take over, spawn Hubbard, meet Cameron, and then get himself terminated ... so that Germer could close the Ordo.

(... after Crowley's death)

Closed!
[/align:rnf5xkcq]

Well, so it didn't work!


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 535
03/05/2015 5:57 am  

AC had enough shit thrown at him in his own life, & to throw more at him in 2015 is insane! It just goes to show how deep the roots are in this farcical morality play that even some of his admirers partake in. His work has stood the test of time, & that alone vindicates him from all accusations. Show me the youth who are reading Yeats! If you want to put him in a negative light then there is about 100 years of defamation against him that you can pull from. It's not too difficult.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
03/05/2015 6:43 am  
"Horemakhet" wrote:
AC had enough shit thrown at him in his own life, & to throw more at him in 2015 is insane! It just goes to show how deep the roots are in this farcical morality play that even some of his admirers partake in. His work has stood the test of time, & that alone vindicates him from all accusations. Show me the youth who are reading Yeats! If you want to put him in a negative light then there is about 100 years of defamation against him that you can pull from. It's not too difficult.

I don't agree with you at all, at all. This forum's primary function is to discuss the life and times of Aleister Crowley. To dismiss the 'negative' aspects of his life in favour of concentrating solely upon the 'positive' would be to give an entirely biased image of the man. I admire his writings as much as anybody else, but I don't think covering up history in order to paint a happy picture is the right course of action. My intention was not to "put him in a negative light"; far from it! I do think, however, that it's fair and appropriate to put him under an unprejudiced floodlight of truth and tell the facts as we've been left them. 

...thankfully I never mentioned him killing a man, sacrificing animals during ritual, being a big game hunter, treating numerous lovers with absolutely zero respect, and generally not giving a monkey's about anybody else as long as he was okay and in the clear...

I suppose life was different back then.

*stirs the pot*


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 535
03/05/2015 7:31 am  

Does it make you feel powerful when you judge him? Perhaps more powerful than you were before?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
03/05/2015 7:43 am  
"Horemakhet" wrote:
Does it make you feel powerful when you judge him? Perhaps more powerful than you were before?

I do really think that you're missing the point.

...but to answer your question: Yes. Using my moral fiber to judge what's right and wrong, good and bad, really does leave me with an uplifted sense of well-being. Thanks for your concern. 🙂


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 464
03/05/2015 9:53 am  
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:

Faking his own death,

An obvious publicity stunt, and not something that lends to the accusation that Crowley was a known liar.

Liber Apotheosis

Your interpretation of the document as evidence that Crowley engaged in lies, trickery, and deceit is wholly subjective, constitutes a moral judgment on your part, and is irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

breaking all of his G.'.D.'. oaths,

There was a complex set of circumstances involved;  it was not a case of Crowley simply lying because he was a disingenuous habitual liar, which your accusations imply.

claiming O.H.O. against Reuss' wishes,

Unless Crowley promised not to do so, that accusation is also irrelevant to the topic.

literally hundreds of promises made for repayments of moneys borrowed (diaries, letters),

Hundreds of requests sounds extreme; to substantiate your accusations it will be necessary to prove Crowley failed to repay the money; if you cannot, then it's safe to conclude that your accusations amount to baseless assumption.

promises of sending written materials (talismans paper to Curwen which didn't actually exist), etc., etc., etc., are just a few of the points which instantly spring to mind.

I'm not familiar with Crowley's relationship with Curwen, but failure to do something promised (did Crowley actually promise?) doesn't qualify a person as a known liar or trickster.

I'm not inclined to dig through his diaries and correspondence to pull out some quotes in favour of my opinion,

Well you should if your intent is to engage in an intellectual discussion in which you paint someone as a known liar, trickster, and deceiver.

With Regards AL, a close look at the cover immediately reveals a confusion of beliefs. Was it automatic writing?

In originally describing the text as automatic writing, Crowley was exercising skepticism in regard to the experience, which served as a defensive mechanism on the part of his ego; having had similar experiences myself, I can say the impact on the psyche of the person experiencing such things is tremendous. That Crowley changed his opinion about something doesn't qualify him as a liar or trickster.

Was it dictated?

Obviously, based on the Liber L holograph.

Was in 1904 or 1906?

The date of the reception is written in large print in the center of the cover sheet of the holograph: April 8th, 9th, and 10th, 1904. The inclusion of the date 1906 was an obvious addition after the fact, which leaves you clutching at straws in an effort to prove your point.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
03/05/2015 11:03 am  
"herupakraath" wrote:
[...]

Have it your way. I neither have the time nor inclination to go about proving or disproving the immorality of a dead man by picking out choice quotes from largely unpublished sources.

However, after a decade and a half (which isn't much compared to some) of continuous research on the subject, it's my opinion that Crowley was very much guilty of a more than occasional lapse in morality and ethics. I'd even go as far as saying that it's blatantly and obviously the case and shouldn't need to be proved if you've read his diaries, correspondence and history.

Killing a person.
Killing animals for sport.
Killing animals for sacrifice.
Borrowing money with no intentions of repayment.
Promising written materials with no intentions of supplying such.
Promising materials which didn't exist.
Publishing materials he was oath bound to hold secret with the sole intention of dissolving an order.
Stealing materials translated my Mathers and publishing them as his own.
Taking control of an order without charter or authorization.
Generally being a complete ass with hundreds of women, mostly prostitutes as it goes.

...Oh, and then there's that story about him having a goat copulate with Alostrael while its throat was slit...

Jeez gad man!

But, of course, you're right. He was a very nice man, perfect in every way. Yeah, right...

Now, I don't mind you disseminating my posts line by line, phrase by phrase, but don't expect me to reply in like manner; the posts become overly long and cumbersome that way, and it's too laborious to tackle each section one at a time. I disagree with most of what you've said, though. You seem to be suggesting that it's okay to lie and cheat when it's a "public stunt" or if "there was a complex set of circumstances involved." Seems like you're being willingly blind to the facts to me, but obviously you don't agree already.

I also disagree with your comments on the AL cover. There is nothing "obvious" about any of it, and it's completely up for debate, conjecture and speculation. That, as it goes, is the main topic on a few of the current Cole threads. You're free to believe whatever you like, of course, but I don't accept a word of it and have no beliefs whatsoever in this regard.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5349
03/05/2015 2:22 pm  
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
But, of course, you're right. He was a very nice man, perfect in every way.

Of course he was.  He was oviously a Saint, a paradigm of virtue.

[/align:3d9pck35]


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
05/05/2015 3:40 pm  
"herupakraath" wrote:
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
Crowley was known for lies, trickery and deceit, and his writings had an underpinning theme of inherent contradiction.

Having read all of the major works by Crowley, and many of his obscure minor works, I am left with the impression that Crowley was sincere in his beliefs and convictions. In response to your accusations, i have started this thread in an effort to documents the alleged lies, trickery and deceit Crowley engaged in.

"Horemakhet" wrote:
AC had enough shit thrown at him in his own life, & to throw more at him in 2015 is insane! It just goes to show how deep the roots are in this farcical morality play that even some of his admirers partake in. His work has stood the test of time, & that alone vindicates him from all accusations. Show me the youth who are reading Yeats! If you want to put him in a negative light then there is about 100 years of defamation against him that you can pull from. It's not too difficult.

It does seem a little odd, selecting the Aleister Crowley Society website to slag A.C off on & emphasise all of his - what’s the word now? ah yes - “shittiest” features.  But one could easily say that it is a mark of how open-minded ‘Thelemites’ or at least A.C. aficionados are, that they can take such large amounts of criticism of him, warts and all.  Really though, in the interests of fair play & all that there should be a balance achievable with another thread in order to establish a new equilibrium: perhaps one that is not "Crowley the Deceiver” but “Crowley the Truth-sayer” or “Crowley – Straight Shooter”?

This is not to say that there mightn’t be more content in the ‘anti’-thread rather than the ‘pro-‘, though …
Norma N Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5349
05/05/2015 4:23 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
... but “Crowley the Truth-sayer” or “Crowley – Straight Shooter”?

But who knows who is Frater Perdurabo and who is the demon Crowley?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
05/05/2015 5:06 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
It does seem a little odd, selecting the Aleister Crowley Society website to slag A.C off on & emphasise all of his - what’s the word now? ah yes - “shittiest” features.

If I'd started this thread, or had even made the OP's quote of mine the central theme of the original post from which it came, I'd completely agree with you. As it stands I feel fairly well justified in defending my position and point of view when somebody starts a new thread based upon a quote of mine taken out of context from a previous thread.

If I may clarify: I adore Crowley's writings, his humour and wit, and the systems of thought which he based his philosophy upon. I do, however, think that the man was repugnant and abhorrent, and not at all very spiritually enlightened. He seems to have had an incredible memory, a mastery of the English language, and a very precise method of reasoning, but that's pretty much where his virtues stop for me. He's certainly not the be all and end all of philosophy or spiritual thought in any case. In my opinion a lot of his contemporaries were greater minds and greater minds have also existed at both sides of the spectrum of his life. Sexual liberation, brilliant; exploration of mind altering substances, brilliant; meditation and magic, brilliant; poetry and literature, right up there; nice person, not a chance; trustworthy, no way; in control of his own being, not one iota! I do love reading about his life though. His diaries and letters are a fantastic read, and if nothing else they show that the man wasn't perfect and was capable of all sorts of actions deemed socially unacceptable. For me that's why they're great! They're a fun read and show a man battling through life, just like the rest of us. ... ... ... I'm not about to glorify him as a saint and dismiss everything which I don't like about him just to vindicate him of wrongdoings. ...certainly not!

...but that's just my opinion. Maybe I (we?) shouldn't judge his actions in any moral way then. So, without viewing it as good or bad, what was Crowley's intent for the so-called Seth Ceremony in 1921? I have the diary but won't post it here as I'm fairly sure it's one of the documents O.T.O. wants under lock and key. It pretty much goes like this: Crowley was thinking about how some of the gods of old had animal characteristics and were venerated as such, so he thought it'd be a good idea to try out some sex magick experiments of a bestial nature. He convinced Leah to let a goat have its way with her, to which she agreed. The goat was to have its neck slit at the moment of orgasm and its blood used as a sacrament. As is goes the goat couldn't perform on the day so Crowley took over. The goat's neck was slit regardless.

So, animal torture, beastiality and sacrifice aside (we shall not judge), what did he aim to accomplish? If the ritual did in fact accomplish something - anything - are we then allowed to say whether the result was a good one or a bad one? If not, to me it just seems like animal torture, beastiality and sacrifice for the sake of it. ...but, I shall not judge.  ???


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
05/05/2015 5:28 pm  

I don't have Colin Wilson's book about Crowley any more but wasn't there something in there about him murdering a native boy?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
05/05/2015 5:47 pm  
"david" wrote:
I don't have Colin Wilson's book about Crowley any more but wasn't there something in there about him murdering a native boy?

He allegedly shot dead a mugger in Calcutta, but I don't have the relevant diary to verify. There's a little bit about it in Perdurabo.

Eye for an eye. Eye for a tooth.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
05/05/2015 6:39 pm  
"david" wrote:
I don't have Colin Wilson's book about Crowley any more but wasn't there something in there about him murdering a native boy?

Why yes, there was something about him murdering one hundred and fifty boys somewhere – all of them of high intelligence, etc etc - and all within the space of a year, too.  Perfectly ghastly stuff, and a dreadful business all round.

"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
[...] So, without viewing it as good or bad, what was Crowley's intent for the so-called Seth Ceremony in 1921? I have the diary but won't post it here as I'm fairly sure it's one of the documents O.T.O. wants under lock and key. It pretty much goes like this: Crowley was thinking about how some of the gods of old had animal characteristics and were venerated as such, so he thought it'd be a good idea to try out some sex magick experiments of a bestial nature. He convinced Leah to let a goat have its way with her, to which she agreed. The goat was to have its neck slit at the moment of orgasm and its blood used as a sacrament. As is goes the goat couldn't perform on the day so Crowley took over. The goat's neck was slit regardless.

So, animal torture, beastiality and sacrifice aside (we shall not judge), what did he aim to accomplish? If the ritual did in fact accomplish something - anything - are we then allowed to say whether the result was a good one or a bad one? If not, to me it just seems like animal torture, beastiality and sacrifice for the sake of it. ...but, I shall not judge.  ???

You make some valid points Darrell but I seem to remember a discussion on this very forum where a lot of the goat business (the 'Seth' ceremony?) was found (as usual) to be an elaboration, exaggeration & distortion of the facts.  But if you have anything in the way of convincing evidence, please could you make a specific reference to it and then perhaps we can all take it from there?  Thanks.

N Joy


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 464
05/05/2015 7:06 pm  
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
I neither have the time nor inclination to go about proving or disproving the immorality of a dead man by picking out choice quotes from largely unpublished sources.

Quoting sources neither proves or disproves an accusation, but it does demonstrate an identifiable point of origin, which is important if you wish to be taken seriously. 

However, after a decade and a half (which isn't much compared to some) of continuous research on the subject, it's my opinion that Crowley was very much guilty of a more than occasional lapse in morality and ethics.

Being a liar, deceiver and trickster certainly fall under the heading of being immoral and unethical, but being immoral and unethical does not make a person a liar, deceiver, or trickster ipso facto. The topic of the thread has been defined, yet you seem bent on steering it in another direction.

I'd even go as far as saying that it's blatantly and obviously the case and shouldn't need to be proved if you've read his diaries, correspondence and history.

Killing a person.

Within the context of your complaint, killing one under any circumstance is immoral and unethical, even if the killing is a matter of self-defense. Quoted from the Wikipedia page on Crowley:

"Crowley met up with Rose and Lilith in Calcutta before being forced to leave India after shooting dead a native who tried to mug him."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley

Someone that has never read The Confessions and is unaware of the circumstances in which Crowley killed a man might get the impression from your statement that Crowley was an indiscriminate murderer, which is certainly not the case. Ironically, your effort at portraying Crowley as an immoral killer is a demonstrable deception on your part, and proves that your objective is to reinforce negative perceptions of Crowley despite the facts. The rest of your list of complaints are irrelevant to the thread topic and just as inane as the first one.

...Oh, and then there's that story about him having a goat copulate with Alostrael while its throat was slit...

Source? 


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4094
05/05/2015 7:18 pm  
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
. . . not at all very spiritually enlightened.

What's your idea of "spiritually enlightened", Darrell?

I don't quite see the point of all this. My interest in Crowley has always been in his magical and mystical writings, in The Book of the Law, in workings such as the Amalantrah Working, etc. I've always been aware that he did some things that I and no doubt many others find abhorrent, and treated many of his friends and lovers badly. However, it was all a long time ago, and I'm not really interested. Similarly, I'm not that interested in the personalities of Blavatsky, of Gurdjieff, of Woodroffe, of Spare, of Grant, and others. I'm aware of the argument some make that study of the personality throws light on the work, but I'd rather consider the body of work as it stands. 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5349
05/05/2015 7:57 pm  
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
He allegedly shot dead a mugger in Calcutta, but I don't have the relevant diary to verify.

See Confessions where AC describes the event. It sounds like simple self-defense.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
05/05/2015 8:40 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
You make some valid points Darrell but I seem to remember a discussion on this very forum where a lot of the goat business (the 'Seth' ceremony?) was found (as usual) to be an elaboration, exaggeration & distortion of the facts.  But if you have anything in the way of convincing evidence, please could you make a specific reference to it and then perhaps we can all take it from there?  Thanks.
"herupakraath" wrote:

...Oh, and then there's that story about him having a goat copulate with Alostrael while its throat was slit...

Source?

A short extract from a page of a transcript of Crowley's diary (OS H3, Yorke collection), dated '25 Jul 21' by G.J. Yorke:

Die Saturn. Considerations of the Seth Ceremony.      We want the horns to represent Aiwaz, the skin for      , the blood for the cakes of light, & as the sacrament in the rite itself.
The Oath is to be:      We, the undersigned Members of the Abbey of Thelema at Cephaloedium, hereby pledge ourselves to devote our whole lives to the establishment of the law of Thelema; whereto we invoke Aiwaz as witness by the Rite of the Slaying of the Goat that hath lain with the Woman, sealing our names with his blood, & drinking thereof from the Cup of Our Lady of Whoredom.

Yorke also gives a marginalia note next to the entry, which simply says Sacrifice of Goat.

Also, with regards to this, it's interesting to see Leah say the following in her own diary of 1921:

I dedicate myself wholly to The Great Work. I will work for wickedness, I will kill my heart, I will be shameless before all men, I will freely prostitute my body to all creatures.

Martin Booth in his book A Magick Life gives the following on page 376:

    Both Mary Butts and Maitland witnessed a number of ritual events at Cefalu which shocked them. It was one thing to partake in the rite of preparing the Cakes of Light, in which Crowley, in a scarlet-and-black robe, sacrificed a cockerel for its blood, but quite another to participate in bestiality.
    One of the rituals Crowley devised included a naked Leah being mounted by a billy-goat. The idea was that Leah went down on all fours so that the goat could copulate with her. At the moment of its orgasm, Crowley would slit its throat. All went well until the goat steadfastly refused to play its sexual part. Notwithstanding, while its forequarters were over Leah's hips, Crowley garrotted it. The blood sprayed over Leah's back. She, somewhat bemused and no doubt drugged, stood up and asked Mary Butts what she should do next. Leah must have expected a magical instruction, but Mary's tacit reply suggested instead that she have a bath.

Kaczynski in his book Purdurabo also gives the following on page 373 of the revised edition:

Reading Herodotus' account of an Egyptian priestess copulating with a goat in the course of a religious ceremony, Crowley pondered the occult significance of these "prodigies." The unions of humans and animals was certainly sacred to ancient cultures: the Egyptians venerated gods who had human bodies and animals' heads. Similar ideas appeared in Greek mythology, with the bull-headed Minotaur and the story of Leda and the swan. Other ancient religions around the world told similar tales. Thus Crowley suggested such a working. Leah agreed to act as priestess. They got a goat, and the Scarlet Woman knelt naked on the ground, presenting herself to the indifferent beast. Crowley tried coaxing the goat to mount Leah, but the animal failed to respond to a human female. To save the ritual from utter failure, Crowley took the goat's place with Leah, as he recorded in his diary: "I atoned for the young He-goat at considerable length."

This diary entry is apparently quoted from John Symonds, "Introduction," in Aleister Crowley, White Stains (London: Duckworth, 1986), ix.

I've also had a skip through Symonds' The King of the Shadow Realm, but couldn't locate any relevant passages. My eyes are getting tired now after a long day so there may be something in there yet.

Mary Butts' journal is extant, but I do not have a copy. I've heard it contains much on the subject though, as well as her opinions on quite a lot of the goings on at the Abbey. Seems she thought neglect may well have been the cause of Poupee's death at the abbey after witnessing so much debauchery in her short stay.

"Michael Staley" wrote:
What's your idea of "spiritually enlightened", Darrell?

Now that's a question! Please, excuse my simplistic use of such a subjective blanket term; I was merely trying to put forth my opinion.

It'd perhaps take me another few lifetimes to answer that one, but first and foremost I'd have to include human empathy and a respect for life as primary prerequisites, neither of which I view Crowley as having. I'd also say that it's no measure to pass tests you yourself have devised, but that was Crowley's own specification. Like, right.. I've passed through Pyramidos, so now I'm a Neophyte... Yup, done did some Tuat... Look at me, I'm a Zelator.

Doesn't work like that as far as I can tell.

As it goes I'm a huge fan of Woodroofe's work, as technical as it is, but I know little to nothing about the man himself. I think it's a great issue with Crowley's students that they place far too much emphasis on the man himself as opposed to his works. I also include myself amongst that list...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
05/05/2015 9:15 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
He allegedly shot dead a mugger in Calcutta, but I don't have the relevant diary to verify.

See Confessions where AC describes the event. It sounds like simple self-defense.

"herupakraath" wrote:
Someone that has never read The Confessions and is unaware of the circumstances in which Crowley killed a man might get the impression from your statement that Crowley was an indiscriminate murderer, which is certainly not the case. Ironically, your effort at portraying Crowley as an immoral killer is a demonstrable deception on your part, and proves that your objective is to reinforce negative perceptions of Crowley despite the facts. The rest of your list of complaints are irrelevant to the thread topic and just as inane as the first one.

Two or three pages on the event in my standard paperback edition of The Confessions, the bulk of which is around page 454.

I agree that it looks like innocent self-defense, but I only have Crowley's word for it in a book written by him. I'd like to see a diary too, if one exists...

Interestingly, he says he could see "the pallid gleam of a knife" in one section, but then later goes on to say he "could not even see the white robes of the man who held [him]," and that his "arms were held firmly to [his] sides." ...Now, I'm no Columbo, but if the alley was in "pitch blackness" so as not to be able to see the robes on the man immediately in front of him, how could he see a knife held by a man who was also holding both of Crowley's arms "firmly" to his sides? ...

I dunno. ....speculate I guess, but don't believe a word anybody tells you! I'm not at all bothered really, but I do know he had to leave India as a consequence. That's not something an innocent person should feel they have to do.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
05/05/2015 10:04 pm  
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
"david" wrote:
I don't have Colin Wilson's book about Crowley any more but wasn't there something in there about him murdering a native boy?

He allegedly shot dead a mugger in Calcutta, but I don't have the relevant diary to verify. There's a little bit about it in Perdurabo.

Eye for an eye. Eye for a tooth.

No not the mugger incident there's something else in Colin Wilson's book where he asks was Crowley evil?  He then cites some story about killing a native boy in an act of sadism.  I don't have the book now but it would be nice if someone could reproduce Wilson's writings on this.

By the way in Britain, even recently, well connected people can rape and kill children and get away with it.  The secret police have even interfered and threatened victims. It's only very recently where the rights of children (particularly orphans) are being recognized.  Was Crowley involved in such sadistic activity?  Were the 100 small boys sacrificed part of this British tradition or was this a joke,  his way of winding up the rigidity of censors?  We don't know.  However I doubt it as he seemed to display a full understanding of how repression causes such "hellish abortions."


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 348
06/05/2015 1:50 am  

This is all such nonsense. Sacrifice, i.e. ritual death for propitiation, is part of the Old Aeon formula. The New Aeon formula given by Aiwass is that of love or sex, not of scourging or death. Crowley, having one foot in the Old Aeon, made the mistake once or twice. But he came to realize the truth, which is why he wrote as he did in Magick -- albeit in cipher, as everyone knows. He came 150 or so times, without child, ha ha ha; and as every good Christian knows, that equals 150 or so deaths. Not quite as much as your average sex fiend, but a fair number. The old age of death and the resurrection thereof, is gone. Now, you are redeemed through blasphemous and earth-shattering sex, taking one not to the grave and beyond but back to the egg and beyond. "It's all in the egg."


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5349
06/05/2015 2:34 pm  
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
... he had to leave India as a consequence. That's not something an innocent person should feel they have to do.

Oh come now! Anyone who commits a possibly indictable act (self-defense or not) in any third world country, should seriously consider getting out, before the typical third world (turd world) justice erupts in hangings, beatings. torrtures, and other unpleasantries.

Look, you've made your point about AC and his deceptions, but nit-picking this self-defense story into something malicious without EVIDENCE is ridiculous.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5349
06/05/2015 3:03 pm  

By AC in The Vision and the Voice:

"... it is important not to keep on worrying about one’s progress; otherwise all the concentration is lost, and a mood of irritability rises, work is given up, and the student becomes angry with his Teacher. His Mind-Soul becomes as a mad elephant that rages in the jungle. He may even obtain the Vision of the Demon Crowley."

[/align:24q9x3md]


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
06/05/2015 4:06 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
Oh come now! Anyone who commits a possibly indictable act (self-defense or not) in any third world country, should seriously consider getting out, before the typical third world (turd world) justice erupts in hangings, beatings. torrtures, and other unpleasantries.

Look, you've made your point about AC and his deceptions, but nit-picking this self-defense story into something malicious without EVIDENCE is ridiculous.

Heh...

Shiva,

I neither intended to make a point nor nit-pick, and neither did I start this thread. I merely responded to a post which started off with a quote of mine taken from elsewhere. I then responded more clearly, and then even more clearly yet again, subsequently using quotes from original material and respected sources. I wouldn't have even gone that far were it not for people trying to force my hand. My hand was not forced, of course, but I did oblige this once. I doubt I'll go so far next time, which'll be a shame; I have a lot to offer in that respect.

I really don't care either way, in all honesty, whether Crowley was a good man or a bad man. It doesn't matter to me at all, but I do have a point of view and I'm educated and sociable enough to voice my opinion.

Now, this is the home of the The Aleister Crowley Society, if I'm not mistaken. It's not a Thelemic forum and not a forum for the discussion of magical systems or any other. It's for the discussion of the life and times of Aleister Crowley, and at the moment I really feel as though the majority of the people active on this thread have been trying to steer the conversation directly away from such, or at least have aimed to vindicate the man of any wrongdoing which are very much evident and a part of his life. I'm not inclined to paint a one sided picture myself though, as perhaps you'll see on another thread in the future when I decide to discuss his poetry or novella, but this thread did have a heading, and my name was directly involved in the opening post.

Unlike some others I won't turn a blind eye or try to distance a character from any immorality they may have demonstrated. It's all part and parcel of his life and times, and that's surely what this forum is about? At least, it shouldn't be about glorifying somebody, ignoring their history and personality, or trying to subjugate their philosophy into modern times.

Also, for what it's worth, I also feel as though I have as much right as anybody else to an opinion and shouldn't have to add footnote and comment to every little thing I say. This site definitely isn't academic or scholastic. It's largely opinion based, primarily because rigorous and thorough research on the topic demands access to materials which probably much less than 1% here will ever obtain. It's all open to speculation in absence of documentation.

.... having said that, I agree with you on the Calcutta story. It was more than likely innocent self-defense, but we do only have his word on it written in hindsight and with a view of publication. I don't think anybody here should just take Crowley's word as gospel, at least. It'd be interesting to see if any further evidence does exist though. Diaries, letters, etc.

I'm still fairly skeptical and open minded, myself. I don't have evidence either way, but those directly asking me for proof whom also believe Crowley's account wholeheartedly should perhaps question him and/or offer up further supporting evidence themselves. Just a novel idea.

Hope you're having a nice day!

Darrell


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5349
06/05/2015 4:22 pm  

Your long tale of self-defense has been noted.


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2738
07/05/2015 10:07 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
By AC in The Vision and the Voice:

"... it is important not to keep on worrying about one’s progress; otherwise all the concentration is lost, and a mood of irritability rises, work is given up, and the student becomes angry with his Teacher. His Mind-Soul becomes as a mad elephant that rages in the jungle. He may even obtain the Vision of the Demon Crowley."

[/align:31f7czgn]

kind of off topic but this is so true.
i am finding this with my asana 🙁


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 1664
27/08/2016 6:19 am  

Hullo herupakraath,

I have been keeping a lazy eye half open for a long while waiting in antici - pation for a sign of your "promised" (?) documentation of (all) the (alleged) lies, trickery & deceit which Crowley engaged in: but apart from going on the defensive and taking issue with & rebutting Darrell Roberts' own quibbles there has been nothing further in the thread which you started with this intent ooh fifteen months ago now.

(As also, incidentally, with your declaration to document watertight evidence ("evidence of such magnitude that lends itself to a definitive conclusion that qualifies said evidence as proof" - Reply #97011 dated 05.08.16) which as a file Squaring the Circle "I will be uploading to Lashtal that proves that Aiwass authored the Book of the Law [... Y]ou will receive it early next week " - Replies #96986 and #97009 dated 05.08.16).)

--- "Liar liar, your pants on fire"?!

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Share: