Trying to correct the bit I wrote last night as a comment on:
I wrote this first part before I finished reading the whole piece, which I did finish. I wanted to write my responses as I went along.
“[Crowley]”didn’t write about [child sex abuse]” says Levenda..
But Crowley did write about it, in plain sight.
I’m starting to feel my bias against Levenda reconfirmed; I’d taken him earlier as a liar.. (Hmmm, confirmation bias, is it? )
Crowley’s writing about his ritual with his lover, the mother of his child reminded me of the end of the book “Justine,” said to be by M. de Sade.
I knew a lot, second hand, about de Sade without reading his writings and I was sickened when I finally did read some.
I didn’t realize how disgusting that creep was and was glad I never wasted any more time reading that fool.
In the story, de Sade forced the mother, who was his slave[?], to have sex with him and the baby, then makes her kill her own baby and then has sex with the her; making her shout slogans of allegiance to him..
These jokers love to hide in plain sight. .Why would some people apologize for it and construct elaborate Apologia for this? – so the perp doesn’t even have to.. It’s all about the alleged division between “Art” and “Life,” is it, so carefully constructed?
With all the hoaxes perpetrated, maybe this is just another hoax? Yet maybe all the hoaxes are to muddy the water to keep this from ever being seen.
I noticed Levenda never argued that all the talk could be a hoax, but he does elude to the notion Crowley is “just joking,” in the passage where “The Beast” describes just such a scene as the one I describe above by de Sade.
But if Crowley were “just joking” wouldn’t he want people to believe it; rather than lead people to believe it was not so?
It more likely just a typical psychopath-narcissism – proud of the crimes and can’t keep it to themselves?
Reading yesterday a chapter in the “Music , the Arts, and Ideas” by Leonard B. Meyer, [Univ. of Chicago 1967] called, “Forgery and the Anthropology of Art”
Meyer writes :
“If the criteria of judgment are purely aesthetic , why should a work of art once found moving and valuable become a worthless curiosity when it is discovered to be a forgery?” [speaking of paintings].
In the same way: of Crowley and de Sade:
“Why should an [alleged] work of art become a confession of crime when found not to be a forgery?”
Why assume that they are lying?
Makes no sense.
“[Crowley] didn’t write about [his crimes against children]” says Levenda.. But He Did!
“police investigations that were conducted according to the law”
Lavenda says he would count this as evidence, which would be acceptable to him as some proof [I don’t believe him though]:
But Levenda’s assumptions around police are wrong:
Crowley was working for MI6? Is Lavenda really so naïve to believe these people can do this, get away with it for so long, without protection?
Also, if people are not caught in a lie, they don’t stop lying. Seems like Crowley’s lies get to slide? Yes his very doctrine states that he would have no compunctions. He tell you straight out.
[I think this double – bind is a kind of NPL or hypnotism ; or functions like that?]
I poem I love and recently memorized, “The Hound of Heaven” has a line I’ve thought about:
FEAR WIST NOT TO EVADE.
Sometimes horror or fear can freeze a person? So maybe the horror of what Crowley is about, or pretends to be about [?], causes a mental paralysis in the victims?
Crowley was caught by Mr. Horsley in a lie regarding his platitudes about “Do What Thou Wilt” and what it really means. [“Rape is against my rules”] Yet he brags of it. But that detail is not recognized by Crowley’s apologists.
Why would anyone believe Crowley after he was caught in the rape lie? It’s against legal standards, (though I know our justice system is shot), to take any testimony as sincere after the person is caught in a lie; and Crowley was.
Though Crowley is long dead and this is just as a mental experiment with no legal repercussions; yet once someone is caught in a lie isn’t it true that you are no longer supposed to keep on believing them, per legal standards.
Also, as Mr. Horsley points out: Isn’t it better the err on the side of caution when making a judgment around this? For instance, the “witch hunt” isn’t really a possibility / danger, or is it? Whereas hidden cabals against children? That could be a dangerous cancer on society?
Perhaps the guilty really are afraid of a witch hunt getting started? Or why would it be an issue? Perhaps those who write the Apologia side with power?
Speaking of Synchronicity: A friend of my son who is also a Synchromystic writer and a Thelemite [I remember many years ago introducing him to the work of Kotze, but he says he doesn’t remember] had a long-ish exchange with me yesterday around the ”religion” of Crowley, on Facebook.
The whole Crowley worship never made sense to me, though I’ve known his followers in my neighborhood. There are many circles of them here. But it never occurred to me that Crowley had proclaimed his group outside of the term “religion.” That’s deep.
And this fellow buys the whole whitewash – he works as an apologist for the Great Beast.
I’ve thought many times:.. Why would Crowley say “Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be the Whole of the Law” if he didn’t mean what that said? Why would there have to be multiple footnotes on that statement?
Does “Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You” have numerous caveats and appendices? [even if, in reality, the phrase is not widely practiced by self – proclaimed Christians].
One is hard to do; the other easy. Which is the great teaching?
I’d reprint the exchange with the Thelemite , but this is not the proper place for it and I don’t have the time.
It would just to be to show how, for all Crowley’s followers are taught that they are “thinking outside the box” and “free,” they still can’t get out the box and admit that Crowley’s definition of religion might not be something everyone agrees with.
That is : “Others have religion, but ours is just the truth” seems to be their dictum – just as every other religion. And they are, seemingly, completely blind to the irony of their position; and do not realize that attitude is what all the religions imply. Everyone’s own religion is the privileged one; by definition.
The repetition of the words of the great philosopher / master are just that:empty repetition, rote; just as with the other religions which they hate [i.e. Christianity].
My correspondent finally fell back on the “experience” platform : which I very familiar with from the Ashram where I used to attend. That was their “answer” to any criticism; “It’s not my experience” “We base our truth on [direct] Experience.” “Ours is different; we base ours on experience”