A curious passage from Chapter 50 https://hermetic.com/crowley/confessions/chapter50 of The Confessions in which Crowley accuses Mathers of killing the former's pet dogs;
When Rose and I first arrived at Boleskine, we had made a sort of sporadic effort to carry out some of the injunction of Aiwass. We had arranged before leaving Egypt for the “abstruction” of the Stele of Revealing. I did not understand the word or the context, and contented myself with having a replica made by one of the artists attached to the museum. We now proceeded to prepare the “perfume” and the “Cakes” according to the prescription given in chapter III, verses 23-9.
We had resumed Magical work, in a desultory way, on finding that Mathers was attacking us. He succeeded in killing most of the dogs. (At this time I kept a pack of bloodhounds and went man-hunting over the moors).
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
He is referring to magical attacks. The entire lower tier of the Shamanic and Native Witchcraft (not Wicca, necessarily) societies, and (seemingly) every Outer Order, is filled with magical battles, curses, retributions, curse-breaking, and killing. It is a major factor in the culture. AC's dogs die, and he assumes Mathers did it with magic. Motta attempted to kill or injure his expelled students (who had plotted to kill him). One of them (the 4 horsemen) told me, "All he did was cause a rash that soon went away. Some magician!"
We don't know if Mathers really killed his dogs, because there's not enough supporting documentation, or witnesses, but Ignant and I stand ready to form a vigilante posse if you come up with any hard evidence
He is referring to magical attacks.
Or, as Israel Regardie was fond of concluding the matter: from schmagical attacks ?
@dom, what is the exact point of this, your new thread for discussion for the week? There doesn't seem to be a question involved (although there is certainly an exclamation mark, in the title), nor is there much else to the OP than your quotation from Confessions - is the idea that we are meant to guess at your intention here or what?
Motta attempted to kill or injure his expelled students (who had plotted to kill him).
Outrageous allegation. Evidence??
Interrogatively yours (albeit not as an official deputy 'enforcer' from within the ranks of Shiva's own posse private police academy),
Norma N Joy Conquest
Were they barkin'?
Outrageous allegation. Evidence??
Conversations with one of the 4 horsemen who were so hexed. Evidence is not required in hearsay reports, heresy finger-pointing, and
not as an official deputy 'enforcer'
Please turn in your badge and your gun. Your deputization was not "official," and you exhibited police brutality on the first day on the job.
Shiva's own
posseprivate police academy),
You stirred this pot over "Police" when there was simple, polite instruction in Guideline protocol. You therefore have problems with police and anyone with the potential to shut you up (by mouth or in jail). I have no "authority." This is a level playing field. It is also an anarchy, within (under) the Guidelines. Every man and woman for themselves.
Like I said, you are regressing. You were doing so well. Then you continued typing while asleep, and after that Mr. Hyde was back. Were you possessed, walked-in, or affected by the vicious curses being hurled around?
@dom, what is the exact point of this, your new thread for discussion for the week? There doesn't seem to be a question involved (although there is certainly an exclamation mark, in the title), nor is there much else to the OP than your quotation from Confessions - is the idea that we are meant to guess at your intention here or what?
I said it was a 'curious' event that AC documented, don't you? The exclamation mark implies that I think it's amusing but to be clear, it's an interesting documentation of AC's state at the time of his dispute with Mathers, was it all in his head? We don't know, the link provides more as AC went on to curse Mathers and stop the dogs dying....he claimed.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Remember this is the man of scientific magick where one does not make claims without evidence and testing hypothesis... unless point scoring can be made at ones enemy's expense.
In Prophetes Veritas Venit. Quod ambulas cum Thelema et Agape est semper fidelis pietas.
Outrageous allegation. Evidence??
Conversations with one of the 4 horsemen who were so hexed. Evidence is not required in hearsay reports,
And hearsay doesn't count as evidence. (Neither does tittle-tattle, nor the "rat" outpourings of the common-or-garden stool pigeon.) Your unattributed accusatory statement was presented no differently here from as if it were provable hard facts. (Against the Guidelines, I'm sure).
Please turn in your badge and your gun. ....
Told you repeatedly, now: not interested (=in being given a 'gold star', choc-drop or "badge" from the 'teacher')
You stirred this pot over "Police" when there was simple, polite instruction in Guideline protocol. You therefore have problems with police and anyone with the potential to shut you up (by mouth or in jail).
Sheer supposition and unalloyed presumptiousness. I might even have been in the police, for all you know.
I have no "authority." This is a level playing field.
Yes, we all already know this: you have no more "authority" than anyone else, except for Paul of course.
Like I said, you are regressing. You were doing so well.
Again, one more time: just not interested (=in being teacher's pet). Please don't demean yourself in this way any further.
I said it was a 'curious' event that AC documented, don't you? The exclamation mark implies that I think it's amusing but to be clear, it's an interesting documentation of AC's state at the time of his dispute with Mathers, was it all in his head?
There it is, @dom: the question (mark) which makes sense of/ gives validity to, your whole post!
(I may participate later, but for now will defer for the time being to see if this thread has 'legs')...
N Joy
And hearsay doesn't count as evidence. (Neither does tittle-tattle, nor the "rat" outpourings of the common-or-garden stool pigeon.) Your unattributed accusatory statement was presented no differently here from as if it were provable hard facts. (Against the Guidelines, I'm sure).
It was what the scientists call "anecdotal."
It now becomes my duty to inform you that you are regressing into infantile blithering. Please take your medications regularly, or stop taking whatever has kranked you up.
Pleaee note this whenever this free advice is given to unstable posters, they usually get worse, so our efforts are useless, but they announce a general warning to the populace, letting them know another noisy rocket ship is taking off.
not interested (=in being given
This is about "taking away," not being given.
hearsay doesn't count as evidence.
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter at controversy. It is in effect second-hand testimony: the problem is, we can't cross-examine the speaker to test the veracity of the statement, since he/she is not in court.
But not all second-hand statements, or quotations from others, offered are "hearsay", because they may well be statements that are offered for something other than that the speaker is stating the truth. A simple example is that if A says that B is in the habit of saying things that are not true, A is free to testify that "B told me that the sun rises in the west on Tuesdays" without a hearsay problem. The testimony is not being offered to convince the court that the sun rises in the west on Tuesdays, but rather to show that A says things that aren't true.
Issue here: Shiva says Ex-Disciple says Motta cursed him.
So, if we believe curses are real and can actually affect folks in the real world (good luck convincing a judge of this), it may be that Ex-Disciple (or Shiva) saying this is inadmissible hearsay, if it is offered for the truth of the proposition that Motta in fact placed a curse on Ex-Disciple.
But, if we think think that curses are superstitious nonsense (the likely posture of any judge), then it can't be true that Motta cursed Ex-Disciple, since curses are not a thing that really exists. All that Ex-Disciple's (or Shiva's) testimony can prove is that Motta says he cursed Ex-Disciple, which shows a great deal about Motta's mentality. So this is non-hearsay, admissible evidence.
It is also not correct that, even if this were hearsay, and even if Lashtal were a court of law (it ain't), that "hearsay doesn't count as evidence." Hearsay often counts as evidence.
According to wikipedia, in UK civil trials, hearsay is generally admissible evidence. In UK criminal trials, hearsay is admissible evidence when: the speaker (here, Motta uttering his curse) is dead (he is); when the speaker is unfit to be a witness because of his mental condition (convincing a judge that Motta was nuts would not have been hard, based on his published writings), and two less relevant conditions.
There are many hearsay exceptions in US law, many of which might apply here: the cursing is quite likely to have been an "excited utterance"; it probably tends to show Motta's then-existing mental or emotional state; and might conceivably be a "religious record".
It was what the scientists call "anecdotal."
But it was presented as factual - so that you don't add to the sum total of any confusion, please back up statements presented as such or don't bother with making them at all.
This is about "taking away," not being given.
Surely even you must know that you have to have been given something first before it can then be taken away (even by the same person)?
It now becomes my duty to inform you
*sigh* Here we go again!
Plea[
ee]se note this ... [irrelevant prediction]
Sorry I'm not running down the well-worn groove you'd clearly marked out for me. I'm sure that all those reading with discrimination however will be able to discern the actuality of the situation...
[From the second manifestation of the visible (re)action of [the 'school' of] Yellow Blue Magick to outsiders: 'It being made apparent, in stages, to all in their environment that s/he [the transgressor] had not been acting with ma[y]at because of the increasing absurdity, unbalanced emotionalism and disconnectedness of their behavior'...]
N Joy
In terms of causality I don't know if Mathers threatened AC beforehand i.e told him to brace himself because 'bad juju' was coming his way. In the midst of their mundane dispute, AC's dogs and house-servants subsequently got ill and he put that misfortune down to Mathers's alleged magical rites.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Ironically, the only non-Crowley source I can remember that speaks of Mathers trying to injure anything magically (outside of the G.'.D.' debacles) was something to do with him hurting a vivisectionist for experimenting on animals.
AC's dogs and house-servants subsequently got ill
All we can read is that the dogs died and the servants got ill. The dogs may have spontaneously combusted, for all we know.
When my father killed dogs, he would usually mix antifreeze into meat and grains, and poison them. They think antifreeze is a delicacy, dogs.
Ironically, the only non-Crowley source I can remember that speaks of Mathers trying to injure anything magically (outside of the G.'.D.' debacles) was something to do with him hurting a vivisectionist for experimenting on animals.
AC's dogs and house-servants subsequently got ill
All we can read is that the dogs died and the servants got ill. The dogs may have spontaneously combusted, for all we know.
When my father killed dogs, he would usually mix antifreeze into meat and grains, and poison them. They think antifreeze is a delicacy, dogs.
Yes we don't know how or why the dogs died but AC appears to have been convinced. that it was magic. If you click on the link he goes on to describe the Demons that he launched back at Mathers, it's pure Ghostbusters.
I think you may mean Annie Besant not Mathers when it came to anti-vivisectionist juju. Book 4?
Your father killed dogs with anti-freeze......Okkayyyy.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
I think you may mean Annie Besant not Mathers
'Annie' did remind me, I think it was with Anna Kingsford that Mathers got up to the shenanigans.
Your father killed dogs with anti-freeze......Okkayyyy.
I'm just trying to get personal, man. An anecdote from my childhood.
I think you may mean Annie Besant not Mathers
'Annie' did remind me, I think it was with Anna Kingsford that Mathers got up to the shenanigans.
Your father killed dogs with anti-freeze......Okkayyyy.
I'm just trying to get personal, man. An anecdote from my childhood.
Oh ok I didn't know that Mathers was involved in that.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Antifreeze is sweet due to propylene glycol; i believe these days they add foul tasting stuff to it to avoid animals dying when they lick up drips from cars. djedi's dad, if as yet un-poisoned himself, will have to find new ways to kill dogs.
@djedi, I believe you have now adequately justified your claims to being a gen-u-wine white-trash redneck, despite the terrible taint of having a grad-school education, and could perhaps stop the gratuitous posturing?
I believe you have now adequately justified your claims to being a gen-u-wine white-trash redneck
Thank you for the accolade, as I believe -- and perhaps, as an anarchist, you will agree -- that my impecunious upbringing was vastly superior to that of a middle-class milquetoast. Cletus, Beauregard and I ache for the day when we may topple our oppressors, for the day when all the world will be trash.
That would be Dr. Cletus and Dr. Beau, your grad-school pals then?
If i run into any "middle-class milquetoasts" anytime soon, i will be sure to let them know of your views.
In the meantime, trying to shock the British folks with all this Deliverance stuff gets old. Spend a week on a UK council estate (housing project), and i think you will learn that their chavs are just as red-necky as your Uncle Jeb.
In the meantime, trying to shock the British folks with all this Deliverance stuff gets old. Spend a week on a UK council estate (housing project), and i think you will learn that their chavs are just as red-necky as your Uncle Jeb.
I have never told the truth with the intent to shock. I am terribly familiar with the plight of the British poor (who I would not identify using a bourgeois pejorative like 'chav'), and empathize with them and all the impoverished people of the world. They are not alienated to me.
oh please.
oh please.
You know it's only because you're my buddy, Ignant. I don't play this game for strangers.
Awww, gee. You are probably my favorite newish forum participant, you are well-read, write well, and are often funny. But you do tend to lay on the red-neck schtick a bit heavily.
As the forum's foremost exponent of the virtues of Hee-Haw and George Jones, i am probably the last one who should criticize this. Probably just jealous/narcissism of small differences type shit. And i will admit to having played the street skinhead hoodlum card quite often in my academic days, for similar reasons.
English and British council estates and the like. My friend lives on one. He had to phone the police last week because two policemen were being chased up the road by a guy wielding a crowbar.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Issue here: Shiva says Ex-Disciple says Motta cursed him.
Not so much this, as his bald assertion/ allegation:
Motta attempted to kill or injure his expelled students (who had plotted to kill him).
Although the OT is around the general topic of a 'magical' killing, there was no reference there in the statement to either this or that a curse was involved (even though from separate evidence it seems to have been; the trouble is not everyone reading would know this). For all we can deduce from this, the above, Motta could have popped round to his students' abodes and tried to bump them off with a kalashnikov rifle; these facts are not stated (=none are. Nor was there any additional back-up information on their [the students] "plot[ting] to kill him").
A better way to have framed it to do away with any doubt would surely have been: "I heard an opinion from one of Motta's disgruntled ex-students (one of the so-called "4 Horsemen") that [etc ...]", rather than presenting it as an actual historical fact, and which was the point I was originally getting at.
You are probably my favorite newish forum participant, you are well-read, write well, and are often funny.
But the important question is: would he be well bred as well?
English and British council estates and the like. My friend lives on one. He had to phone the police last week because two policemen were being chased up the road by a guy wielding a crowbar.
Though not a chav, I live on one too, me old china, in the East End too luvaduck, and in the country's poorest council borough, gorblimeybless ya: you should see some o' tha sites round 'ere (breaks into impromptu rendition of 'my old man sed follow the van and don' dillie dally on tha way...')
N Joy
not a chav
So "Council-Housed", but not "And Violent"? Yes, i know that's not really where the word came from.
As to curses/Motta/hearsay: would you agree that Motta was nutty as a fruitcake, and a paranoid loon? Have you ever read Letter to a Brazilian Mason? Of course, he cursed them when they ceased to be his disciples. And the curse may well have worked- look at where they are now, and their publishing track record.
BTW, will we be discussing all the various folks AC says he placed curses on, claiming in at least one case to have killed the victim thereby?
Although the ... {continuous at length, exposing nits to pick]
Thank you.
will we be discussing all the various folks AC says he placed curses on
I hope not. It would be better to practice thread necromancy.
As to curses/Motta/hearsay: would you agree that Motta was nutty as a fruitcake, and a paranoid loon? Have you ever read Letter to a Brazilian Mason? Of course, he cursed them when they ceased to be his disciples. And the curse may well have worked- look at where they are now, and their publishing track record.
Yes, he could be; yes, he could be; and yes. Motta could be both of those things (nutty fruitcake & paranoid loon), and more... He could also write the occasional pieces of quite astounding clarity and profundity, e.g. such as within his interpretations of some of the verses of Liber 65 and (of course) The Book of the Law, which give one pause to dismiss him quite so quickly and wholeheartedly. But I'll leave it up to others here who may have been onetime students or at least correspondents, to defend his case further if necessary (I think @gurugeorge was one such, although we don't seem to hear much from him any more).
will we be discussing all the various folks AC says he placed curses on, claiming in at least one case to have killed the victim thereby?
I hope not. It would be better to practice thread necromancy.
Actually I already started a thread for discussion regarding this (or at least mainly with regard to Jeanne Foster's cuckolded husband) some while back, entitled (somewhat melodramatically) I think: "Aleister Crowley - Black Magician!"
Although the ... {continuous at length, exposing nits to pick]
Thank you.
You obviously have a difficulty not only with nits which might be completely wrong and based on craziness, but also those bigger Nits which are in fact accurate and unfortunately correctly expose some mistake or shortcoming in your esteemed manas thought processes. You're so sensitive to (my) picking up on faulty expression you take it as a personal slur, but you're ascribing a far greater importance to it than was ever intended - i.e., no big deal. Please get a sense of proportion, o mighty Shiva, and don't be so upset over your perceived imperfections which are of course entirely natural and not just exclusive to yourself.
N Joy
not a chav
So "Council-Housed", but not "And Violent"? Yes, i know that's not really where the word came from.
As to curses/Motta/hearsay: would you agree that Motta was nutty as a fruitcake, and a paranoid loon? Have you ever read Letter to a Brazilian Mason? Of course, he cursed them when they ceased to be his disciples. And the curse may well have worked- look at where they are now, and their publishing track record.
BTW, will we be discussing all the various folks AC says he placed curses on, claiming in at least one case to have killed the victim thereby?
There was a chav-riot movement about nine years ago or so. It started out as a police-racism protest in London but just became an excuse to destroy. It quickly engulfed the nation, looting and everything in all the major cities. There were kids in Manchester city centre smashing high street shop windows in broad daylight whilst people were coming home from work!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Actually I already started a thread for discussion regarding this (or at least mainly with regard to Jeanne Foster's cuckolded husband)
Yes, that's the one to which I was primarily referring. I believe there was adequate evidence to suggest AC was a curse-thrower, and the one need to be able to differentiate between Frater Perdurabo and the Demon Crowley (who we all know exercised peculiar habits).
You obviously have a difficulty ...
Oh yes, it is very difficult.
Thank you.
need to be able to differentiate between Frater Perdurabo and the Demon Crowley (who we all know exercised peculiar habits).
I agree. However sometimes the dividing line between the two is not always easy to discern.
N Joy
There was a chav-riot movement about nine years ago or so. It started out as a police-racism protest in London but just became an excuse to destroy. It quickly engulfed the nation, looting and everything in all the major cities. There were kids in Manchester city centre smashing high street shop windows in broad daylight whilst people were coming home from work!
Gee that sounds familiar, dunnit?
Anyone care to remind me (from memory!) 😀 who the 'Ladyship' is that AC cursed to kill herself by placing an astral sigil on her door?
Unless I am totally fabricating that event...
i can recall that she was "bewitching brethren", presumably meaning "she screwed my pal, but would not screw me".
i can recall that she was "bewitching brethren"
That's the one. The circe, or something. After that thread, many people wondered whether they were joining The Black Lodge just by lurking here.