I suggest that those who already have access to an advance review copy of  Richard T. Cole's book Liber L vel Bogus, and are willing to facilitate and make possible the discussion of evidence presented in Cole's said book, according to the rules stated in the Original Post of this thread, can present themselves in this thread.

And I also suggest, that those who are willing to facilitate and make possible the discussion of evidence presented in Cole's said book, if they were lent a copy of it, can present themselves in this thread. belmurru? lashtal?

What about reviews?

Steven Ashe's review says,

I found this to be an interesting tidbit, considering how near-death experiences are in many ways related to mysticism and accounts of mystical experiences.

Wasn’t there a variation of this where the servant-girl in question after becoming a Prostitute somehow became involved in the Jack the Ripper murders? (although these being in 1888, at the time A.C. would have been just thirteen.  Even though he was known to have been in many ways precocious for his age, her “descent” into destitution - sorry, Prostitution - must have been sudden and rapid indeed...)

This is assuming that Jackson Burke’s testimony is valid.  There was a thread discussing his feature – which has so far only appeared in reprint in Richard T Cole’s fascinating and well-brought-together compendium The Unmagical Record of The Beast 666 - a few months back on the forums which went into matters of his (Burke’s) accuracy there (or rather lack of it), and so on and so forth.

Norma N Joy Conquest

indeed Jamie, the discussion of the (in)accuracy of the Burke article is here. Thanks for picking that up.

http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=42.msg87685#msg87685

The following claims, quoted from the following amazon.com "review" of Liber L. Vel Bogus - the Real Confession of Aleister Crowley: The Governing Dynamics of Thelema Parts One & Two - http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R3JEBIXDY4LTLX - are quoted in the Original Post in the now closed thread Liber L. vel Bogus - The real confession of Aleister Crowley - http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=79432#p79432

"Liber L. vel Bogus - The Real Confession of Aleister Crowley. Compiled by Richard T. Cole. Edited by Sadie Sparkes. [...]

There is no ‘cross-examination' of Rose. No visit to the Boulak. No “praeterhuman” entity. No “Aiwass”. No Book of the Law. No Thelema. All are fantasies conjured from the mind of an obsessive psychopath, in furtherance of his grand delusion of ‘I, Crowley , the Chosen One'...And the deception does not end with Crowley! ..."

Among the claims made in the above quoted text, I am especially interested in the following two in particular, namely the claim that Crowley's one single objective with writing The Book of the Law, was "An audacious and insane scheme to usurp his nemesis, Mathers, gain control of the Golden Dawn and assume the role of sole terrestrial mouthpiece of gods governing all life on Earth.", and the claim that "He intended to topple the 'old order' with an updated aversion of Golden Dawn's own mythology, by recreating the 'discovery' of its founding documents."

My question is thus the following: What evidence is presented in Cole's book for the latter said two claims, and will someone accurately quote, or clearly state, this evidence?

Wellreadwellbred,

I got the impression that this book was not published yet. Amazon reviews are notoriously self serving. Why not wait until the book is published, acquire a copy, read it and - only then - develop an opinion?

OK

rather than again repeat ad nauseam the book's marketing boiler plate (refer to the first post) please restrict yourself to the claims made and the evidence for or against.

In respect of point 1. in the first post of this thread, quoted at the top of this post, my point is the following question: Are some claims made in a "review" of Richard T Cole's book Liber L. Vel Bogus - the Real Confession of Aleister Crowley: The Governing Dynamics of Thelema Parts One & Two, quoted in this thread's Reply #5, reflected in the evidence presented in the advance review copy of this book, that Richard T. Cole has given to some persons?

And if this is the case, my point - also in respect of point 1. in the first post of this thread, quoted at the top of this post - is further the following question: Will anyone among the persons that were given an advance review copy of Richard T. Cole's said book, accurately quote or clearly state the relevant evidence?

The aforementioned questions can already now be answered, as there are already now some persons who were given an advance review copy of Richard T. Cole's said book.

You have been injecting your opinions and questions into this thread, and they have nothing to do with what's actually in the book.

You are re-hashing old "reviews" that we all have read. This thread is reserved for EVIDENCE that is taken directly from the book ... from those who have a pre-publication copy. Please knock pgg the rambing and repeating and defensive tactics, and just wait for someone to post some real EVIDENCE.

Moderator's Note

Wellreadwellbred: Please re-read the particular rules of this thread. If you don't understand them, don't post here. No need to reply to this post.

What a bizarre 'review'! Call me old-fashioned, but it's customary to actually read the book you're reviewing. Mr Cole not only 'brings up' the cat killing episode, he quotes pretty much the entire section from The Confessions, filling nine lines of text on page 36, before going on to consider the implications for a further eight lines.

This is exactly why serious consideration of the evidence is required here, rather than copy-and-pasting extracts from hurried 'reviews'.

Thanks.

Want book. Will wait for book.

I look forward to reading it. There are some who will condemn it and never read it of course. I am not threatened by a book, if a book threatens you then you should look to yourself for faults not blame the book!

😀

This seems to clear up any uncertainty around the question of the relevance of stand-alone ‘reviews’.

To you, well, I can only say regarding your enthusiasm to stick it to the Prophet: “down, boy!” & bide your time ...

Or if it threatens somebody that much, maybe it would be wisest for their own peace of mind to destroy it, burn the wretched thing, after the first reading (or even before actually bothering to read it at all – although some might consider it to be a nonsensical waste of money to go to the trouble of buying it to begin with?!  However, if instead you borrowed it the original owner may not take too kindly to your conflagatory, inflammatory course of action).  ??? 😮 :-[

Precedents have been known for this, after all…

Would anyone happen to know how many of these 'review' pre-publication copies have been sent out?  And if/ is anyone intending to therefore review Liber Bogus itself?!

N Joy

@Jamie Barter, 31 copies plus the ebay sale have been released, according to sources.

I have had very little time to myself of late, will hope to clarify some of the points mentioned earlier, with images from Bogus itself.
I trust that RTC would encourage further scrutiny in this regard and therefore have no issues with me sharing snippets.

Please make sure the book is actually officially released before sharing parts of it... wouldn't want you to get into trouble.

This is not going to be a topic that people will want to read about, never mind investigate further. Yet it does raise areas of concern possibly.

Having only actually read, 40 odd pages into the book itself, the first section, is mainly a character assassination, of AC. In fairness, in the main, the faults and failures of AC are substantiated with various Diary entries or by other individuals, who met AC.
The bit that has started to not sit well with me are the Pederasty quotes, that are being listed. At the end of the previous chapter 1, the LAShTAL thread which mentions the 1938 Jackson Burke interview and rape at knifepoint, has been detailed.
Then the next chapter, "02.05 The page that dare not speak its name" launches into the Pederasty links. First quoted is "The magical record of the beast 666 - page 246",  AC wanting to vomit in Leah's face and sodomise her child. It was clearly a temporary phase of skewed debauchery, induced with the aid of copious amounts of cocaine.
Secondly in conversations, recorded by Norman Mudd in 1923, he allegedly talks about buggering a boy.
Regardie mentions in "Do what Thou Wilt - Page 342" that Teresa de Miramar would repeatedly call him a "Pederast".
An unpublished diary entry dated 09 March 1919 reads.
"The real inferiority of women to men is shown by their hate of pederasty, which they regard as unfair competition. Men on the other hand rather approve of Sapphism, as saving them the trouble and expense."

He then follows up with a 1910 "Scented Garden" extract, which promotes Pederasty.

Whilst I know this does not have any mention of RTCs, bogus reception theory, it does, maybe for the first time, highlight the depths of Crowley's sadistic nature.
Not that RTC mentions it and I am certainly not saying AC was a child abuser, though sometimes the abused, then become abusers?

it might be useful to separate these:

1. diary entry from Cefalu from Grant & Symonds "The Magical Record of the Beast 666"

2. conversations, recorded by Norman Mudd in 1923, in which AC allegedly talks about buggering a boy.

3. Regardie's recollections that Teresa de Miramar would repeatedly call AC a "Pederast"

4. diary entry dated 09 March 1919 ""The real inferiority of women to men is shown by their hate of pederasty..."

5. a 1910 "Scented Garden" extract, which promotes Pederasty.

regarding No. 3,4,5 - the usage follows the classical idea of "Pederasty" - catch all term describing romantic and/or erotic love between an adult male and a pubescent or adolescent male.  It might also be noted that the term was often used until recent decades to describe any homosexual relationship. 

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

It is important to distinguish "Pederasty" from "Pedophilia" as the classical usage of the former refers to a consensual relationship.  Also, neither of these specifically implies sadism. As AC was unapologetically bisexual (and more often than not the passive partner with his male lovers) I don't see anything new or surprising in these claims.  In fact, AC seems here more Oscar Wilde than Antichrist. Also noteworthy that #5 is highlighted for its reference to pederasty and not its blatant sexism - perhaps that says something about RTC's own prejudices.

also regarding #2.  - without further information (I've not a copy of RTC's book, nor of Normann Mudd's recollections) the term "buggering a boy" doesn't in itself mean much. We might recall that Christopher Isherwood's reason for moving to Berlin in 1929 "Berlin meant Boys." Or, to stick with Berlin, more recently

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

regarding #1 - the diary entry from Cefalu as presented in Grant & Symonds "The Magical Record of the Beast 666".  While indeed concerning, this is also not new information.

Thus far, it seem the author has simply scoured long familiar material, selecting those items which might further his agenda of armchair psychoanalysis and padding out the page count.

It's a literary prop, "Cardinal Cazzo" ("Cazzo" = "Dick") gone to Heaven who is remembering having faced the choice of buggering a boy or not -

"On Memory
I want to go into with you as regards a) Practical Memory b) Magical Memory c) The meaning of things.
A being A, who was Cardinal Cazzo. He dies and goes to heaven. On Buddhist principles C.C. has disappeared, but the bundle appears in heaven with sufficient identity with C.C. to be recognized by anyone who knew him. He may or may not have memory of this. Now C.C. in his lifetime was confronted with this problem. Shall I bugger this boy? If I refrain my virtue will be such that there will be a being, A, enjoying himself in heaven who would not otherwise be there. While if I indulge this unholy passion, there will be a being A, in hell who would not otherwise be there. If however in either case, A does not think "I am here because when I was C.C., I acted thus and not otherwise, then why should I C.C., act otherwise that my interests prompt me" In other words, motive always assumes the memory."

The diary referred to in number 4 is quoted in Sutin at the page mentioned, and is dated March 9, 1929 (not 1919) - sourced on page 454 as from a typescipt in the OTO Archives.

This sentiment has a precedent in the introduction to the Bagh-i-Muattar (1906, published 1910); "This explans why very few women are exclusively Sapphists, but many bimetallists; and enables one to comprehend the hatred of woman for sodomy, and the toleration with which men regard Sapphism." (p. 33)

("bimetallist" is Crowley's term for bisexual in this essay)

Thanks for your measured response @William.

I can understand the logic you present, it's the age range of the pubescent males that concerns me. Whether they had free will to actually make the decision or had enough intelligence to understand, what was actually involved.

In Regardie's "Do what thou wilt" it does seem that de Miramar is saying it to get a "rise" out of AC. A guarantee of rough sex.

The comments in point 1. though actually did shock me, my reading of AC's words, was that he wanted to abuse a 3year old in a moment of madness? Cocaine fuelled or not, it's not something that can be easily dismissed IMO.

In relation to the cover page of Liber L, RTC highlights the many edits and changes to the text in publications, that subsequently, distance themselves from the source MS. He then suggests that this cover page later appears, when it was allegedly lost.

Below is an extract.

[Moderator's Note: Lengthy extract deleted - exceeds 'fair use', in my opinion.]

It is difficult to determine an actual claim from these paragraphs. The various revisions to the title and text have been examined previously, for example in "Liber AL: An Examination". Perhaps one claim is the final sentence

Somewhat paradoxically, Crowley purportedly misplaced his manuscript between 1904 and 1909, but clearly retained possessions of its cover sheet - He scribbled notes on this and used it as a basis for the Appendix preamble in Autumn 1907!

Can anyone elaborate on this?

In "On the kill me / fill me correction to Liber Legis", one of his essays written during the heyday of the fill/kill controversy, Hymenaeus Beta says that he thinks the cover-sheet was originally Crowley's cover for his typescript copy, and not (until 1909), that of the manuscript -

"By 1907 Crowley had his Cairo typescript of Liber Legis with what I once thought was the cover-page to the MS. of Liber Legis, but now (based on its physical size, provenance and timing factors) believe to be the original cover-page to his copy of the Cairo typescript (this was first published in Liber ABA, Magick, p. xl)."

Thanks belmurru!

So we've two individuals who, after examining the same document, have reached two quite different conclusions.  I'm beginning to understand the necessity of RTC's construction of The Demon Crowley at the opening, insofar as the issues with Liber AL can then be ascribed to this Evil Genius who will stop at nothing in his nefarious plot to .... uh ....

Yet, both are opinions, with little evidence @William.
RTC claims that individuals in recent years have assisted the removal of questionable texts, that contradict AC's reception explanation.

I'm always uncomfortable with the idea of condemning someone merely for their fantasies or thoughts, which it seems is what Cole is doing.

This is one of the many flaws with Cole's book in general, it seems (at least judging by what's been made available so far). Lots of hype, lots of rambling, lots of little details, but no clear idea of what the details add up to.

Does Cole's book have a thesis that is stated...anywhere? What's the significance of all of the little facts that he cites?

I've gotten the impression that he's claiming not merely that Crowley faked the reception of Liber AL but that there is some kind of "coverup" to protect Crowley's story, a coverup that has something to do with the OTO's hasty decision to change the word "fill" to "kill."

Does Cole actually come out and say this directly anywhere, or is it all just weak little insinuations and sprinklings of curiosities that never add up to anything but speculation?

What the Demon Crowley does manage to do is draw the ingrained hypocritical christian out of a lot of people. Hold up the mirror Thelemite and take a good long look. Reminds me of the church going old spinster that wallows in all the dirty little innuendo and filthy secrets.
Thought I'd go ahead and throw that in as this thread jumped the track on the first page.

RTC claims that individuals in recent years have assisted the removal of questionable texts,

Can you provide a list of the claims along with his evidence?

Section 05.07 Between the lines on missing pages.

Here RTC clarifies a possible concealment, contained in Marcus Katz OS27 publication,  The Invocation of Hoor.

First off he highlights the near impossible time scale of ACs traveling for that time period. Crowley dining with Bennett on 28th of April,  in Paris, with just 4 days to travel 2,500 miles from Egypt.  Then onto Boleskine via London for the end of the month. 
The invocation of Hoor ritual clearly is a sex magic operation, carried out 8 years before meeting Reuss.  RTC considers it a very suspicious oversight, that has been a "blanket-surpression".

From this RTC states it is clear that 1904 in Cairo was a sex magick discovery,  as zero mention of Liber L is made and was using the ritual against the Golden Dawn.
Also note that OS27 has 5 pages torn out.

Is there any truth that as RTC states,  the COTO demanded Marcus withdraw the publication within days?

in order to keep this organized we can arrange these apparently three issues so:

a) the timetable to reach Boleskine via Paris from Egypt

b) a ritual in OS27 that indicates … what again exactly?

c) possible sex magick operations before meeting Reuss

I cannot speak to a) or b) as i don't know the details, however regarding c) i had thought it obvious that Crowley, long before the Reuss episode, had been using sex in his rituals - along with drink & drugs & drama - in order to produce a trancelike state (Victor Neuburg comes to mind). My assumption has always been that Reuss's 'accusation' had to do with a specific practice or technique, not with the general idea of sex.

It took the Osiris four days to travel from Egypt to the U.K.

http://www.poheritage.com/Content/Mimsy/Media/factsheet/94110OSIRIS-1898pdf.pdf

"The lust of the goat is the bounty of God."
            - The Marriage of Heaven & Hell.

Correction: Because of the Osiris, the journey took 4 days. The Osiris was a ferry from Port Said to Brindisi, making the crossing in just under 27 hours (when not fired on by Russian gunboats). Tack on another 24 hours or so for the train to Paris and you've got just over a two day journey. I suppose the next step is to track down the Osiris' manifest to see which direction it was traveling at the end of April, super-sleuths. 😉

Martin Starr's The Unknown God reproduces a letter written in 1925 by AC to Annie Besant, referring to a meeting of the two on the SS Osiris which left Port Said on 11 April 1904.

Research by Ian Rons shows that the SS Osiris left Brindisi on 4 April, arriving in Egypt on 6 April before leaving for Brindisi again on 11 April and reaching Brindisi on 13 April.

From there, AC travelled across Europe, eventually meeting with Arnold Bennett on 22 April on the Rue de Calais, Paris:

'In response to a telegram I went to lunch with Aleister Crowley and his wife (Kelly's sister) today at Paillard's. he had been made a 'Khan' in the East, and was wearing a heavily jewelled red waistcoat, and the largest ring I ever saw on a human hand. I rather liked him. He said some brain specialist had told him that what made a great brain was not the number of facts or ideas known, but the number of facts or ideas co-ordinated or co-related.'

RTC is incorrect - the timeline described by AC is correct, AC was in Egypt on the dates indicated.

How do you know it was the Osiris' departure of the 11th of April, rather than the 25th, Paul?
(referring back to Ian Rons' dates
- http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1668#p1668
http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1700#p1700
)

Annie Besant's chronology has her leaving India on April 8, making it impossible to be in Port Said on April 11.
(See Kurt Leland's chronology -
http://www.kurtleland.com/annie-besant-shrine/orientation/41-chronology -

"1904 January: Tours India. February-March: In Benares. April 8: Departs for Europe: Rome, Florence, Genoa, Paris. June: In London.")

Crowley also writes, in Equinox I,8 (p. 7) "It was about a fortnight after the writing of Liber Legis that Fra. P. left Egypt for the grey skies of the Scottish highlands."

Only the date of the lunch with Arnold Bennett throws these dates into confusion. Three dates have been given, but no source for any -

Paul Toner reports RTC as saying April 28 (post 29 above).
Kaczynski (Perdurabo, 2nd ed., p. 129) says April 26.
You now say April 22.

Ian Rons' dates (admittedly from an authoritative source) suggest that Osiris only made twice-monthly passages, but the P&O page says that the twin ships Isis and Osiris ran weekly.

"Osiris and Isis. These two vessels ran between Brindisi and Port Said on a weekly express mail service, operated by P&O under contract from the Italian Government in 1898."
http://www.poheritage.com/our-history/timeline#1890s

Are we missing a date that would satisfy both Besant's and Crowley's chronologies - like April 18?

Or perhaps the ships ran alternately, and Crowley mixed up the names?

Reply #17 by ptoner on: May 07, 2015, 06:59:34 pm:

This is not going to be a topic that people will want to read about, never mind investigate further. Yet it does raise areas of concern possibly.

Having only actually read, 40 odd pages into the book itself, the first section, is mainly a character assassination, of AC. In fairness, in the main, the faults and failures of AC are substantiated with various Diary entries or by other individuals, who met AC.
The bit that has started to not sit well with me are the Pederasty quotes, that are being listed. At the end of the previous chapter 1, the LAShTAL thread which mentions the 1938 Jackson Burke interview and rape at knifepoint, has been detailed.

Then the next chapter, "02.05 The page that dare not speak its name" launches into the Pederasty links. First quoted is "The magical record of the beast 666 - page 246",  AC wanting to vomit in Leah's face and sodomise her child. It was clearly a temporary phase of skewed debauchery, induced with the aid of copious amounts of cocaine.

The whole of this passage in question – ironically written on the anniversary of the first night of the Prophet and his Bride – rather put me off a bit when I first came across it at the tender and sensitive age of 13.  I didn’t know much about Crowley at all at the time.  I believe it may have scarred me irrevocably as a minor for the rest of my life and adversely affected my later perspective and outlook on things.  The explanation I later came up with was along the lines of cocaine psychosis misapplied to the ‘journeying to the outermost limits of the mind (- then yield!)’ – similar maybe to Grant's approach with all his slimy batwinged insectoid tentacle stuff?!

Although as an explanation, not entirely satisfying and one which hopefully could be discussed further with profit.  It’s no wonder, is it, that the ©.O.T.O. are dragging their feet about bringing out Crowley’s Collected Diaries!  As leader and spokesperson of O.T.O. one has a certain duty to interpret Crowley’s words in the most favourable, or at least realistic, light.  It will therefore be very interesting to see how Hymenaeus Beta will handle the Editorial duties with regard to annotations and footnotes etc.  Perhaps – like Symonds & Grant (in spite of their own copious footnotes everywhere else) - he will just pass over and ignore it in the hope no one else will notice.  Or if they do, damn well ignore them, as well!  Like with Kill Bill.  I mean, Phil.  I mean Fill.  After all, it worked all right there, didn’t it?(!)

The point about the front sheet cover for Liber AL is at present ambiguous but if so, would augur well for Cole's case.  Unfortunately we don 't know when it was actually written, either.

I agree with Los here. 😮  They are plainly A.C.’s fantasies or thoughts rather than reality in action.  It would represent a fundamental interference with the autonomy of another star.

Try  substituting “Los’s postings” for “Cole’s book” here. 

Except we do know what they add up to, and it’s not much surprise at all.  Skepticism.

N joy

Okay, it's clear now. Tuesday, 26 April, 1904. Kaczynski wins.

The source is Bennett's own Journal (New York, The Literary Guild, 1933), p. 169:

(from Google Books snippets -
http://books.google.fr/books?hl=fr&id=P0aYBBXOawgC&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=crowley )

I don't know where April 28 comes from; it is either RTC's or Paul Toner's mistake.

April 22 comes from Symonds. In King of the Shadow Realm, this is page 70.  A blogger at the "Arnold Bennett Blog" conflates some entries from the Journal, implying that the date was Friday, April 22.
http://earnoldbennett.blogspot.fr/2013/04/lunch-with-great-beast.html

"Frater Archivist" (Bill Hedrick?) noted and corrected Symonds' error in the April, 1993 issue of the Thelema Lodge Calendar:
http://www.billheidrick.com/tlc1993/tlc0493.htm

"Aleister Crowley writes that, "... Arnold Bennett had gratified the public with a highly spiced description of me in Paris Nights". This account of Crowley's 'spiced description' is briefly mentioned in John Symonds' book The Great Beast where he states that Crowley, "...returned to Europe wearing a heavily jewelled red waistcoat and the largest ring that Arnold Bennett had ever seen on any hand! We know about this splendid waistcoat and this outsize ring because Bennett conveniently recorded them for us in his Journal on the 22nd of April 1904, and also made use of them and their owner for one of his characters in Paris Nights."
Unfortunately Symonds quotes the date wrong, but gets the general idea right. In The Journal of Arnold Bennett the actual date is Tuesday April 26th."

So we can be sure he was in Paris on April 26, 1904. He cannot then have left Port Said on April 25, let alone April 26.

I can't accept that Crowley left the very next day after writing Liber Legis, Monday, April 11, since he would not have had time to make the typescripts, at the very least. And it contradicts his "about a fortnight" statement in The Temple of Solomon the King (Equinox I,8, p. 7). And Besant could not have been on that boat (voyage Bombay-Port Said at least 7 days).

I am therefore driven to the conclusion that he mixed up the sister ships Osiris and Isis, which were effectively identical in every way, except for the name, both with 74 first class berths. It was thus a date when Isis was doing the run, not Osiris.

Of course, if Besant could be proven to have been on the Osiris, and Osiris only did the two dates in April reported by Ian Rons, then we have a problem.

Just to confirm,  RTC stated it was the 28th, AC dined in Paris.

Thanks for correcting my error, Belmurru. I'd love to blame Symonds but it was actually just a typo. My actual source was Kaczynski who, of course, got it right.

If I had a friend who said something like that I'd have to call him out on it.  It appears to have been a one off.  It may be a false source or it may be dark humour.  Very dark. 

Why are these extracts from the man's diaries taken so seriously? He was on enough drugs to choke a horse. Even if it is a sign of his mentality, it means absolutely nothing if a praeterhuman mind were responsible for Liber Legis. When it was written, how it was written, for why it was written, all matter not at all if a praeterhuman intelligence were responsible. And if not, then why did Crowley become more and more obsessed with Aiwass over time?

I share Aleisterion's bemusement here. This was hyped in the most absurd, extravagent and long-winded manner as being a book which would demonstrate that The Book of the Law was fabricated by Crowley. And yet, thus far, the focus seems to be on flaws in Crowley's character.

Cole's book either does what it says on the tin, or it doesn't. Can we move on please from dwelling on whether or not Crowley was a child-molestor, and consider what evidence Cole puts forward to prove his contention that The Book of the Law was fabricated. Otherwise, I for one will exit this thread which is repidly turning into a sheer and utter waste of time, and instead await the publication of the book.

Well said Michael.

just to note: we have indeed moved on - to consideration of the timetable leaving Port Said en route to Boleskine via Paris. At this juncture it would seem that concerns about the time necessary to complete the journey may be unwarranted.

There is also the claim that OS27 may indicate that there was a sexual component to the ritual, which hardly seems revelatory. Was there some other claim here to be examined?

Dwtw

Thanks for investigating this further, belmurru. I think this question is key because there are really only two things that could derail the Cairo reception story. One is that AC wasn't in Cairo when he said he was; the other is that the typing paper was not available in Cairo in 1904.

It is well established when Crowley arrived in Cairo; it's the departure that is in question. Since he is unambiguous about meeting Besant on the ship, and she was supposedly in India on April 8, it at least puts him in Cairo during the canonical three days of the reception.

Your citing of the weekly run of the Isis and Osiris is an important clue. It seems that both ships going on a weekly run might be excessive; since it looks like a two week turnaround for a single ship based on the other dates given. A once-weekly run by each ship makes the most sense, because there isn't enough time for one ship to do it every week. But that leads you to conclude that he was really on the Isis. This seems more plausible time-wise, but it seems really odd that AC would misremember the name of the ship, especially considering the significance of the name! And he would have been on that ship a couple of days, and never on the Isis (presumably), so I'm not sure how the mix up could have occurred. On top of that, he wrote a short story about the Osiris, which seems to reinforce the fact that he was on that ship. But it's an interesting theory at least.

What's at odds with the theory is that AC wrote not only in the Confessions, but in his 1925 letter to Besant, that he had met her on the Osiris in April 1904. He could have just recalled meeting on a ship at sea in 1904, but he specifically mentions the name. And it would have been absurd for him to remind her of a meeting that never happened, so I think it stands to reason that they were definitely on a ship together in April 1904.

If the Besant chronology is basically accurate, it puts her in Italy ca. 19-22 April. Let's say April 20 at the earliest. That would have been enough time to arrive from Port Said on the Isis, which would have (presumably) departed April 18. The previous departure (of the Osiris) was April 11, and this is too soon for her to get to Egypt from India. The next departue is April 25, too late for her to get to Italy, or AC to get to France. So it would seem that the trip had to be on the Isis departing April 18. There is no other possibility in April that puts them together at the correct time. The date of April 18 is only 8 days after the reception, whereas AC said it was about a fortnight that he left Egypt. That discrepancy is also odd, but may not be crucial, as he was remembering events years later. Still, 8 days is more like a week than a fortnight, (unless of course the real reception dates were April 1-2-3, in which case a fortnight would put him on a ship on the 18th).

According to this site,
http://www.trains-worldexpresses.com/webships/400/406.htm
the trip from London to Bombay at the turn of the century took three weeks on the P&O's large steamers. This would be an average of 14 knots for 7058 nautical miles, non-stop. Since some stops were made, we can round up to at least 15 knots cruising speed. Therefore, the trip from Bombay to Port Said, of 3276 nautical miles, would require 9 days at 15 knots. Thus, as you suggested, the trip from Bombay had to take at least a week.

Assuming Besant actually left Bombay on April 8, she would have arrived in Port Said on or about April 17th, in time to catch the next steamer to Brindisi, which would have been the Isis.

It's important to note that the Besant chronology is key to this. If it is accurate, there is no way she could have sailed on the Osiris. Whether it has been independently confirmed I do not know; I'm only assuming that Mr. Fernee reported what he found in the Theosophical Society's records accurately, and that those records themselves were accurate. I am also presuming Ianrons' material to be accurate regarding the departure dates for the Osiris, (presumably gotten from the P&O archivist). He does not specify the actual departure date of the Isis, but we can make an estimate within a day or two based on a weekly run of the ships.

At this stage, all we can say with certainty is that it was possible for Besant and Crowley to be on a steamer to Italy together in April 1904; but if the ancillary evidence is correct, that steamer must have sailed on or about April 18th, which rules out the Osiris. This conflicts with the only evidence we have, (which is unconfirmed and only from Crowley) that the ship was the Osiris. If it can be ruled out that this was  the ship, then it must have been the Isis, and Crowley therefore either misremembered, or deliberately changed the names of the ships. For what purpose is anyone's guess, but this seems unlikely, since he wrote to Besant about the encounter, and even if he wanted to disguise his movements to his readers, why would he pretend this with her?

So the chronology allows for a trip on the Isis, but AC insists it was the Osiris, even though this appears impossible based on Besant's timetable. Absent a passenger list, this becomes a difficult conundrum to sort out.

Litlluw
RLG

It is much easier to prove someone was a drugged out psychopath than to prove the existence of a praeterhuman intelligence.

Because he fleshed it out.

When you flesh out the idea, it becomes more of a 'living thing', even though it is still an idea.

Ya, but folks are on like page 60, and sharing inconsistencies with we who don't have books. So we should have patience with them. I don't know that I'd even spoil that for anyone if I did have a copy of the book.

Flaws in Crowley's character have accounted for so much. Something that always comes up is, "Those were different times". Yes, they were. He was still a shithead. But, people use the shithead argument to try and hammer down the reality of it - even if you personally walked by the Abbey and smelled it, and saw it, and knew what was going on, would you want anything to do with it? I mean, forget the name Aleister Crowley for a minute, and think about how many crack houses you've walked in, hung around, and joined in your life. That's really what The Abbey of Thelema was - a dirty, stinky, crackhouse with X amount of people living in it - men, women, children - doing drugs, having tons of drugged up sex with each other, and one of them is so far gone he's claiming that he is some kind of new messiah.

I think all of that has to come into account when considering Crowley's claims, for context. Okay, Crowley got completely wasted and summoned Beezlebub, and they had a conversation, and Crowley writes it down and tells everyone. Great. Nice trip. Cool story bro.

And who knows what was actually legit in Crowley's life translated to paper, except for Crowley? The examination into his character is to try and determine, as closely as possible, the true events in Crowley's life during the period of the writing. If Crowley was willing to lie about what he claimed to be the most important thing in his entire life, according to him the very reason he was alive, then Crowley would be willing to lie about everything.

Does it make his system at fault, that he was a shit? The system was in place thousands of years before Crowley. If anything, Crowley acted more as a translator, a sort of Rosetta Stone, if you look at the congruent facts he compiled, and strip them of Crowley's Thelema topping. This actually works to Crowley's advantage, because it ensures a form of endurance for his system. Crowley's practices also led him into exhibiting the behavior discussed above. His practices and his behavior are the main example of his character. His character is the developer of Thelema. So, if you say that his character is X, it puts Y implications onto Thelema. Crowley's character and Thelema are more closely knit than Crowley's relationship with any other system he ultilized/adopted. It was his own personal system. If he was willing to lie in his Magickal Record, why that's a pretty big deal, sir, as I'm sure you would agree.

I agree. But some of us will have to wait to read the book, and eat the crumbs that are given to us by the select few until the book's release. We can either eat crumbs and talk about the crumbs, or walk away from the table until our meals are served. 

What if Crowley's character as a child molester et al has a direct bearing on the reasoning why the Book of the Law was fabricated? That would make it a pretty important part of the story.

A dude falls into a coma one day and comes out as a psychopath, and develops a new religion... sounds like a type of baptism, doesn't it?

Maybe they both discussed, and knew it was the Isis, and Crowley agreed to say it was the Osiris, so that Besant could deny ever having seen him? Maybe it was Crowley who needed deny-ability?